Just heard that the famous "WHISTLEBLOWER" is a CIA Analyst/CIA Officer that worked in the Executive Branch while Obama was POTUS and had a close working relationship to Joe Biden. He is also a registered Democrat......How come no one should be surprised at this?

Evidently he did work for the CIA during the Obama years. The part about him being close to the Bidens seems to be suspect. That news came out a couple of weeks ago. At any rate, his information was second hand and the telephone transcript was made public days ago, so I'm not sure what significance the story has now. People can read the transcript and draw their own conclusions.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/cia-whistleblower-white-house-deep-state/2019/09/26/id/934481/

BREAKING NEWS

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-eu-ambassador-to-testify-in-impeachment-inquiry-defying-state-dept/ar-AAIDeBy?ocid=spartanntp

So he'll testify and, in all likelihood, will add nothing, and then the dems will have to chase another ghost around. At some point they have to come up with evidence of a crime.

Get dirt on the Bidens you get Javelins-CRIME

Nobody testifies to Congress-Obstruction.

Defy document subpoenas by Congress-Obstruction

Getting your cabinet to pressure Ukraine to get dirt on political opponents-CRIME

This is just the FEDERAL stuff.

Get dirt on the Bidens you get Javelins-CRIME

Denied by the Ukrainian PM. Good luck with that one. Strike one.


Nobody testifies to Congress-Obstruction.


Defy document subpoenas by Congress-Obstruction

Also known as executive privilege in both cases. That's strike two.


Getting your cabinet to pressure Ukraine to get dirt on political opponents-CRIME


And again, no evidence. Strike three. You're out, my friend.


This is just the FEDERAL stuff.

It's "stuff" alright,. Won't say what kind.

It doesn't work that way! Just sit back and take notes while the investigation process works with the dufus and his minions since we are at the evidence gathering point in the process and not as you hope at the end point. You had your chance to investigate and present your evidence against HC, Obama and whomever else you wanted and blew it so I understand your desire to dismiss OUR turn at bat and call the game.

No evidence huh? I doubt you would know it if you saw it since you never have before. Or maybe you rather not see it, because you got judges, and tax cuts that add to your deficits.

Plenty of evidence the dufus doesn't know what he is doing or if he does it's all screwed up, and may be unlawful. For sure he lies through his teeth. All these things in which you completely ignore the evidence or dismiss it.

Someone smart is advising Trump in all this: The Executive Privilege power is something that is insurmountable for the Democrats.....so I see this as really crippling their case before it even gets started. If Nixon has taken this route, he probably could have waded right on through Watergate.

What is really a strange oddity in all of this is the whole Democrat argument that Trump did something wrong with the Ukraine….here's why:

1) Demos claim that Trump threatened to withhold weapons to Ukraine if Ukraine didn't reopen the Biden investigation and saying that this is a problem because Biden is a candidate opposing Trump.

2) Demos want to leverage Ukraine into cooperating with them by sending a "delegation" to interview Ukrainian officials and get then to confess to them that Trump pressured them into reopen the Biden investigation EVEN THOUGH they have already said he didn't: Aren't the Demos PRESSURING the Ukrainians to Biden's political rival Trump.

How come its O.K. if the Demos do it but not Trump?

You had your chance to investigate and present your evidence against HC, Obama and whomever else you wanted and blew it

Once again your neglect of history is causing problems. Remember the secret 40 minute meeting between AG Lynch and Bill Clinton? Remember how, just days later, the Justice Department coincidentally decided not to being charges against HC? So guess who it was who actually "blew it".

I also remember the hub bub of HC being under investigation, very publicly, but nobody knew that the dufus was too, or that the Russians were waging cyber war propaganda. LOL, Lynch recused herself, what more did you want and HC lost the election, so why are you still beetching about this stuff? You ain't said a word about the dufus doing anti Christian stuff, you give him a free pass on that as long as he gives you tax breaks and judges so why is liberals admitting our sins while you keep sinning so important?

We blew NOTHING and the real question becomes can we investigate and prosecute you're side better than you did our side. You want us to blow it since you protect the dufus and think you can do a better job than we did protecting HC.

Sounds like a person problem to me. Beetch all you want, it's your right.

Lynch recused herself, what more did you want and HC lost the election

So let's see if I understand your point. AG Lynch has a meeting with the husband of a powerful political figure under active criminal investigation. Now that would be bad enough since every first year law student knows you don't do that. But the meeting is not held in her office in D.C. Rather, it is held at a remote terminal in an airport where she and BC meet secretly for nearly an hour. ONLY when the news became public did she recuse herself, which of course means nothing since she can easily pick up a telephone and call the FBI director and give him "advice". She was never so much as reprimanded for her extremely unethical behavior. And unlike the "case" against Trump, the evidence for the meeting with BC was overwhelming, so much so that Lynch had to admit it happened.

But Tal is fine with all of that. See what I mean about your selective outrage??? I'll begin to take you more seriously when you begin to be an equal opportunity critic. Your approach is, "Hey, you're a conservative so you're guilty, but that guy over there is a liberal so he's fine."

To demonstrate my point, let's play the "Critic the Pres" game. I'll make two criticisms of Trump, and you follow that with two criticisms of Obama.

1. He continues to run enormous budget deficits during a time of great economic performance.
2. His sudden abandonment of the Kurds was reprehensible.

OK, your turn!

Obama should have turned Syria to dust after Assad used chemicals on his own people, instead of waiting for congressioal approval. That's all I got back to you!

Oh wait I got another one, he should have made congress pass a building project funded by public and private infrastructure bank started with a 2% tax on rich guys. JOBS, upgrade schools, roads, and bridges was a missed opportunity for the country.

Now it's YOUR turn.

Well, your critique was a little suspect in that you could not bring yourself to be critical of anything Obama actually DID, but rather what he should have done. Nonetheless, it's a start.

1. Trump's never ending running of his big mouth, his increasingly routine use of crude and profane language, and his frequent use of name calling (much like Tal!) are all irritating and need to stop. They cheapen political discourse.
2. He began passing out tax cuts with no intentions of making spending cuts. He should have balanced the budget first, and then given tax cuts.

Back to you.

Obama let Moscow Mitch cheat him out of a SCOTUS seat, and left HC to the mercy of repub House investigations over Bengahzi, even though they looked stupid when they failed to find anything or lay a glove on her after 7 tries.

Obama couldn't help HC get elected and we got this dufus in the WH!

1. Trump repeatedly said he would release his tax returns, but then he didn't.
2. Trump should have been more supportive of Kavanaugh.

I got nuthin' YOU WIN! Congrats on your victory.

8D

ASTONISHINGLY left off your list were Benghazi, the VA scandal, the Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting, the doubling of the national debt, handing over billions to Iran, the tepid economic growth, and the IRS scandal. Wow. How can you bring yourself to be critical of Trump after giving Obama such a free ride??? And you call that having NUTHIN??? Really???

You are so consistent, I give you that. Even when you win you beetch!

Even when you win you beetch!

Your incredible, shrinking memory demanded it.

Who needs a memory when you have creative cartoons?

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIvJ2X.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=799&y=332



https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIvJ2Y.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIstZU.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=1004&y=534

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIsgYu.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIsow7.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIp8Uf.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIaFip.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=915&y=262

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIaA8m.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIaytt.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIaCTp.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIapkX.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAI7lQg.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=680&y=480

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAI46M2.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=2100&y=960

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAI7hKR.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAHWbcT.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

This is more fun than beetching.

Unfortunately for you, cartoons are all you have. At some point, some evidence would be nice.

evidence: noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:

Hmm. I don't see anything about cartoons in there. Well, that's OK. Keep posting your toons if it makes you feel better about being so terribly on the wrong side of this thing.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Your cartoons are hilarious and, more to the point, they are true which gives them a special bite.

Don't worry about those who object to the cartoons - that's a good sign they're hitting the mark.

JL wants evidence Athos then ignores or dismisses it. WB with the same accounting as the memo the dufus releases isn't enough. Though he asked for dirt on specifically his political foes son from years before. A second WB that has first hand collaboration isn't enough. Removing those that oppose the scheme and replacing them with those that do isn't enough, the Mueller Report isn't enough, the courts deciding in favor of the congress isn't enough. So instead of more typing to be dismissed as not enough evidence I have my own fun while a real investigation continues and we get to the evidence being presented.

Funny though how they take the dufus's word that the Biden's are corrupt without evidence and after an investigation showed no evidence. So it stands to reason the only evidence that's evidence is against liberals and conservatives need no investigation to believe it.

Conservatives are locked and loaded to defend a lying cheating dufus no matter what he does, or the evidence against him which continues to mount? To JL's credit though, betraying the Kurds is an easy call for EVERYBODY.

JL wants evidence Athos then ignores or dismisses it. WB with the same accounting as the memo the dufus releases isn't enough. Though he asked for dirt on specifically his political foes son from years before. A second WB that has first hand collaboration isn't enough.

What do you need a whistle blower for when you have the transcript of the phone call? That's like someone saying they have secret information about the Gettysburg address. The Ukranian PM says there was no quid pro quo, so you have to have more than that.


Funny though how they take the dufus's word that the Biden's are corrupt without evidence and after an investigation showed no evidence. So it stands to reason the only evidence that's evidence is against liberals and conservatives need no investigation to believe it.

Hunter Biden is kicked out of the military for drug use. He then gets hired by a Ukranian energy corporation at several hundred thousand dollars a year even though he knows nothing about gas and oil. And to top it off, guess which country his dear ole dad was in charge of working with as VP? Yeah. Nothing to see there.


Conservatives are locked and loaded to defend a lying cheating dufus no matter what he does, or the evidence against him which continues to mount? To JL's credit though, betraying the Kurds is an easy call for EVERYBODY.

Defending a lying , cheating pres is something you should have great sympathy for. You three amigos have done it consistently for Obama for a long time.

What do you need a whistle blower for when you have the transcript of the phone call? That's like someone saying they have secret information about the Gettysburg address. The Ukranian PM says there was no quid pro quo, so you have to have more than that.

Personally the transcript MEMOS are enough evidence for me since he asked for a favor which specifically was investigating the son of his political opponent, and referred him to Rudy which is his personal lawyer ergo a personal favor that helps his election. Simple enough, and the WB, and a second should be the more evidence that you ask for, and the testimony of the recalled ambassador. How much more do you need?


Hunter Biden is kicked out of the military for drug use. He then gets hired by a Ukranian energy corporation at several hundred thousand dollars a year even though he knows nothing about gas and oil. And to top it off, guess which country his dear ole dad was in charge of working with as VP? Yeah. Nothing to see there.


That was investigated but where is your evidence he knew nothing about business? He is a law school graduate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden) to go along with his cocaine habit and has served on many boards.


Defending a lying , cheating pres is something you should have great sympathy for. You three amigos have done it consistently for Obama for a long time.

I have no sympathy for your defense of the dufus, like you have no sympathy for my defense of Obama, so let's just keep it real. Whatever you allege Obama of doing you failed to prove it let alone prosecute any of it in 6 years you tried too, and now it's our turn to do what you were unable to do. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

That was investigated but where is your evidence he knew nothing about business? He is a law school graduate to go along with his cocaine habit and has served on many boards.

I didn't say he didn't know business, though a law degree doesn't mean you know anything at all about running a business. I said he didn't know gas and oil.

As for Trump, I'm not asking for sympathy, just honesty and consistency. If you are going to allow Obama a free pass for lying, then you should do the same for Trump.

NOPE! No way does the dufus get a free pass unless he confesses his sins and repents...and RESIGNS! Oh wait he can't resign because he may be in legal troubles so he better get re elected.

Most businesses have board members who know little about the industries whose boards they sit on. Lawyers give legal advice don't they? He also has been in a consulting firm for years. Why bust a guys chops over it since it's pretty standard practice for rich connected white guys. Oh wait his dad is running for president and smears and dirt are just part of the politics right?

What's patently illegal is soliciting a foreign entity for help in that endeavor, and since dufus sycophants covered the dufus a$$ involving Russian interference why wouldn't he bring another nation into it? Why would he try and shift the Russian blame to Ukraine so he can pardon Manafort and clear Vlad too!

I guess you missed those implications in that memo of his calls with the Ukraine. Just ask Rudy if you don't believe me, or better his other personal attorney Bill Barr who is running all over the world to find dirt on Mueller and our own intell community. If you weren't holding your nose you would know what's happening right under your nose.

For the record I am honestly and consistently trying to bury a boot in the dufus a$$!

NOPE! No way does the dufus get a free pass unless he confesses his sins and repents

Yeah, just like your beloved Mr. Obama did. No...wait. He didn't do that, did he? Oh well. For those who care nothing for ethics, that is not a problem.


Why bust a guys chops over it since it's pretty standard practice for rich connected white guys. Oh wait his dad is running for president and smears and dirt are just part of the politics right?

You are one of the chief smear and dirt guys on this board. Why would you complain? If you need evidence, just look at your three paragraphs below.


What's patently illegal is soliciting a foreign entity for help in that endeavor, and since dufus sycophants covered the dufus a$$ involving Russian interference why wouldn't he bring another nation into it? Why would he try and shift the Russian blame to Ukraine so he can pardon Manafort and clear Vlad too!

I guess you missed those implications in that memo of his calls with the Ukraine. Just ask Rudy if you don't believe me, or better his other personal attorney Bill Barr who is running all over the world to find dirt on Mueller and our own intell community. If you weren't holding your nose you would know what's happening right under your nose.

For the record I am honestly and consistently trying to bury a boot in the dufus a$$!

You can throw all the dirt you want. Trump is certainly no saint. My big deal with you, and it has been since the beginning, is to point out that you occupy no moral high ground at all. The only difference between Trump and Obama is the fact that Obama was a slick, professional pol who knew how to keep his mouth shut and who was dearly loved by the national media who helped him keep his secrets.

I get it now! Your jealous that we had a popular ethical guy and you don't! Oh well it be that way sometimes and no matter your opinions, BIASED as they may be, you have a right to them. It's no wonder you take unproven allegations and try to make them facts to be used as evidence. That's only proof of incompetence or faulty evidence.

I hope we do better than you guys did, or I will have the same sour grapes as you have now. By the way it's not dirt or smears or even name calling if it's TRUE! So what part of lying cheating big mouth dufus isn't TRUE?

Is he even a good Christian in your humble opinion?

the national media who helped him keep his secrets.


What are his secrets?

I get it now! Your jealous that we had a popular ethical guy and you don't! Oh well it be that way sometimes and no matter your opinions, BIASED as they may be, you have a right to them. It's no wonder you take unproven allegations and try to make them facts to be used as evidence. That's only proof of incompetence or faulty evidence.

Jealous? No. Unproven allegations? I have listed a litany of allegations against Obama. Tell me which ones are unproven? They are only unproven in your dreams.


I hope we do better than you guys did, or I will have the same sour grapes as you have now. By the way it's not dirt or smears or even name calling if it's TRUE! So what part of lying cheating big mouth dufus isn't TRUE?


I haven't suggested it's all untrue. I have just said that you rant and rave against Trump, but were content to cuddle up to Obama despite the fact that he was as prone to scandals and lies as Trump is.


Is he even a good Christian in your humble opinion?

I don't know for certain if he's a Christian or not, but he seems not to be if I just look at his lifestyle. I felt the same way about Obama, by the way. I don't think you can be a proponent of abortion and gay marriage and then say your life is rooted in Christ.

Jealous? No. Unproven allegations? I have listed a litany of allegations against Obama. Tell me which ones are unproven? They are only unproven in your dreams.

So where is the evidence that your allegations were illegal in some way? Goes back to what I've been saying all along, you had your chance now it's ours, and we endeavor to actually gather EVIDENCE and make the dufus accountable to the law.


I haven't suggested it's all untrue. I have just said that you rant and rave against Trump, but were content to cuddle up to Obama despite the fact that he was as prone to scandals and lies as Trump is.

Talk about my dreams, yours are pretty wild too! You cannot convince me that Obama's transgressions in your mind are the same as the dufus antics, as just by sheer volume the dufus is the run away winner of lies, cheating and scandals already, in a vastly shorter period of time and just by the associates going to jail for crimes, which doesn't even account for the ones that resigned because of ethical behavior that was borderline criminal or scandalous, or just plain incompetent. So despite your attempts to elevate the dufus and minimize his transgressions comparing him to Obama is a joke, and he should be judged by his own words, actions and behavior of which you acknowledge are not the best examples of a good leader. To my knowledge I have never coddled any politician, but have defended the merits of their policies, and that is archived in this forum if you care to check. Even now in my rants and raves against the dufus I take particular care to bring facts and not just baseless allegations to bolster my reasoning.

You may dismiss them, or disagree with them as is your perfect right, but you can't change my mind hiding behind the hammer of your ideology, or religion.


I don't know for certain if he's a Christian or not, but he seems not to be if I just look at his lifestyle. I felt the same way about Obama, by the way. I don't think you can be a proponent of abortion and gay marriage and then say your life is rooted in Christ.

I respect your personal views my friend though I obviously disagree with them, and even though many are trying to change the laws surrounding abortions and gay marriage it is the law of the land. Even Christ said obey the law. The law is for ALL citizens no matter what religion you are. All are free to believe as they please, but no man or religion is ABOVE the law.

My understanding of the bible is you treat everybody with respect, and good luck exorcising those YOU deem not Christian enough from the Christian ranks. I think that's been tried and an abject failure.

Talk about my dreams, yours are pretty wild too! You cannot convince me that Obama's transgressions in your mind are the same as the dufus antics, as just by sheer volume the dufus is the run away winner of lies, cheating and scandals already, in a vastly shorter period of time and just by the associates going to jail for crimes, which doesn't even account for the ones that resigned because of ethical behavior that was borderline criminal or scandalous, or just plain incompetent... Even now in my rants and raves against the dufus I take particular care to bring facts and not just baseless allegations to bolster my reasoning.

I could not disagree more. Benghazi happened and four people died. Lies were told afterwards about it. The VA scandal happened. There is no question about it. Lynch and BC met in secret. That is undisputed. The deal with Biden's son smells to high heavens. As to Trump, I can't say that anything is proven. There seems to have been no reciprocal agreement with Ukraine. There was no collusion with Russia. The deal with the Kurds so far seems to have been absolutely pathetic, but perhaps more information will dispel that, though I doubt it. At any rate, it was not illegal.



I respect your personal views my friend though I obviously disagree with them, and even though many are trying to change the laws surrounding abortions and gay marriage it is the law of the land. Even Christ said obey the law. The law is for ALL citizens no matter what religion you are. All are free to believe as they please, but no man or religion is ABOVE the law.

As to the relationship of law and the will of God, check out this passage in Acts 5 and see what you think. "27The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” 29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! 30The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”


My understanding of the bible is you treat everybody with respect, and good luck exorcising those YOU deem not Christian enough from the Christian ranks. I think that's been tried and an abject failure.

There is an enormous difference between respect (I'd say "love" rather than "respect") and acceptance. We love everyone, but we certainly have no obligation to accept everyone's behavior. In fact we (the church) have an affirmative obligation to teach people what is, or is not, acceptable behavior in the sight of God. You might want to read this passage from 1 Cor. 5. "9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister c but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

I guess you don't think the dufus qualifies as an adulterer, sexually immoral, or swindler, and holding your nose absolves you of voting for him. As for the rest of it we've beaten that horse and it basically changes nothing since you blame Obama for the deaths on his watch while not a peep about the four dead Americans on the dufus watch in Africa. (https://www.foxnews.com/us/pentagon-ends-reviews-of-niger-ambush-that-killed-4-soldiers)

Where is your evidence that the VA scandal has improved under the dufus? (https://www.familyinhomecaregiving.com/blog/veterans-administration-still-under-fire)

Where is your evidence that the "secret" meeting between Lynch and Clinton was illegal or nefarious? (https://www.rt.com/usa/349029-clinton-lynch-airplane-meeting/) You need more than just allegations as you are so fond of telling me so take your own advice if her recusal was not enough. That's the solution to the appearance of a conflict of interest, RECUSAL, which included her entire office.

Where is the evidence Hunter Biden broke any laws at all (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/sep/23/president-donald-trump-ukraine-biden-whistleblower/)and we sure cannot trust your sense of smell, or the words of the dufus or his sycophants now can we? You hate links so findings of previous investigations into the matter, including with the Chinese (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/10/13/Hunter-Biden-to-depart-from-board-of-Chinese-backed-equity-firm/2931570975245/)would just be dismissed, so personally, you got NOTHING.

Takes more than to keep repeating unsubstantiated right wing talking points to make it a FACT. That stuff doesn't work for the dufus and won't work for you either. Come on man!! How many times must I remind you of that? That's okay, I figure you have just as much trouble obeying your Christ and listening to me isn't high on the priority list. That's cool, I understand.

I guess you don't think the dufus qualifies as an adulterer, sexually immoral, or swindler, and holding your nose absolves you of voting for him. As for the rest of it we've beaten that horse and it basically changes nothing since you blame Obama for the deaths on his watch while not a peep about the four dead Americans on the dufus watch in Africa.

The four Americans you refer to were military personnel on active duty assignments. People were held responsible and Trump did not engage in a systematic campaign of lying to cover up what happened.


Where is your evidence that the VA scandal has improved under the dufus?


Asks the man who can't even bring himself to admit that his beloved pres had a scandal at the VA. Eyes shut...ears closed.


Where is your evidence that the "secret" meeting between Lynch and Clinton was illegal or nefarious? You need more than just allegations as you are so fond of telling me so take your own advice if her recusal was not enough. That's the solution to the appearance of a conflict of interest, RECUSAL, which included her entire office.

I did not say the meeting was illegal, but it was definitely unethical. You won't acknowledge that because your greatly loved pres would have been implicated to some extent. For the AG to secretly meet for nearly an hour with the husband of a major person being investigated by the FBI, with no record kept of the meeting, is plainly a breech of ethics. If it wasn't, then why did Lynch recuse herself???


Where is the evidence Hunter Biden broke any laws at all and we sure cannot trust your sense of smell, or the words of the dufus or his sycophants now can we? You hate links so findings of previous investigations into the matter, including with the Chinese would just be dismissed, so personally, you got NOTHING.

I haven't suggested he broke laws, but if you really believe that that Ukranian company just happened to employ the son of the VP, then you really need a reality check. Man you've been drinking the kool aid so long that you can't even recognize your prejudice in this matter.


Takes more than to keep repeating unsubstantiated right wing talking points to make it a FACT.

Just following your glorious example.


That's okay, I figure you have just as much trouble obeying your Christ and listening to me isn't high on the priority list. That's cool, I understand.

And again. If you can't win the argument, then attack your opponent personally. I just consider the source.

Takes more than to keep repeating unsubstantiated right wing talking points to make it a FACT. That stuff doesn't work for the dufus and won't work for you either. Come on man!! How many times must I remind you of that?

You nailed it! Every point well-taken. The right-wing constantly repeats the same canards hoping someday they'll morph into FACT. Ain't gonna happen.


I figure you have just as much trouble obeying your Christ

Like many Christians, they have a tendency to manufacture a Christ suiting their needs. They make God in their own image - to reverse the famous phrase.

Like many Christians, they have a tendency to manufacture a Christ suiting their needs. They make God in their own image - to reverse the famous phrase.

Still waiting on you to answer my question about Jesus's reference to an eternal, fiery hell in Matthew 25.

JL, after all that you should realize by now that your tank is empty of facts but I do respect your feelings, right or wrong!


You nailed it! Every point well-taken. The right-wing constantly repeats the same canards hoping someday they'll morph into FACT. Ain't gonna happen. Like many Christians, they have a tendency to manufacture a Christ suiting their needs. They make God in their own image - to reverse the famous phrase.

Thank you Athos for recognizing it takes more than bully and bluster to cover up for empty logic and falsehood that I feel I have no other choice but to attack. I'm sure many others feel the same and is probably an example of the adverse effects the dufus has on us all. Some are just more willing than others to carry his water rather than put their mouth where their faith should be.

Yes I admit to attacking because that's how I deal with lying bullies full of bluster. It's really nothing personal. I am human, I am flawed, and easily PO'd by BS!

JL, after all that you should realize by now that your tank is empty of facts but I do respect your feelings, right or wrong!

That is really disappointing. I have challenged you before to point out any assertion I make that is incorrect. You are unable to do it. Words like your quote above are cheap. If you want to challenge my information then do it, but please avoid such empty platitudes as you posted above. It is very much beneath you. It does not surprise me coming from some others on this board, but I hope not to see it from you.

You're not even half as dissapointed as I am my friend. I'm saddened by the weakness of your arguments lately in the face of growing evidence that the dufus must go.

Still waiting on you to answer my question about Jesus's reference to an eternal, fiery hell in Matthew 25.

In time, jl, in time.

I've been busy with other matters - more important matters. But your question is rising to the top of the pile. Be patient.

I'm saddened by the weakness of your arguments lately in the face of growing evidence that the dufus must go.

I will say it again and continue to say it until it sinks in. If you find any assertion of mine to be incorrect then correct it. You don't do that because you can't. You just keep making things up and making general statements such as, "the weakness of your arguments." Well, that's pathetic. You get ready to show me specifically where I'm wrong, then we can continue.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIDA08.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=2307&y=706

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIDA05.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

In time, jl, in time.

I've been busy with other matters - more important matters. But your question is rising to the top of the pile. Be patient.

Just so you are not waiting too long, by the way it takes one minute to look it up yourself



41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

Just so you are not waiting too long, by the way it takes one minute to look it up yourself

Read the question. Then take foot out of mouth.

Just so you are not waiting too long, by the way it takes one minute to look it up yourself

Does your scripture mean you and JL are going to hell because of your treatment of the least? Or it doesn't apply to migrants?

Does your scripture mean you and JL are going to hell because of your treatment of the least? Or it doesn't apply to migrants?

It does not refer to what the liberal crowd is able to force other people to do by force of law, and then go about crowing loudly about their "holier than thou" status. It refers to what you do personally. So you get very little credit for voting for corrupt pols who get their charitable itch scratched with other people's money, but a lot of credit for what you do with your own money and time.

Oh so it lets you off the hook for supporting pols that lie, cheat, and steal, and bully others. That's a neat deal.

Oh so it lets you off the hook for supporting pols that lie, cheat, and steal, and bully others. That's a neat deal.

If you dems ever run a candidate that does not do the above, then you can ask those kind of questions from a different perspective. You supported two people who are just perfectly happy with nearly a million abortions a year, but you want to whine and complain? That blood is on your hands.

And to be clear, it is the grace of God in Christ that "lets me off the hook". I have no confidence at all in the power of my good works to make me acceptable to Him. That is God's work, not mine.

It refers to what you do personally. So you get very little credit for voting for corrupt pols who get their charitable itch scratched with other people's money, but a lot of credit for what you do with your own money and time.

It seems to me money is your focus, not the Beatitudes. They're secondary.

It seems to me money is your focus, not the Beatitudes. They're secondary.

Yes, it would seem that way to you. But you're wasting time that you could be using to answer the question.

Seems to me you are the whiner and complainer of other Christians who don't follow your own notion of Christianity, with very specific litnus tests.

Seems to me you are the whiner and complainer of other Christians who don't follow your own notion of Christianity, with very specific litnus tests.

My notion of Christianity matters little. I do try and make reference to the Bible, and,yes, the Bible does have some litmus tests. But I will not let you get by with this nonsense of trying to claim some moral high ground because you love to make other people support the poor.

I can't make anyone do anything you obviously have me mistaken. I've never tried to. Show me where I have.

I can't make anyone do anything you obviously have me mistaken. I've never tried to. Show me where I have.

Oh please. You've done it ever since I've seen your posts on this board. You complain about the treatment of people on the southern border and insist on the taxpayers having to spend more. You go on and on about the need to further tax the wealthy (who already pay 85% of income taxes) in order to support the welfare state. The one thing you don't seem to do is talk about what Tal ought to do to help the poor, or for what each one of us should do individually for that matter.

My volunteer work is personal, and if you had read MORE of my posts here you would know I am an active advocate of volunteering and it's probably the one area I have never blasted you for, and that should have told you something. All those positions you so disagree with that you site are just me advocating for the least of us, as a collective, but the laws and policies were here before you and I were, and having a social safety net for those in need is not a control thing as you say, but a recognition that there is much need.

Just as there are laws, policy and processes, to protect whistle blowers from retribution from the dastardly misdeeds of those with power who misuse and abuse that power, there are laws that advocate for helping the least o us. I don't see that as a bad thing, but if you do, then elect those that will stop welfare in your state. I have said this before my friend, but you don't seem to remember.

So the impeachment inquiry continues. You should be creeped out about the treatment on the southern border too, but like anything the dufus does you NEVER seek his repentance or acknowledge his cruelty, you justify it.

Talaniman: You reference the Southern border: Those people have to know that it is illegal to try to break into the U.S., they must know that......I sympathize with their situations back in their homelands but there are LEGAL means to pursue these matters.....and we are a nation of laws. I just don't see how we can just let every person into the U.S. who wants to come in come. And believe me: It has nothing to do with race.....I could care less.....it has everything to do with looking forward and thinking about how we can sustain population growth and if the populations is fully assimilated: I don't want the U.S. to become another FRANCE with NO-GO ZONES and a large population that has been allowed to proselytize themselves with NO INTENTION OF EVER ASSIMILATING TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE.

The dufus has strayed from the path of a humane process and moved markedly to the cruelest way possible on the southern border and the court has said his emergency money grab for wall money was unconstitutional, but the kicker is seeking asylum is legal under the law. No where does seperating families and caging kids become neccessary, but was done as a deterent.

My gosh man, can we not have a HUMANE process in accordance of our laws without the evil antics? If that's asking to much then the guy in charge ain't worth a crap! Look around the world and through history and there is always an exodus from unsafe conditions and I really don't know what you mean by assimilation, or will never assimilate when the opposite is probably true.

Working hard and living in peace is enough assimilation for me, but how about you?

The dufus has strayed from the path of a humane process and moved markedly to the cruelest way possible on the southern border and the court has said his emergency money grab for wall money was unconstitutional, but the kicker is seeking asylum is legal under the law. No where does seperating families and caging kids become neccessary, but was done as a deterent.

My gosh man, can we not have a HUMANE process in accordance of our laws without the evil antics? If that's asking to much then the guy in charge ain't worth a crap! Look around the world and through history and there is always an exodus from unsafe conditions and I really don't know what you mean by assimilation, or will never assimilate when the opposite is probably true.

Working hard and living in peace is enough assimilation for me, but how about you?

Tal the humane process is to help to develop these countries so the people stay at home, you sent your manufacturing to China when you could have sent it to central and south america, so what have you reaped, a powerful enemy and more refugees than you can handle. Very poor thinking there, I wonder whose policies they were

Talaniman: Assimilation to me is adopting the English language and using it in your daily life (you can use whatever you wish at home, that's not what I am talking about), learning about the history of these United States......holding no other than the U.S. as their home...its about eternalizing the United States.....you are free to keep you cultures, your religion, whatever but the expectation that you will come to the U.S. and IMPOSE your culture, your religion, your "whatever" upon U.S. citizens, and that U.S. citizens should accept all of your demands is just not acceptable, at all: Immigrants should remember: You need us.....we don't need you.....you are here only because we chose to let you into this nation......It is this concept that has been lost.....and its not too much to ask.

Talaniman: Assimilation to me is adopting the English language and using it in your daily life (you can use whatever you wish at home, that's not what I am talking about), learning about the history of these United States......holding no other than the U.S. as their home...its about eternalizing the United States.....you are free to keep you cultures, your religion, whatever but the expectation that you will come to the U.S. and IMPOSE your culture, your religion, your "whatever" upon U.S. citizens, and that U.S. citizens should accept all of your demands is just not acceptable, at all:
And you can speak your native language in public here. No problem.

Immigrants should remember: You need us.....we don't need you.....you are here only because we chose to let you into this nation......It is this concept that has been lost.....and its not too much to ask.
Who's gonna harvest your crops? pick the fruit in the orchards? roof your houses after building them? We WELCOME them. And they work for peanuts.

Who's gonna harvest your crops? pick the fruit in the orchards? roof your houses after building them? We WELCOME them. And they work for peanuts.

And all this time we thought you had a virtuous heart and wanted to help those poor people. "They work for peanuts." Sounds like you're more of a capitalist than we thought!! (For the comically impaired, that is said less than seriously.)

And all this time we thought you had a virtuous heart and wanted to help those poor people. "They work for peanuts." Sounds like you're more of a capitalist than we thought!! (For the comically impaired, that is said less than seriously.)
I didn't say what I would pay them. I certainly wouldn't stiff them like tRump does. In fact, an immigrant from Mexico City drives me to my hematology appointments. I chat amiably with him and tip him generously. Soon our house roof will be a tear-off and reroofed. I may adopt the Mexican workers.

I shudda said, "And they are WILLING to work for peanuts."

And you can speak your native language in public here. No problem.

Who's gonna harvest your crops? pick the fruit in the orchards? roof your houses after building them? We WELCOME them. And they work for peanuts.

I have a response to this post; get a life!

Talaniman: Assimilation to me is adopting the English language and using it in your daily life (you can use whatever you wish at home, that's not what I am talking about), learning about the history of these United States......holding no other than the U.S. as their home...its about eternalizing the United States.....you are free to keep you cultures, your religion, whatever but the expectation that you will come to the U.S. and IMPOSE your culture, your religion, your "whatever" upon U.S. citizens, and that U.S. citizens should accept all of your demands is just not acceptable, at all: Immigrants should remember: You need us.....we don't need you.....you are here only because we chose to let you into this nation......It is this concept that has been lost.....and its not too much to ask.

I don't see where they are not doing all you say and more, but I find it hilarious when one who came from immigrants makes those demands on other immigrants. What is this big demand of which you speak they make on us. Haven't you noticed that all immigrants assimilate quite well by the 2nd and third generations? They seem to be doing what we have all done and that's make a productive life.

What are you even talking about when you say they IMPOSE themselves on Americans? I don't get it Vac, though I have heard that sentiment before.

Tal the humane process is to help to develop these countries so the people stay at home, you sent your manufacturing to China when you could have sent it to central and south america, so what have you reaped, a powerful enemy and more refugees than you can handle. Very poor thinking there, I wonder whose policies they were

Nothing was sent Clete, Big Biz runs to China and other countries not just for cheap labor but tax breaks and to harvest the vast consumer markets. China and the rest of the world want their cut and just refuse to roll over and let rich Americans make them subservient to them. Lets be clear though there is a big reason Central and South America are not attractive for big biz though and that's the instability of the drug trade and the weak and often corrupt central governments. We are talking a massive investment is needed to just put the infrastructure together to build these economies and the same dynamic is present in many parts of the world. The biggest democracy so far has trouble getting the lights on and feeding it's own people so what do you expect from places that have none of that going, and are constantly running from one threat or another?

The world is a mess and humane processes are just to burdensome on scared people who want walls for protection. Let's face it, it's easier to just lock your doors and ignore the far away chaos I found it amusing in your other post you would rather have Vlad patrol a foreign border than your people.

Talaniman: When I said "IMPOSE", I am referring to the creation of ethnic ghettos that are turned into "NO-GO ZONES" like those in France, Sweden, and other Europeans....once this happens in a country, the division of the country into "groups" is all but guaranteed UNLESS the native majority's fears are used by a leader with bad intend and that leader is able to use these fears to target the minority as the source of all the ills of the country.....Like what happened in Indonesia in 1964 when the head of the country targeted the Chinese minority.

I sort of thought that's what you meant with your references to Europe but I didn't want to assume. I think we here already have such a leader who freely and prolifically targets those refugees and demonizes their existance. It works for him to scare those citizens and rally his racist low informed base around him. No repub dares say anything against him in public. So i guess we already have our own versions of nativist fears, and prejudices being stoked to powerful effect.

Being in a constant state of fear is just no good for any country though, as it normalizes the irrational, and stifles any hope of collective cooperation for the whole of our society, and can we pay such a price to feed our fears instead of our better nature? Reject fear by dumping the dufus is a simple course of action, but I know...easier said than done as some just don't want to feed that better nature. A reality I acknowledge even as I hate it.

The struggle continues. It's always been a struggle I suppose.

I didn't say what I would pay them. I certainly wouldn't stiff them like tRump does. In fact, an immigrant from Mexico City drives me to my hematology appointments. I chat amiably with him and tip him generously. Soon our house roof will be a tear-off and reroofed. I may adopt the Mexican workers.

I shudda said, "And they are WILLING to work for peanuts."

OK. First of all, I was joking with you. Second, it is so strange how you so feel the need to boost yourself up and yet tear Trump down. Can you three liberal amigos have any sort of conversation without bashing Trump and then claiming to occupy the moral high ground? You didn't bother to mention the vigorous economy we have now that improves the lives of everyone including immigrants.

You voted for HC and thus supported one of the biggest proponents of abortion around. That precludes your occupation of the moral high ground.

I support choice, and that means education. At least I recognize the reality of flawed humans making choices with feelings and not facts. You would deny them that education and access to resources among the least of us because those who have resources and education really ignore you and laugh at your attempts at control.

Education brings better choices my friend and empowers rather than subjugates. You seem to need someone to lord over and the least of us fits your bill.

I support choice, and that means education. At least I recognize the reality of flawed humans making choices with feelings and not facts. You would deny them that education and access to resources among the least of us because those who have resources and education really ignore you and laugh at your attempts at control.

You support killing unborn children. I support protecting them. It's just that simple. Don't try and sugarcoat it.

If simplifying things helps you then no worries. It's your delusion not mine.

If simplifying things helps you then no worries. It's your delusion not mine.

Might be a delusion to you, but it's not to the hundreds of thousands of unborn children killed every year for which you have no feeling whatsoever. Just amazing. And yes, it is a very simple proposition just like slavery and the Holocaust were simply terrible. So you blast the Trump administration for, in your view, mistreating children on the border, and yet give yourself a free pass for supporting what amounts to murder.

I don't support abortion, nor do I condemn those that make that choice for themselves. So I have no need for your free pass, nor your delusion, and it is your delusion for sure. Yeah I blast the dufus for his cruelty, which is intentional, even if you do not. Now you tell me that JL protects kids after their born I would be impressed, since that's when they need it the most. Mom and baby. Dad's TOO!

Does your protection of the unborn include prenatal care?

I don't support abortion, nor do I condemn those that make that choice for themselves.

OK. I've changed my original post. I think it was too harsh. Let me try this approach. When you say you don't support abortion but refuse to not allow others to practice abortion, how is that any different from saying, "I don't support enslavement of Africans, but I wouldn't condemn those who make the choice to do so," or "I don't support child abuse, but I don't condemn those who make the choice to practice it." Aren't you basically saying, "I don't support the killing of unborn children, but as a good liberal, I will not oppose those who practice it?" And if not, then how is your position different?

I'll leave the paragraph on the bottom, but it's the one above that I'm really interested in. Can you explain to me how your position makes sense?

As to supporting children already born and here, I spent 34 years doing that very thing in education, and that included many children of immigrants, so I absolutely deny your critique. My wife and I have helped support young moms who need help. Guess who staffs, runs, and funds practically all Crisis Pregnancy Centers? If you said liberal democrats, you are completely wrong. Do you support one?

As for right now, if you want to propose something for you and me to do beyond voting for democrats who are in love with abortion, I'm all ears.

But I will emphasize again. I greatly appreciate your willingness to be honest about your positions. You tend not to be evasive, and I really like that. I guess it all comes down to this. We just do not agree.

OK. I've changed my original post. I think it was too harsh. Let me try this approach. When you say you don't support abortion but refuse to not allow others to practice abortion, how is that any different from saying, "I don't support enslavement of Africans, but I wouldn't condemn those who make the choice to do so," or "I don't support child abuse, but I don't condemn those who make the choice to practice it." Aren't you basically saying, "I don't support the killing of unborn children, but as a good liberal, I will not oppose those who practice it?" And if not, then how is your position different?

There is a HUGE difference between abortion and slavery, and child abuse. I just do not see them the same way at all. That's just over simplifying entirely separate issues. Abortion is personal, and a CHOICE, slavery is cultural and without a choice, and abuse is a contagious sickness. Few things are black and white, and there is much in between. I was very clear with my words on abortion and '
I don't support abortion, nor do I condemn those that make that choice for themselves.' was my position. For one it's not my body, nor can I get pregnant. For another as I have stated it's not so much an issue with educated women with means. No one knows how they conduct their own family planning, and it is a private personal decision that a poor uneducated woman does not have. I've said it all before JL, more than once and I have little reason to change that position. Are you also against the morning after pill?

It's totally separate from slavery of another human, practiced in the world longer than it's been abolished, and nuanced from economic and social slavery, and abuse is in my mind a learned complex mental condition and the science of it says abusers are likely victims of abuse is the simple explanation. All are part of the human condition, but different parts, and my positions may not make sense to you, but make perfect sense to me. That's as best as I can explain it. Not saying I'm completely right, but the way I understand and deal with it, because I have no control over anyone. Nor do I want it.

Just like it makes perfect sense to blast the dufus for his words and antics because he lies cheats and steals for his own enrichment and that's his choice.


As to supporting children already born and here, I spent 34 years doing that very thing in education, and that included many children of immigrants, so I absolutely deny your critique. My wife and I have helped support young moms who need help. Guess who staffs, runs, and funds practically all Crisis Pregnancy Centers? If you said liberal democrats, you are completely wrong. Do you support one?

As for right now, if you want to propose something for you and me to do beyond voting for democrats who are in love with abortion, I'm all ears.

Good for you, but does that mean you don't participate in those hollering mobs outside of PP clinics. Just asking and for the record I have never asked if clinic workers, doctors, or nurses were conservative or liberals just that they render aid and expertise. when needed. I've worked with many church programs and never cared about the religion, or who funded what for a lot of causes. I have many.


But I will emphasize again. I greatly appreciate your willingness to be honest about your positions. You tend not to be evasive, and I really like that. I guess it all comes down to this. We just do not agree.

AGREED, but we can agree to disagree. It's not that big of a deal to me. We're more alike than different no matter how polarized our different positions may be.

There is a HUGE difference between abortion and slavery, and child abuse. I just do not see them the same way at all. That's just over simplifying entirely separate issues. Abortion is personal, and a CHOICE, slavery is cultural and without a choice, and abuse is a contagious sickness.

The baby killed in abortion has no choice. Why do you ignore it's inability to choose? How does a person in slavery exercise less choice than the baby killed in abortion?


I was very clear with my words on abortion and I don't support abortion, nor do I condemn those that make that choice for themselves.' was my position

Why do you not support abortion?

Just my OWN observation and feelings on the a couple of subjects:

1) Abortion: I just don't see how killing an unborn baby is in any way justifiable unless the unborn child is of a rape or the child will be born with birth defects or the child's birth will kill the mother.....that is my position and I have thought about it quite a bit but I can not condone women using abortion as a form of birth control...I have known women like this, they could in no way be construed as "good" women.

2) I believe it is cruel for adults, any adults, to use children as PROTECTIVE SHIELDS in any way......a child is not your protection.....you, as an adult/parent, are supposed to protect your children: When migrants approach the U.S. border toting their children, they do so with the full knowledge that this is a dangerous practice that really does endanger the lives of their children.....there is no way that they don't know this.....but they do it any way and they do it because they believe that their children will offer them a free-pass into the U.S....they think that their children will offer them a protective cloak: I believe this is a dastardly, bastardly thing to do....it is certainly cowardly.

The baby killed in abortion has no choice. Why do you ignore it's inability to choose? How does a person in slavery exercise less choice than the baby killed in abortion? Why do you not support abortion?


I cannot get pregnant nor choose for another human what they're choice is. My friend has 3 kids, loves them dearly, great mom, but her insurance covered her doctor visits to make sure she didn't get pregnant before she was ready for a family. I can respect that and no one ever knew of her personal choice and action. I cannot get pregnant nor make the choice for another, but in my mind those early doctor visits are not abortions, but I just don't support abortions and that's just MY choice. Exceptions possible for rape or incest or health of the mother, as Vac states, and many would agree with that. I honestly don't know how I would feel about it were I a female, but then it would still be MY choice wouldn't it? I don't think a majority of women use it as BC, but I know many use it often.



2) I believe it is cruel for adults, any adults, to use children as PROTECTIVE SHIELDS in any way......a child is not your protection.....you, as an adult/parent, are supposed to protect your children: When migrants approach the U.S. border toting their children, they do so with the full knowledge that this is a dangerous practice that really does endanger the lives of their children.....there is no way that they don't know this.....but they do it any way and they do it because they believe that their children will offer them a free-pass into the U.S....they think that their children will offer them a protective cloak: I believe this is a dastardly, bastardly thing to do....it is certainly cowardly.


Running from certain death with the hope for a better life is an act of love and cowards wouldn't take that chance would they? You don't know without a humane process to find out and act accordingly. This problem ain't going away folks and has been around for 400 years. More in other parts of the world.

I ask you Christians what would Jesus do?

I ask you Christians what would Jesus do?

Now there is the question isn't it? He wouldn't suggest you have health care but would heal the sick free of charge, go you and do likewise. He wouldn't argue with his opponents but convict them of wrongdoing

I cannot get pregnant nor choose for another human what they're choice is. My friend has 3 kids, loves them dearly, great mom, but her insurance covered her doctor visits to make sure she didn't get pregnant before she was ready for a family. I can respect that and no one ever knew of her personal choice and action. I cannot get pregnant nor make the choice for another, but in my mind those early doctor visits are not abortions, but I just don't support abortions and that's just MY choice. Exceptions possible for rape or incest or health of the mother, as Vac states, and many would agree with that. I honestly don't know how I would feel about it were I a female, but then it would still be MY choice wouldn't it? I don't think a majority of women use it as BC, but I know many use it often.

But again, why do you herald choice so much but not choice for the unborn child? Don't you think a human being should have some choice concerning his/her own life? I really don't know what to make of those who will not raise a finger in defense of the lives of the most innocent and defenseless among us.

As to why you don't support abortion, perhaps you should think that through.

BTW, it is an exceedingly small number of abortions that are due to rape or serious birth defects, something on the order of 2 or 3%.

He wouldn't suggest you have health care but would heal the sick free of charge, go you and do likewise.


I can go with that. Doubt doctors would though.


But again, why do you herald choice so much but not choice for the unborn child? Don't you think a human being should have some choice concerning his/her own life? I really don't know what to make of those who will not raise a finger in defense of the lives of the most innocent and defenseless among us.

As to why you don't support abortion, perhaps you should think that through.

BTW, it is an exceedingly small number of abortions that are due to rape or serious birth defects, something on the order of 2 or 3%.

An unborn child has no choice. Would you stop a female from seeing her doctor to make sure she does not maintain a possible pregnancy? How about the morning after pill, would you ban those too, and all abortion inducing meds? Maybe you should think through your own means, methods and ideology as well. Neither us is doing very well stopping people from getting an abortion, and I assume neither one of us wants to go back to the days of life threatening back alley abortions either.

Do we?

An unborn child has no choice.

An unborn child has no way to express a choice. That's why those children count on you to protect them.


Would you stop a female from seeing her doctor to make sure she does not maintain a possible pregnancy?

What??


How about the morning after pill, would you ban those too, and all abortion inducing meds?

I just have to ask myself this. Do those meds destroy a human life? If they do, then ban them.


Neither us is doing very well stopping people from getting an abortion,

I'm the only one trying to

I prefer the early education route so better choices can be made. What's you method?

I prefer the early education route so better choices can be made. What's you method?

I think early ed could be useful. It needs to include what happens during an abortion and a strong encouragement to reserve sex for marriage. Better choices? I don't think there are many adult women out there who lack an understanding of what it takes to become pregnant.

Not getting pregnant until one is ready is the goal, but controling human behavior is next to impossible, and stuff does happen, and people make mistakes. The trend is going down, and fact is what of all those unreported abortions.

I just have to ask myself this. Do those meds destroy a human life? If they do, then ban them.

Is a zygote a human life?

Is a zygote a human life?

That's a good question. I would answer with two questions.

1. Is it human?
2. Is it alive?

You'll have to draw your own conclusions. That was once you. Were you a human life at that time?

If you decide it is not a human life, then at what point does it become one, and what significant event in development makes the difference? That single cell splitting and becoming two cells? The two becoming four? Cellular differentiation? Organ development? A beating heart?

I suppose it just comes down to how you want to view it. The nine months of pregnancy is either one of the absolute marvels and wonders of human existence, or just nothing more than some tissue to flush down the toilet. Your choice, but bear in mind that choices have consequences. We cannot, for instance, tell children that human life is special and sacred unless, of course, you want to kill your unborn baby, and then think they are really going to believe that. If human life is really special and sacred, then abortion is wrong. If abortion is OK, then human life is not really special and sacred. There is no middle ground.

Maybe that's the difference in us, as some see in absolutes, and some see in the full range where there is a middle ground. We have debated when life begins, and some say when the egg is fertilized, some say when it leaves the womb.

I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much. Life can be precious, to some all life is, but of the more than a hundred and 50 million women and a falling KNOWN abortion rate of less than a million a year, that's not a wholesale stampede to kill babies, just the opposite. Instead of perfect behavior, I can take just moving in a good direction and working to improve on the very human flaws we all have.

I don't think we will be perfect in my lifetime, but plenty of room to get better. That's why when I say I prefer the educational approach to this issue it's more than where babies come from and how, but an awareness of HOW to understand and listen to your own female body and know what to do when you have sex, and think you could be pregnant, and as I have said on this site many times, and will say many more ABSTINENCE is the only 100% effective birth control method.

I much prefer the truth of facts while recognizing the intense feelings on this subject by flawed humans. Maybe it seems more people are doing the abortion thing, but I bet it's always been a wider spread practice than has been perceived before, but more is know now, since more has been revealed over time, and more people are expressing their own views on the subject.

The secret is out in the open and I think that's a good thing.

abortion rate of less than a million a year, that's not a wholesale stampede to kill babies

Wow. Merely 900,000 a year? That's more than those killed in auto accidents for the past twenty years combined. It's more than double the number of Americans killed in World War 2. Would you be so casual about it if it was young children being killed at that rate?


I much prefer the truth of facts

Is this an example of your use of "facts"? "I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much." The truth is, the only data you mentioned above was in your seemingly happy acceptance of abortion numbers now being merely "less than a million".

Middle ground? Where is the middle ground between regarding human life as wondrous and sacred versus treating the unborn as so much meat fit for the garbage pile?

Wow. Merely 900,000 a year? That's more than those killed in auto accidents for the past twenty years combined. It's more than double the number of Americans killed in World War 2. Would you be so casual about it if it was young children being killed at that rate?

It is what it is, and despite all our combined caring on various levels neither of us has moved the needle very much, have we?
Instead of perfect behavior, I can take just moving in a good direction and working to improve on the very human flaws we all have. You simply cannot control others and your efforts may effect some, but that's not enough. Fact is young children are not killed at that rate are they so don't get hyped on hypotheticals. I noticed you like to add descriptive words to mine like the use of MERELY 900,000 to my post and you need to stop that.



Is this an example of your use of "facts"? "I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much." The truth is, the only data you mentioned above was in your seemingly happy acceptance of abortion numbers now being merely "less than a million".

You do it again, add your words to my post. I just state the facts and not casually as you say so half the problem is you not accurately representing my words. STOP IT! It is NOT a happy acceptance at all so STOP that crap!


Middle ground? Where is the middle ground between regarding human life as wondrous and sacred versus treating the unborn as so much meat fit for the garbage pile?

Can you not communicate without adding your words to my posts? Maybe you need perspective as the million unborn are a small number compared to the 73 million children in America in 2016. I get its an intensely emotional subject for you, but I'm not as emotionally expressive or dismissive as you and I don't twist YOUR words to exaggerate your point, so stop twisting my words through your emotions.

I ain't mad at ya because I feel your pain, but do not share it as intensely. I tend to stay focused on the little I can do to get better outcomes which I admit is inadequate given the size and scope of the problem. Hope you understand.

The fact that we have been part and parcel in the killing of unborn children is disgusting, especially when it is often government sponsored: I really don't know of any other nation, First Word through Third World, who kills as many babies as does the United States....just cannot see where this is a record that we can be proud of.....and it amazes me that those who are ANTI-CAPITAL PUNISHMENT are, normally and simultaneously, PRO-ABRORTION: How do they reconcile this argument: You want to tell me that it is fine to kill a baby but it is a sin to kill a POS who needs to die?

I don't want the government involved with this kind of thing: MURDER INCORPORATED: And, it is incorporated: Planned Parenthood is Government funded in large portion. Why do those that are against abortion have to also pay for it is beyond me: I guess you could call it a "TAX" like they did with the Affordable Care Act.....EVERYTHING IS O.K. as long as its a TAX, right?

Not an entirely accurate post Vac, since the law prohits using any federal money for abortions and PP must use private donations for such activity, producing documents to that effect to get that funding. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment)Actually abortions are but a small part of PP services that million avail themselves of.

It is what it is, What an incredible conclusion to arrive at. 900,000 dead a year but, hey, it is what it is.



Instead of perfect behavior, I can take just moving in a good direction and working to improve on the very human flaws we all have. You simply cannot control others and your efforts may effect some, but that's not enough. Fact is young children are not killed at that rate are they so don't get hyped on hypotheticals. I noticed you like to add descriptive words to mine like the use of MERELY 900,000 to my post and you need to stop that.


You do it again, add your words to my post. I just state the facts and not casually as you say so half the problem is you not accurately representing my words. STOP IT! It is NOT a happy acceptance at all so STOP that crap!

For a guy that claims to love facts, you sure are fast and loose with the truth. I added nothing to your post. The words you object were my characterization of your post which, though you might object to it, is my prerogative. You do it all the time.


Actually abortions are but a small part of PP services that million avail themselves of.

That's not true. Abortions are a major part of what PP does. As to public funding, it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Don't kid yourself.

it amazes me that those who are ANTI-CAPITAL PUNISHMENT are, normally and simultaneously, PRO-ABRORTION: How do they reconcile this argument

it amazes me that those who are ANTI-ABORTION are, normally and simultaneously, PRO-CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: How do they reconcile this argument?

What an incredible conclusion to arrive at. 900,000 dead a year but, hey, it is what it is.

Unfortunately yes, that is the way it is and if you have a better idea than just talking then express yourself.


For a guy that claims to love facts, you sure are fast and loose with the truth. I added nothing to your post. The words you object were my characterization of your post which, though you might object to it, is my prerogative. You do it all the time.


I'll go with that rather than argue the point, but when I quote someone or copy and paste I don't add or subtract and I will let you know specifically when I characterize what you post.



That's not true. Abortions are a major part of what PP does. As to public funding, it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Don't kid yourself.

You are free to post your links or sources to back up what you say just as I do. (https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/4814/3638/1447/PP_Services.pdf) 3% according to my link.

it amazes me that those who are ANTI-ABORTION are, normally and simultaneously, PRO-CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: How do they reconcile this argument?

One group is guilty of heinous crimes, generally first degree murder. The other group is the very definition of innocence. Your comment is about as silly as trying to equate opposing abortion with being in favor of self-defense. It's just a ridiculous comparison.

But if a person opposes capital punishment and yet favors abortion, they are then in the position of defending the those guilty of terrible crimes but participating in the killing of the innocent unborn by approving of it. What do you think of that comparison? Can you defend it?



Unfortunately yes, that is the way it is and if you have a better idea than just talking then express yourself.

Stop voting for people who support abortion. Take a principled stand and insist that your candidates support life. But I must warn you that, as a liberal democrat, you will be distinctly in the minority.


I'll go with that rather than argue the point, but when I quote someone or copy and paste I don't add or subtract and I will let you know specifically when I characterize what you post.

When I quote you I do not add or subtract. If you can find where I have added to a QUOTE, then post it here. Otherwise, move on to something else.



You are free to post your links or sources to back up what you say just as I do. 3% according to my link.

And not even the Washington Post agrees with that number. They gave PP three pinochios for that wild tale.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/

They perform more than a third of the abortions done in the U.S. They perform only slightly fewer abortions than pap smears, and 2/3 as many abortions as breast exams. Stop drinking the kool aid!!!

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/planned-parenthood-dishonest-3-percent-figure/

But, as you love to say, "It is what it is." And no, I did not add to your quote from Post 94. It is bad enough on its own.

That's a good question. I would answer with two questions.

1. Is it human?
2. Is it alive?


Two questions are not an answer.

Two questions are not an answer.

It's an answer if you're prepared to think a little bit.

It's an answer if you're prepared to think a little bit.

I suggest you do your own thinking and try to come up with an ANSWER.

I did. It's your turn to think, but since you seem unable, I'll do your thinking for you. The answer for the two questions would certainly seem to be "yes". Is it human? Well, if not human, then what? It has to be yes. Plainly it's alive, so that is yes. So if it is human with all the information needed to become fully developed and the complete capacity to do so, and if it is alive, it must be a human life.

All heath care facilities and doctors offices bill the same way, but why argue with you. The numbers are the numbers (https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states). 1/3 of abortions nationwide okay (https://www.guttmacher.org/report/abortion-incidence-service-availability-us-2017). Who does the rest? (https://www.guttmacher.org/report/abortion-incidence-service-availability-us-2017)

As we see 2/3 of abortions are done by clinics other than PP, and doctors offices, and by women themselves using available self abortion methods but the bottom line is the decline of abortions which may not be fast enough for some but obviously females are taking advantage of improved contraception and methods.

Are you shutting down those other clinics doctors and methods too? Maybe in your state for poor women, but obviously there are other means being used besides PP, and abortion clinics.

Whatever your drinking ain't working so stick to Kool Aid.


I did. It's your turn to think, but since you seem unable, I'll do your thinking for you. The answer for the two questions would certainly seem to be "yes". Is it human? Well, if not human, then what? It has to be yes. Plainly it's alive, so that is yes. So if it is human with all the information needed to become fully developed and the complete capacity to do so, and if it is alive, it must be a human life.

It's NOT your human and since you had nothing to do with the creation, you have nothing to do with the outcome.

I did. It's your turn to think, but since you seem unable, I'll do your thinking for you.

Aren't you the one who is so quick to point out the insults others make? And yet, you are the biggest offender here.



The answer for the two questions would certainly seem to be "yes". Is it human? Well, if not human, then what? It has to be yes.

Logic is not your strong point. A zygote, you say, has to be human. Why? Because a zygote is human, what else could it be? Amazingly, you have managed to give us three logical fallacies in one example - circular reasoning, tautology and a non-sequitur. Congratulations.


Plainly it's alive, so that is yes. So if it is human with all the information needed to become fully developed and the complete capacity to do so, and if it is alive, it must be a human life.

Faulty reasoning. The zygote contains POTENTIAL human life. POTENTIAL is not the same as ACTUAL.

It's NOT your human and since you had nothing to do with the creation, you have nothing to do with the outcome.

If that is true, then why are you so concerned with the children at the southern border? After all, they are NOT your human since you had nothing to do with their creation, and therefore have nothing to do with the outcome. Is that your approach? I'm just amazed that you would suggest that we should only care for the humans that are OUR children, but have no concern for others. I don't believe you have thought this through adequately.


Aren't you the one who is so quick to point out the insults others make? And yet, you are the biggest offender here.

That is a valid point. I stepped over the line. My apologies. Of course when you refer to my supposed lack of logic below, then aren't you doing what you are criticizing me for doing?


Logic is not your strong point. A zygote, you say, has to be human. Why? Because a zygote is human, what else could it be? Amazingly, you have managed to give us three logical fallacies in one example - circular reasoning, tautology and a non-sequitur. Congratulations.

But aren't you doing the same thing when you refer to it as as containing "potential human life"? My point, which is valid, is that if you don't want to refer to it as human, then what would you call it? If not human, then what? As to it being merely "potential" life, then when does it actually become human life? Perhaps you could tell us what standard you use to determine that point?

BTW, a tautology is not a logical fallacy. It is a logical assertion, but not a fallacy. They are generally considered to be undesirable rather than fallacious. My statement is also not circular reasoning. My statement would be equivalent to saying, "Out of a range of four possible answers (a,b,c,or d) if the answer is not a,b, or c, then it must be d. It is only a non-sequitar if my conclusion does not logically follow from my previous statement. I think it does.

Athos: The reconciliation of the argument is very simple: Babies are innocent as they are ever going to be from that point forward......Those who are subject to Capital Punishment are truly fetid, festering pieces of sh&$ that need to be flushed with lightening speed. I have this same argument with my wife who thinks its not for us to take those decisions belonging to God, that we aren't in a position to make that decision about who lives or dies.....and I always pose the question that if Hitler was standing before her and she had a gun, would she not end his life? The answer is obvious: Sometimes logic drives the answer.

Athos: The reconciliation of the argument is very simple: Babies are innocent as they are ever going to be from that point forward......Those who are subject to Capital Punishment are truly fetid, festering pieces of sh&$ that need to be flushed with lightening speed. I have this same argument with my wife who thinks its not for us to take those decisions belonging to God, that we aren't in a position to make that decision about who lives or dies.....and I always pose the question that if Hitler was standing before her and she had a gun, would she not end his life? The answer is obvious: Sometimes logic drives the answer.

I always pose the question that if Hitler was standing before her and she had a gun, would she not end his life? The answer is obvious: Sometimes logic drives the answer.
So you advocate killing mentally ill people? Hitler most likely suffered from borderline personality disorder.

It's NOT your human and since you had nothing to do with the creation, you have nothing to do with the outcome./T



If that is true, then why are you so concerned with the children at the southern border? After all, they are NOT your human since you had nothing to do with their creation, and therefore have nothing to do with the outcome. Is that your approach? I'm just amazed that you would suggest that we should only care for the humans that are OUR children, but have no concern for others. I don't believe you have thought this through adequately. /JL

I may not have anything to do with the outcome of their creation, but after birth all humans are equal and should be treated as such, especially the least of us. If you cannot see the nuance of that perception, then you are missing something pretty basic, and maybe give it some thought. For sure guy, your positions are not mine, and while I understand your intensity, I do not accept or understand your premise, that you can control the choices others make. Maybe I cannot control what others do, but I can control what I do. I suspect you are also bound by that same limitation, though I doubt it stops you from trying and that's okay with me. The good news though is states can make laws and policies that comport with the laws and policies of the country and simple fact is the majority rules that determination.

I have no doubt you will just keep trying to change the law that limits what you can do. Or change it back to what you have done before. Stop abortions. Seems to work in your state and a few others but in some, they just feel different about it.

W.G.: No, I do not advocate killing mentally ill people.....I do not advocate euthanasia, either. However, Hitler was the embodiment of EVIL, way beyond mentally ill.....I mean, if Hitler was mentally ill, was not Stalin, was not Mao, was not the Khans, or all of the other murdering "leaders" of all time. I do think Hitler was a mad, rabid dog...and the only medicine that can cure rabies is a bullet.

but after birth all humans are equal and should be treated as such, especially the least of us. If you cannot see the nuance of that perception, then you are missing something pretty basic, and maybe give it some thought.

I think you take that position, not because it makes any real sense, but simply because it makes your support of abortion seem reasonable. But by that thinking, we can have an unborn baby, perhaps a day or two from delivery and well into the ninth month. That baby can be killed in the womb and then the corpse removed and disposed of. You have no problem with that. Well, I can't change your mind for you, but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe. Trying to hide behind "the nuance of that perception" might make you feel a little better, but it's such a hideous idea that I can't imagine how you can be comfortable with it. It is well known that most babies in the third trimester are able to survive and grow normally outside the womb, but in your zeal to support the liberal democrat party candidates, it seems you have to grasp at straws to abide with their whole-hearted endorsement of abortion. Taking the purely arbitrary position that birth somehow changes a person's status has no support in science or even in common sense. Dear God what a horrible position that is. I'm glad it's not mine.

That is a valid point. I stepped over the line. My apologies. Of course when you refer to my supposed lack of logic below, then aren't you doing what you are criticizing me for doing?

Apology accepted. Yes, I'm doing what I crticized you for. The difference is, you are the one whining about insults. I am only reacting to you.


But aren't you doing the same thing when you refer to it as as containing "potential human life"? My point, which is valid, is that if you don't want to refer to it as human, then what would you call it?

I would call it what it is - a zygote. Your "point" is just a word game.


being merely "potential" life, then when does it actually become human life?

I don't know. Viability has been suggested. That seems reasonable to me.


Perhaps you could tell us what standard you use to determine that point?

Viability? Aristotle, two thousand years of Catholic Church teaching, many various modern voices - all denying abortion is murder. The RC reversed its position around 1900. But their motives are complex - too much so to get into here.


BTW, a tautology is not a logical fallacy. It is a logical assertion, but not a fallacy.

Wrong. See below.


My statement is also not circular reasoning.

Wrong. See below.


It is only a non-sequitar if my conclusion does not logically follow from my previous statement.

It doesn't. See below.

Tautology and circular reasoning are so similar that only a teacher of philosophy would differentiate. So I will give you a technical correct. A non-sequitur, however, is arguably a part of every logical fallacy - the conclusion not being supported by the premises.

W.G.: No, I do not advocate killing mentally ill people.....I do not advocate euthanasia, either. However, Hitler was the embodiment of EVIL, way beyond mentally ill.....I mean, if Hitler was mentally ill, was not Stalin, was not Mao, was not the Khans, or all of the other murdering "leaders" of all time. I do think Hitler was a mad, rabid dog...and the only medicine that can cure rabies is a bullet.
So let's kill him/them.

Tautology and circular reasoning are so similar that only a teacher of philosophy would differentiate. So I will give you a technical correct. A non-sequitur, however, is arguably a part of every logical fallacy - the conclusion not being supported by the premises.

I didn't disagree with you referring to a non-sequitur being a logical fallacy. I said I was not guilty of it. As to tautologies and circular reasoning, the first is simply a logical assertion. Tautologies, by definition, are always true. They are frequently rather simplistic, obvious statements that, while being true, add very little meaning. They can be viewed as the opposite of a contradiction. Circular reasoning, however, is a wide spread logical fallacy. I think that much of advertising is based on circular reasoning. You see it all the time.



being merely "potential" life, then when does it actually become human life?
I don't know. Viability has been suggested. That seems reasonable to me.

If you don't know, then how would you know that a zygote is not an actual human life? In other words, it is quite possible that you could be wrong since, after all, you don't know.

As to viability, if medicine is some day able to take a zygote and have it develop to maturity outside the womb, then would that make the zygote a human life since it would then meet the definition of viability? That's a legitimate question since medical science is continually pushing the age of viability further and further back. It seems strange to me to attach the value of human life to the abilities of medical science. You will always have a moving target.

So let's kill him/them.

Why would we not believe that your assessment of Hitler's mental illness is pure speculation?

If you don't know, then how would you know that a zygote is not an actual human life? In other words, it is quite possible that you could be wrong since, after all, you don't know.
Here ya go, Biology 101:
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/introduction-to-zygotes-definition-biology-vs-emrbyo.html


Why would we not believe that your assessment of Hitler's mental illness is pure speculation?
It isn't. Google that. As a well-trained and experienced psychotherapist, I agree with that diagnosis.

Here ya go, Biology 101:
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-scie...vs-emrbyo.html

You do realize that your link added nothing to our conversation about what constitutes human life? It was simply a basic discussion of the development of the zygote, none of which was in debate here, and it added nothing to the statement of Athos that he did not know when human life began, so I'm not sure of what your purpose was.

As to Hitler's supposed mental illness, I long for the day on this site when people will learn to defend their assertions with something other than the ubiquitous (on this site) plea to "google it". If you have some information, then present it. Otherwise, I still see your diagnosis as pure speculation.

Speculation? Or is this lying?


I think you take that position, not because it makes any real sense, but simply because it makes your support of abortion seem reasonable. But by that thinking, we can have an unborn baby, perhaps a day or two from delivery and well into the ninth month. That baby can be killed in the womb and then the corpse removed and disposed of. You have no problem with that. Well, I can't change your mind for you, but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe. Trying to hide behind "the nuance of that perception" might make you feel a little better, but it's such a hideous idea that I can't imagine how you can be comfortable with it. It is well known that most babies in the third trimester are able to survive and grow normally outside the womb, but in your zeal to support the liberal democrat party candidates, it seems you have to grasp at straws to abide with their whole-hearted endorsement of abortion. Taking the purely arbitrary position that birth somehow changes a person's status has no support in science or even in common sense. Dear God what a horrible position that is. I'm glad it's not mine.

Actually this is what I wrote about my position.


'Maybe that's the difference in us, as some see in absolutes, and some see in the full range where there is a middle ground. We have debated when life begins, and some say when the egg is fertilized, some say when it leaves the womb.

I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much. Life can be precious, to some all life is, but of the more than a hundred and 50 million women and a falling KNOWN abortion rate of less than a million a year, that's not a wholesale stampede to kill babies, just the opposite. Instead of perfect behavior, I can take just moving in a good direction and working to improve on the very human flaws we all have.

I don't think we will be perfect in my lifetime, but plenty of room to get better. That's why when I say I prefer the educational approach to this issue it's more than where babies come from and how, but an awareness of HOW to understand and listen to your own female body and know what to do when you have sex, and think you could be pregnant, and as I have said on this site many times, and will say many more ABSTINENCE is the only 100% effective birth control method.

I much prefer the truth of facts while recognizing the intense feelings on this subject by flawed humans. Maybe it seems more people are doing the abortion thing, but I bet it's always been a wider spread practice than has been perceived before, but more is know now, since more has been revealed over time, and more people are expressing their own views on the subject.

The secret is out in the open and I think that's a good thing.'

I'll be nice for now and just put your posting down as the rantings of a flawed human with reading and perception problems. Hope you get better soon.

If you don't know, then how would you know that a zygote is not an actual human life? In other words, it is quite possible that you could be wrong since, after all, you don't know.

What a mess of BS! Obviously, the question you posed was POST-ZYGOTE.

You have this habit of re-writing what others have said to fit your argument. I've noticed it almost from the beginning when you skated around Bible questions. Now I see that others here are experiencing the same thing, and calling you out over it, but it doesn't seem to do any good.


As to viability, if medicine is some day able to take a zygote and have it develop to maturity outside the womb, then would that make the zygote a human life since it would then meet the definition of viability?

What is your definition of viability?


That's a legitimate question since medical science is continually pushing the age of viability further and further back. It seems strange to me to attach the value of human life to the abilities of medical science.

Is a clone a human life?

You do realize that your link added nothing to our conversation about what constitutes human life? It was simply a basic discussion of the development of the zygote, none of which was in debate here, and it added nothing to the statement of Athos that he did not know when human life began, so I'm not sure of what your purpose was.
The site affirms what you posted, that a zygote is the beginning of a baby.

As to Hitler's supposed mental illness, I long for the day on this site when people will learn to defend their assertions with something other than the ubiquitous (on this site) plea to "google it". If you have some information, then present it. Otherwise, I still see your diagnosis as pure speculation.
Googling will tell you that diagnosis is generally accepted.

The site affirms what you posted, that a zygote is the beginning of a baby.

Then why did you direct it to me? It was given as a response to my post. If you thought Athos was wrong, then why not direct it at him? An any rate, I understand your point and it is valid, but my statement was much more to the effect that the zygote is a human life. It doesn't seem like a great difference between the two, but some on this site will nitpick it so I try to be careful with my terms.


As to Hitler's supposed mental illness, I long for the day on this site when people will learn to defend their assertions with something other than the ubiquitous (on this site) plea to "google it". If you have some information, then present it. Otherwise, I still see your diagnosis as pure speculation.
Googling will tell you that diagnosis is generally accepted.

Please read my comment above.


Actually this is what I wrote about my position.

'Maybe that's the difference in us, as some see in absolutes, and some see in the full range where there is a middle ground. We have debated when life begins, and some say when the egg is fertilized, some say when it leaves the womb.

I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much. Life can be precious, to some all life is, but of the more than a hundred and 50 million women and a falling...so on and so forth.

I did not misrepresent your views. As I plainly said, "but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe." Now you don't like being called out on it. I wouldn't either if I believed what you claim to believe. That's why I don't believe that. If you can't handle it, then believe something more humane and reasonable.

What a mess of BS! Obviously, the question you posed was POST-ZYGOTE.

You have this habit of re-writing what others have said to fit your argument. I've noticed it almost from the beginning when you skated around Bible questions. Now I see that others here are experiencing the same thing, and calling you out over it, but it doesn't seem to do any good

This was my question. "then when does it actually become human life?" There was nothing about "post-zygote". It was a simple, straight-forward question. At any rate, if you don't know, then you don't know. That was your statement.

As to skating around Bible questions, where is your reply to the Matthew 25 question?

Stop whining. It gets old. Tal alleged I was changing his quotes. That turned out to be plainly not true. He, nor you, nor for that matter most of us, like having to accept the consequences of beliefs.

Then why did you direct it to me? It was given as a response to my post. If you thought Athos was wrong, then why not direct it at him? An any rate, I understand your point and it is valid, but my statement was much more to the effect that the zygote is a human life. It doesn't seem like a great difference between the two, but some on this site will nitpick it so I try to be careful with my terms.

Please read my comment aboI did not misrepresent your views. As I plainly said, "but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe." Now you don't like being called out on it. I wouldn't either if I believed what you claim to believe. That's why I don't believe that. If you can't handle it, then believe something more humane and reasonable.
I have absolutely NO idea what you're raging on and on about.

I have absolutely NO idea what you're raging on and on about.

The second paragraph was directed at Tal's quote. As to my reply to you, I don't think I raged about anything, but I guess that's how you see it. If so, it was not intentionally done that way.

I did not misrepresent your views. As I plainly said, "but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe." Now you don't like being called out on it. I wouldn't either if I believed what you claim to believe. That's why I don't believe that. If you can't handle it, then believe something more humane and reasonable.

I'll stick with what I beleive in thank you. That I can handle, whatever you rave about, I can handle that too. Some full moon we had, wasn't it, you lunatic. See I do understand you better than you understand yourself. Now go shave your ears.

This was my question. "then when does it actually become human life?" There was nothing about "post-zygote". It was a simple, straight-forward question. At any rate, if you don't know, then you don't know. That was your statement.

You took it out of context altering its meaning. I'm not surprised.


As to skating around Bible questions, where is your reply to the Matthew 25 question?

I am waiting for a reply from a scholar who is verifying (or refuting) an observation of mine.


He, nor you, nor for that matter most of us, like having to accept the consequences of beliefs.

I'm not sure what you mean, but when I am proven wrong, I accept it and adjust my beliefs.

(Is a clone human life?)

I'll stick with what I beleive in thank you. That I can handle, Evidently not. You sure get upset about it when someone calls your hand on it.



Some full moon we had, wasn't it, you lunatic. See I do understand you better than you understand yourself. Now go shave your ears.

As I said earlier, when a person resorts to name calling, it demonstrates that they have nothing useful to say and have lost the argument.


I am waiting for a reply from a scholar who is verifying (or refuting) an observation of mine.

OK. In the meantime, you might want to ask him/her about Matthew 13. "Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"

Please tell me - How does a day-old baby sin?

Evidently not. You sure get upset about it when someone calls your hand on it.

Is that what you call your responses? Naw, I never take those ranting personally, that's just the way lunatics express themselves. You really think your responses upset me?


PS

It's not name calling if it's TRUE.

Please tell me - How does a day-old baby sin?

You forget. I told you two weeks ago that I would not discuss this further with you until you gathered up your courage and answered the Matthew 25 question.


Is that what you call your responses? Naw, I never take those ranting personally, that's just the way lunatics express themselves. You really think your responses upset me?
PS

It's not name calling if it's TRUE.

Like I said. Name calling is the result of a lost argument. You evidently can't reason well enough to defend your positions so you just resort to hatred. Sad. I do think you are capable of better. But there has been one positive out of all of this. Reading your posts has given me a fresh view of the ugliness and ignorance of name calling. I despise it now even more than I did.

That's too bad you mistake my humor for name calling even if there is enough evidence to assign you the label. Same for the dufus and you don't have to be a humorless sourpus about it.


It's not name calling if it's TRUE.

You forget. I told you two weeks ago that I would not discuss this further with you until you gathered up your courage and answered the Matthew 25 question.

Lol - answer enough.


...name calling. I despise it now even more than I did.

Then why do you do it?

That's too bad you mistake my humor for name calling even if there is enough evidence to assign you the label. Same for the dufus and you don't have to be a humorless sourpus about it.

Yeah. I guess that excuse makes sense to some people.


Then why do you do it?

I don't believe I do. I did it once with you a couple of days ago. You called me on it and I immediately agreed with you and apologized. You can feel free to call me on it any time you want. I suppose you could make an issue about the "liberal amigos". "Amigos", of course, means "friends", so I wouldn't think that would be a problem, but if it is, I'll gladly stop. I do despise it.

Anybody care to comment on Mulvaney admitting the dufus held up military money for Ukraine yesterday because he wanted them to turn over the server the DNC used in 2016? (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-aides-words-on-ukraine-upend-impeachment-strategy-rattle-allies/ar-AAIZ3fz?ocid=spartanntp)

Or maybe the announcement the G7 meeting would be held at a dufus golf course?
(https://www.newsweek.com/trump-g7-doral-unbelievable-impeachment-watchdog-1466074)
I'm biased because I know the dufus is a lying crook!

Anybody care to comment on Mulvaney admitting the dufus held up military money for Ukraine yesterday because he wanted them to turn over the server the DNC used in 2016? (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-aides-words-on-ukraine-upend-impeachment-strategy-rattle-allies/ar-AAIZ3fz?ocid=spartanntp)

Or maybe the announcement the G7 meeting would be held at a dufus golf course?
(https://www.newsweek.com/trump-g7-doral-unbelievable-impeachment-watchdog-1466074)
I'm biased because I know the dufus is a lying crook!

Not only that - he tried to walk it back last night. MAJOR foot-in-mouth disease. Dufus hints at inviting his pal Putin to G7.

Or Hillary's incredible belief that both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are Russian agents whose purpose is to run a third party campaign to ensure Trump's reelection. And you wonder why so many people voted for Trump?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/politics/hillary-clinton-claims-jill-stein-is-a-russian-asset-and-suggests-russians-are-grooming-tulsi-gabbard/ar-AAIZfVe

Or Hillary's incredible belief that both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are Russian agents whose purpose is to run a third party campaign to ensure Trump's reelection. And you wonder why so many people voted for Trump?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/politics/hillary-clinton-claims-jill-stein-is-a-russian-asset-and-suggests-russians-are-grooming-tulsi-gabbard/ar-AAIZfVe

As usual, you got it wrong.

She said Russian "assets" not "agents". Huge difference. The suggestion is that Putin et al are pushing her for a third party candidate thus taking away votes from the Democrats and helping to re-elect Trump. You do know they interfered in 2016 on behalf of Trump, don't you?

So many people voted for Trump because they welcomed Russian interference? Maybe you want to re-write that.

She said Russian "assets" not "agents". Huge difference. The suggestion is that Putin et al are pushing her for a third party candidate thus taking away votes from the Democrats and helping to re-elect Trump. You do know they interfered in 2016 on behalf of Trump, don't you?

An asset is something owned by another person. So she is saying the Russkies own, in some way, those two women. And we are supposed to somehow feel better about that?


So many people voted for Trump because they welcomed Russian interference? Maybe you want to re-write that.

I might want to re-write it if I had written it. And you want to complain about misrepresenting someone's statements??? I said, " And you wonder why so many people voted for Trump?" Considering the near hysterical preoccupation HC has with Russian assets, I can only breathe a sigh of relief that she did not win. With all of his problems, Trump is a universe better than HC would have been.

Trump inherited Obama's economy and made it better. Historic lows in unemployment sound pretty good to me.

An asset is something owned by another person. So she is saying the Russkies own, in some way, those two women.

HC is saying that votes diverted to the woman will help Trump get re-elected.


Considering the near hysterical preoccupation HC has with Russian assets,

Near hysterical? Really? You're the near hysterical one with that statement.


With all of his problems, Trump is a universe better than HC would have been.

You're blinded by your HC obsession.


Trump inherited Obama's economy and made it better. Historic lows in unemployment sound pretty good to me.

What did Trump do to achieve this?

HC is saying that votes diverted to the woman will help Trump get re-elected.That is ridiculous. Why would she need to be a Russian asset for that to happen? She is saying that those two women are attached in some way to the Russian government who is calling the tunes.


What did Trump do to achieve this?

Funny how you ask that of Trump but not Obama. In both instances they provided leadership.

That is ridiculous. Why would she need to be a Russian asset for that to happen? She is saying that those two women are attached in some way to the Russian government who is calling the tunes.

You're missing the point. Russia will interfere with the election so that votes will go to her instead of the Dem candidate. She is not a "conscious" Russian asset. She is an asset because she will be used for Russian purposes as stated. HC is NOT saying the two women are attached to the Russian government. You are really missing the whole thing.


Funny how you ask that of Trump but not Obama. In both instances they provided leadership.

Obama continued the Republican solution and bailed out the auto industry and regulated the big banks who were a main cause of the recession and extended the Bush tax cuts that helped revitalize the economy (unlike the Trump tax cuts which were a gift to his rich friends).

Trump has done disastrous tariff policies which he doesn't understand and which is ruining farms. He has rolled back the banking regs and, under Mulvaney, has defunded the CFPB which recovered 12 billion dollars to consumers. His tax cuts have not done a single thing he promised - they have been a boon to the wealthy - and have been an enormous UNNECESSARY increase to the national debt.

His approach to the Fed (whose leader he appointed) has been to constantly criticize his own appointee because he wants lower rates so the market will react. The Fed wisely resists him, so don't be surprised when he fires his appointee the next time he needs a diversion.

His unemployment, which you frequently cite, is simply part of the business cycle. They each have little to do with it although Trump takes total credit for it. On the other hand, Obama indirectly helped the unemployment situation by the Economic Stimulus Program.

You're missing the point. Russia will interfere with the election so that votes will go to her instead of the Dem candidate. She is not a "conscious" Russian asset. She is an asset because she will be used for Russian purposes as stated. HC is NOT saying the two women are attached to the Russian government. You are really missing the whole thing.

How do you know that's what she meant?

How do you know that's what she meant?

Because that's what she said!!!!!!!

This is what she said. "I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, in apparent reference to Gabbard. “She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

So the Russians are grooming her, but she is independent of the Russians? Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.

As to what Trump has done for the economy, it sure is working. Obama had eight years and couldn't match it.

This is what she said. "I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, in apparent reference to Gabbard. “She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

So the Russians are grooming her, but she is independent of the Russians? Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.

Good Lord! You simply refuse to understand it. Gabbard is PASSIVE. She's not in cahoots with the Russians. Being groomed does NOT mean she is actively participating. For example - maybe you've heard of this, a sad commentary on today's climate - adult pedophiles who groom children for later abuse. The children are unaware of the "grooming". So likewise is Gabbard unaware of the Russian grooming.

If that doesn't do it for you, I'll have to hope someone else comes in and tries an explanation more suited to your capacity.


As to what Trump has done for the economy, it sure is working. Obama had eight years and couldn't match it.

Hard to believe you wrote that after what I wrote. Did you even read what I wrote?

I'm sorry to have to say this Jl, but you have some serious comprehension difficulties. The way you replied to the two issues in this post are new to me in their complete mis- or non-apprehension. Previously, you have done well from your point of view, but not now.

I don't think there's any point in your coming back with more sarcasm.

Good Lord! You simply refuse to understand it. Gabbard is PASSIVE. She's not in cahoots with the Russians. Being groomed does NOT mean she is actively participating. For example - maybe you've heard of this, a sad commentary on today's climate - adult pedophiles who groom children for later abuse. The children are unaware of the "grooming". So likewise is Gabbard unaware of the Russian grooming.

Yes. I'm sure that's how it is. As to what TG is aware of, how would you know that? You don't know that anymore than you know what Clinton meant.


If that doesn't do it for you, I'll have to hope someone else comes in and tries an explanation more suited to your capacity.

Good grief. What an arrogant know-it-all you are.



Hard to believe you wrote that after what I wrote. Did you even read what I wrote?

So if you write something it just has to be right? How fascinating.


I'm sorry to have to say this Jl, but you have some serious comprehension difficulties. The way you replied to the two issues in this post are new to me in their complete mis- or non-apprehension. Previously, you have done well from your point of view, but not now.

I don't think there's any point in your coming back with more sarcasm.

Still waiting for your Matthew 25 answer, but it's only been two weeks. Next time I guess I need to ask something more suited to your capacity.

I wonder why none of the dufus sycophants has produced any other charges of corruption to justify holding up the military aid to the Ukraine other than a bogus server from the DNC or his political opponents. It would see a simple thing to put such concerns before the congress who approved and appropriated the money, or the pentagon that vetted and reported to the congress. That's sort of what the whistle blower and witnesses have been saying all along that the dufus was making broad allegations of corruption but the only specifics were against the DNC and the Bidens.

I think I have already posted this is a huge smear campaign against the dems and the dufus wanted to lift sanctions against Vlad the invaders of Ukraine, and wanted the Ukrainian government to help in that smear. Ever heard of a nation being invaded to be urged to cut a deal with the country that invaded them?

Ever hear a president blast the guys who helped defeat a terrorist mob and cut and run and leave them to the guys who are their enemies? Supposedly our allies but didn't want to lift a finger to help us against the terrorists without much cajoling. Now we can condemn such actions but what should be done about it besides what the dems are doing by looking into these examples of bad and possibly unlawful behavior?

Got ideas?

Listening to a Tulsi Gabbard interview. She said that Hillary considered her to be "a Russian asset and a traitor to the country I love." Hmmm. She further said that Hillary "smeared her character".

Listening to a Tulsi Gabbard interview. She said that Hillary considered her to be "a Russian asset and a traitor to the country I love." Hmmm. She further said that Hillary "smeared her character".
TG isn't very sharp, sounds like.

Tulsi may not be a lot of things but she sure is a fine looking woman!

Now, I must ask: Why are the Demos getting so roiled because T.G. is going to run as a Third Party Candidate? I know why: Because the Demos and Repubs WANT TO HOG THE ENTIRE GOVERNING PROCESS FOREVER...….they will never allow a Third Party...why would they: no need to share. Demos and Repubs BOTH will jump all over T.G. with the long knives before its over.....just like they did to Ross Perot.....and you call this a "Free Election Process", really, because people have a whole big two choices instead of one?

THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING......because the Annointed One, Hillary Clinton, says so! Anybody believing ANYTHING Hillary says must just be dim witted....she is such a fraud. Do you know how stupid this all sounds that Tulsi is being promoted by the Russians: So, now, we are to believe that ANY TIME a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE runs for election as POTUS, they must be set up by the Russians? God Almighty! YOU PEOPLE ARE PARANOID! Its like the McCarthy era: You see RUSSIANS EVERYWHERE: You are way, way too far gone....need to reel it back in!

THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING......because the Annointed One, Hillary Clinton, says so! Anybody believing ANYTHING Hillary says must just be dim witted....she is such a fraud. Do you know how stupid this all sounds that Tulsi is being promoted by the Russians: So, now, we are to believe that ANY TIME a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE runs for election as POTUS, they must be set up by the Russians? God Almighty! YOU PEOPLE ARE PARANOID! Its like the McCarthy era: You see RUSSIANS EVERYWHERE: You are way, way too far gone....need to reel it back in!

Let us just think about the lesson of that movie for a while, the Russians are just a little off course and not a threat, just the victims of US paranoia

TG isn't very sharp, sounds like.

Sounds to me like she understood Clinton's statement perfectly.

One thing I've always hated about silly season is the constant mudslinging and smearing aimed at opponents. Everybody is trying to get elected and everybody tries to play the game. That's what politicians do, but let's separate those events and antics from the very real Russian aggressiveness. You already have a Russia friendly WH, matter of fact he is friendly with all the dictators and monarchs who rule with the iron fist and stifle their enemies.

The notion that we are paranoid and Vlad is a little off course thought Clete is like calling a hurricane a little windy. Vlad is both vicious and ruthless and slick as a snake and even more dangerous. He will bite you with his poisonous fangs if you try and pet him. Go ahead, pet the snake.

O

The notion that we are paranoid and Vlad is a little off course thought Clete is like calling a hurricane a little windy. Vlad is both vicious and ruthless and slick as a snake and even more dangerous. He will bite you with his poisonous fangs if you try and pet him. Go ahead, pet the snake.

Of course you are paranoid, any nation that has faced external attack is, and there is no use denying that your military is the result of paranoia. You are afraid of Russia a nation less than half your size and nowhere near your economic or military capability. China is also paranoid and acts accordingly.

Vlad only hopes you will lift your sanctions and leave him to interact with his traditional allies

Vlad should have thought of that before he used his military to annex Crimea, or invade the Ukraine. The sanction only limit his ability to skim noney from the coffers of his country, but he hasn't lost a dime, nor have his oligarchs and mobsters, or his armies. Assad would be gone without him, and there are still those nukes and the means to deliver devastation.

Sure we have conventional wars and conflict going on, but CYBER is the new front being fought on, and the dufus is covering for Vlad. He owes Vlad! That's not good.

One thing I've always hated about silly season is the constant mudslinging and smearing aimed at opponents. Everybody is trying to get elected and everybody tries to play the game. That's what politicians do, but let's separate those events and antics from the very real Russian aggressiveness. You already have a Russia friendly WH, matter of fact he is friendly with all the dictators and monarchs who rule with the iron fist and stifle their enemies.

Now that's funny. You claim to hate the constant mudslinging and smearing aimed at opponents, and then proceed to throw mud at and smear Trump. Well, if you really hate it, then maybe you should stop doing it.

You hate it when it's done against yo' boy, but when he does it all the time you vote for him. Tell him to stop, and when he does, I might. Until then get over it!

That should be easy enough for ANYBODY to understand.

You hate it when it's done against yo' boy, but when he does it all the time you vote for him. Tell him to stop, and when he does, I might. Until then get over it!



I have been very clear that I think both Trump and YOU should stop the constant, sophomoric name calling. Just think about it. You are saying that you and he are exactly alike in not being able to intelligently formulate arguments, so you just resort to name calling and mud slinging which, of course, you claim to hate. I'm not suggesting you lack intelligence. I'm just saying that the name calling is much easier to do and yet accomplishes nothing. In fact, it ends up being a negative. In your case, it makes you look just like Trump.

As to voting for Trump, should I have voted for a candidate who honestly and seriously believes that both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are "Russian assets"? Trump has his major problems for sure, but at least he has not reached that level of being so paranoid.

DUDE, the latest smears were not a part of the converstion in 2016. Fact is you voted for a guy who started his campaign with trash talk and mud slinging and now you dare tell me to stop? If that's not having life and BS all mixed up I don't know what is. I haven't asked you to join in but maybe you shouldn't get between a lying cheating bully and his opposition. I can turn on his sycophants and enablers just as readily.

Haven't decided about you yet but I watch you closely and your minimizing this poor excuse for an executive is rather disturbing at times and I do say so. Now when YOU throw him under the bus for what he says and does, despite those judges and rich guy tax cuts that may change my perceptions but a bible thumper who makes deals with the devil is not a good look.

Just sayin'!

DUDE, the latest smears were not a part of the converstion in 2016. Fact is you voted for a guy who started his campaign with trash talk and mud slinging and now you dare tell me to stop? If that's not having life and BS all mixed up I don't know what is. I haven't asked you to join in but maybe you shouldn't get between a lying cheating bully and his opposition. I can turn on his sycophants and enablers just as readily.

I haven't told you to do anything. I've just pointed out that you are using the same tactics as the man who must be your mentor. I would suggest you both stop.


Haven't decided about you yet but I watch you closely and your minimizing this poor excuse for an executive is rather disturbing at times and I do say so. Now when YOU throw him under the bus for what he says and does, despite those judges and rich guy tax cuts that may change my perceptions but a bible thumper who makes deals with the devil is not a good look.

Says the man who voted for both Obama and HC. You have no room to talk. Like I have said a million times, it's your "holier than thou" attitude that is so pathetic. You are as deep in the dirt with those two as anyone else. Politics.

It's really foolish to continue to whine about "rich guy tax cuts". Rich guys pay over 85% of income taxes in our country, so your whining is complete nonsense. Stop drinking the kool aid and wake up!

I will consider when you wake up and stop whining about the debt while those rich guys get their tax cuts.

I will consider when you wake up and stop whining about the debt while those rich guys get their tax cuts.

1. Your beloved hero, Mr. Obama, was the world's champ at running up debt.
2. Trump's deficits, like all of them, are the result of over-spending. Even if you rolled back the tax cuts, you would still have many hundreds of billions in deficit spending every year.
3. When the bottom 80% of income earners only pay about 15% of the income taxes, then even a fanatical liberal democrat can figure out that they will not profit much from a tax cut. Those "rich guys" you disdain so much will profit because they pay nearly 90% of all fed income taxes.
4. The past two years have seen deficit spending voted in by...get ready for this...a DEMOCRAT led House. Oh well. To be fair, the same thing was true of the last several years of the Obama admin, but when repubs did try and make a stand, Obama would shut down the gov and blame it on them. Assisted by the ever loyal national media, he would win that battle and the excessive spending would just continue. Maybe, some day, the dem House will take a stand on over-spending, but don't hold your breath on it.
5. Coorporate and individual income tax revenue for the feds has increased by about a trillion dollars since 2012, about an 80% increase, thanks in large measure to a much improved economy. The increase since Trump was elected in 2016 has been about 350 billion.

Now that I think about it, maybe you should stick with name calling. Data is not your strong point. And before everyone goes nuts, that is intended to be a joke.

1. He also inherited not just a offf the books war funding, but a recession too boot. He started in a job killing hole. Though even the bail out included a modest building fund and tax cuts for middle income, on top of the bush tax cuts. When they sunsetted he let the rich guy tax cut go, but kept the middle class tax cuts.

2. Yes that's true, but the 1.2 trillion dollar spending for rich guys wouldn't be there to make the deficit WORSE!

3. I've tried to explain revenue, taxes, and the very different wealth to you, it was hopeless. Trickle down economics, supply side economics or whatever you want to call it hasn't ever worked. It never will as long as the rich have the loopholes havens and shelters to avoid paying the real taxes they owe. That's why we have had income inequality hollowing out the middle class and run bookoo deficits. I'll just chalk it up to stupid humans falling for the okedoke. Legalized stealing.

4. Any House by LAW cannot pass a budget on it's own they can initiate one, but the senate has to pass it as is, modify it and reconcile it with the House bill, or send their own bill back to the House for a vote. That's how it works and even under Obama, repubs had the House and senate. Dems just got the House back THIS year so where you got the dems had the House for the last two years is beyond me, and UNTRUE! I will leave out the fact that the shut downs were not just spending fights, but efforts to repeal Obama care. You should have done your homework BEFORE you posted that BS like everyone has been suggesting.

5. Finally we can agree the more people working AND paying taxes, AND buying stuff is what keeps the economy strong.



Now that I think about it, maybe you should stick with name calling. Data is not your strong point. And before everyone goes nuts, that is intended to be a joke.


That's the way I took it.

8D

Just for YOU.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAILdbR.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

2. Yes that's true, but the 1.2 trillion dollar spending for rich guys wouldn't be there to make the deficit WORSE!

That's over ten years. Be honest.


3. I've tried to explain revenue, taxes, and the very different wealth to you, it was hopeless. Trickle down economics, supply side economics or whatever you want to call it hasn't ever worked. It never will as long as the rich have the loopholes havens and shelters to avoid paying the real taxes they owe. That's why we have had income inequality hollowing out the middle class and run bookoo deficits. I'll just chalk it up to stupid humans falling for the okedoke. Legalized stealing.

And again. The top 20% pay more than 85% of income tax. All you posted was just worn out garbage. Like I said. Data is not your thing.


Any House by LAW cannot pass a budget on it's own they can initiate one, but the senate has to pass it as is, modify it and reconcile it with the House bill, or send their own bill back to the House for a vote. That's how it works and even under Obama, repubs had the House and senate. Dems just got the House back THIS year so where you got the dems had the House for the last two years is beyond me, and UNTRUE! I will leave out the fact that the shut downs were not just spending fights, but efforts to repeal Obama care. You should have done your homework BEFORE you posted that BS like everyone has been suggesting.

So are you saying that this democrat House has actually passed a balanced budget and sent it to the Senate? If not, then everything you just posted is just word candy.


5. Finally we can agree the more people working AND paying taxes, AND buying stuff is what keeps the economy strong.

So you do give Trump some credit? Wonderful.

Talaniman: I am not rich and, realistically, never will be.....And I like your combativeness and your support for your arguments (i.e. I respect you)....However, in all honesty, I do not think we can continue to tax the pure hell out of the rich....85% of total taxes coming from them is probably enough....they will find more and more inventive ways to hide their money, all legal of course, so taxing them to death is a dead-end road. I also don't think we can "TAX WITHOUT REPRESENTATION": We have driven off the rails in the U.S. with taxes....the purpose of taxes is not so the government can become more centralized or more obese or more lethargic than it already is: The purpose of government is to perform the work directed by the will of the people and government has long since abandoned that principle.

Like any municipality in this country, all they want to do is "get bigger"...and it has gotten so bad that I think that they think that is their REAL PURPOSE! Its not! We need to pare-down the size of government and stop spending so much....reduce the taxes, particularly on the strapped Middle Class....we need to cut spending across the board.....I will give you and example that I KNOW YOU CAN RELATE TO: If a manufacturing facilities cost of raw materials is fixed, its costs of labor is fixed, and its production capacity is fixed, the only way that the facility can increase profits is to reduce variable costs.....Likewise, under the same scenario, the only way that facility can maintain profits, and not allow them to slip, in the face of rising raw material and labor costs, is to IMPROVE PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY while, also, reducing variable costs: Its the EFFICIENCY of government that is lacking: It doesn't necessarily take more people to get goals accomplished, it only takes BETTER people to accomplish those goals....GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GO ON A DIET! They are fat and they are lazy!

Talaniman: Vlad was on the right side of history in Syria and we were not. If anything, Vlad should have acted earlier to prevent so much murdering by ISIS from taking place. Assad is a Medical Doctor amongst a whole region of religious zealots! The Baathist Party is modeled on Mussolini's Italian Fascist Government and it is SECULAR (NO RELIGION ALLOWED)! The U.S. backed the wrong horses in Syria: We were supplying money and arms to terrorist who were murdering children while Assad and Vlad were fighting ISIS! And, I am pretty sure a lot of "Chemical Attacks" were false flag attacks perpetrated by John McCain's beloved "Moderate Rebels"......Don't you think the people of Syria have suffered enough?

GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GO ON A DIET! They are fat and they are lazy!

Pretty good statement.

Talaniman: I am not rich and, realistically, never will be.....And I like your combativeness and your support for your arguments (i.e. I respect you)....However, in all honesty, I do not think we can continue to tax the pure hell out of the rich....85% of total taxes coming from them is probably enough....they will find more and more inventive ways to hide their money, all legal of course, so taxing them to death is a dead-end road. I also don't think we can "TAX WITHOUT REPRESENTATION": We have driven off the rails in the U.S. with taxes....the purpose of taxes is not so the government can become more centralized or more obese or more lethargic than it already is: The purpose of government is to perform the work directed by the will of the people and government has long since abandoned that principle.

Don't go there. It's impossible to tax a rich guy to death with the breaks and loopholes and havens they enjoy, and a well know fact is the dependence of the people elected officials on the favors of those rich guy. Unless of course you think it's the will of the people to not get a raise in decades while prices are steadily going up.



Like any municipality in this country, all they want to do is "get bigger"...and it has gotten so bad that I think that they think that is their REAL PURPOSE! Its not! We need to pare-down the size of government and stop spending so much....reduce the taxes, particularly on the strapped Middle Class....we need to cut spending across the board.....I will give you and example that I KNOW YOU CAN RELATE TO: If a manufacturing facilities cost of raw materials is fixed, its costs of labor is fixed, and its production capacity is fixed, the only way that the facility can increase profits is to reduce variable costs.....Likewise, under the same scenario, the only way that facility can maintain profits, and not allow them to slip, in the face of rising raw material and labor costs, is to IMPROVE PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY while, also, reducing variable costs: Its the EFFICIENCY of government that is lacking: It doesn't necessarily take more people to get goals accomplished, it only takes BETTER people to accomplish those goals....GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GO ON A DIET! They are fat and they are lazy!


I guess that explains why plants close and cities die in America while big biz hunts for cheap labor overseas, Let me know what you will cut that helps YOUR city, and I'm sure you have a plan to follow up on your broad statements. Me I would ask for less influence of big money on the peoples government for starters. Government should be as efficient on behalf of the people as it is at delivering wealth to the rich guys.Taxing rich guys to death is surely a joke since you only tax half of it in the first place if that!



Talaniman: Vlad was on the right side of history in Syria and we were not. If anything, Vlad should have acted earlier to prevent so much murdering by ISIS from taking place. Assad is a Medical Doctor amongst a whole region of religious zealots! The Baathist Party is modeled on Mussolini's Italian Fascist Government and it is SECULAR (NO RELIGION ALLOWED)! The U.S. backed the wrong horses in Syria: We were supplying money and arms to terrorist who were murdering children while Assad and Vlad were fighting ISIS! And, I am pretty sure a lot of "Chemical Attacks" were false flag attacks perpetrated by John McCain's beloved "Moderate Rebels"......Don't you think the people of Syria have suffered enough?

Vlad has a huge military base in the Mediterranean Sea they will protect at all costs and wants a lot of other stuff as well. They get that with Assad, and whomever takes his place may not deliver what they want. Assad and his family have been murderous dictators for decades if that's the suffering you mean. Assad and Vlad weren't fighting ISIS, they were fighting their own people by whatever means they could. Maybe you should bone up on the history of the region before you decide about which side of history you believe is the correct one.

I cannot believe you back Assad, and Vlad, and Mussolini. What's up with this love of cruel murderous dictators?

I cannot believe you back Assad, and Vlad, and Mussolini. What's up with this love of cruel murderous dictators?

I've been asking that question for weeks now - the fractured history supporting the worst players.

Athos & Talaniman: Russia has been fighting terrorism for as long as we have...of course, like the ChiComs, they covered up a lot of Muslim zealot attacks....And Russia has shown great restraint when Chechen terrorists invaded the Belsan School in 2004: It is amazing that Russia didn't go ALL In and begin an wholesale kill off of Chechens when this terrorist act occurred....such horrors.

I don't like dictators but when confronted with wild-eyed crazy religious zealots and Bolsheviks, someone, somebody has to step-in and level the playing field to provide regional stability.

I prefer SECULAR Government.

Geez, V7 - this may be your worst post yet. Please read and learn.




Athos & Talaniman: Russia has been fighting terrorism for as long as we have

No they haven't. We started with terrorists in the plane hijackings in the 60s. The Russians had no terrorists until the Soviet Union collapsed.


And Russia has shown great restraint when Chechen terrorists invaded the Belsan School in 2004

GREAT RESTRAINT???? Are you kidding???? The showed NO restraint. After three days, they charged in guns ablaze and killed 334 of their own people including 188 CHILDREN!!! Total casualties (not counting 30 terrorists) surpassed 1200!!!!!!! Some restraint!!!!!!!!


It is amazing that Russia didn't go ALL In and begin an wholesale kill off of Chechens when this terrorist act occurred....such horrors.

Let me get this straight. NOT COMMITTING GENOCIDE was an act of amazement in your world????


I prefer SECULAR Government.

Russia IS a secular government!!


(Btw, who are the Bolsheviks you referred to?)

Athos: The particular "CRAZY" breed of Bolshevik that I refer to is like the Shining Path guerillas of Peru or the ones in Nepal.....just ape sh&$ crazy.

Athos: The particular "CRAZY" breed of Bolshevik that I refer to is like the Shining Path guerillas of Peru or the ones in Nepal.....just ape sh&$ crazy.

no they are just misinformed

You should be used to fringe groups with agendas resorting to violence to bring about the change they desire.

Yep. Take Antifa, for instance.

And that's not to mention the numerous left-wing college campus groups that have basically shut down the concept of free speech with their violent reactions against conservative speakers.

Antifa was who I had in mind as a loony fringe group who uses violence to further and agenda, as well as the KKK, with or without the hood and robes, and white supremist. I think both sides throw down when faced with each other, and moderate sane people in the middle get caught between such antics.

Talaniman: Its almost a shame we couldn't let the "crazies" from both sides have at each other and eliminate one another.....I know that would be very questionable from a legal perspective but it is an intriguing thought.

Call the cops and send 'em to jail for rioting or whatever charge you can get, and stick 'em in the same cell. Or call...

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.updates.dcentertainmen t.com%2Flib%2Ffe8d1273726d057575%2Fm%2F5%2Fe4934c0 e-078f-4065-a035-94a929ae9416.jpg&t=1571715200&ymreqid=ca515d41-7b2e-4cce-1c1b-b40001014100&sig=WpiJXWT_E8sVFakvw.PPjA--~C (http://click.updates.dcentertainment.com/?qs=4c625b50c3a9c32254b523db72ad5022f602d00f7a250a 40aa450836d9c03ed8b5451b84e8c520e65f11fa6c84b72f35 b6e09a1d6f187b98)

Talaniman: Good idea about the same cell! Tulsi….I think she could pull it off! Man, she is EASY ON THE EYES! Especially when she is angry!

I doubt Tulsi would run a third party candidacy nor have a hope of winning, but any third party candidate would only help the dufus get re elected, including Jill Stein who no doubt drew votes from HC in '16 in key states. I can see and it has been reported that Ruskies are at it again for the '20 elections with a cyber disinformation campaign to help the dufus AGAIN, as the impeachment inquiry moves forward.

I doubt Tulsi would run a third party candidacy nor have a hope of winning, but any third party candidate would only help the dufus get re elected, including Jill Stein who no doubt drew votes from HC in '16 in key states. I can see and it has been reported that Ruskies are at it again for the '20 elections with a cyber disinformation campaign to help the dufus AGAIN, as the impeachment inquiry moves forward.

I thought TG was a "Russian asset" who was being "groomed" by the Russkies to run a third party effort and thus, so the theory goes, ensure the election of Trump. Are you saying that HC has it wrong?

I think HC issued a warning to dems using TG, as there has been cyber activity pushing her and other dems by online bots from the same cast of characters from 2016. Did she get it wrong? Only if you dismiss Vlad and his minions for what they have done and trying to do.

I think HC issued a warning to dems using TG, as there has been cyber activity pushing her and other dems by online bots from the same cast of characters from 2016. Did she get it wrong?

No, she was not issuing "a warning". She very specifically accused both TG and Stein of being Russian "assets" and said that TG was being "groomed" by the Russians to run a third party effort. And you wonder why I voted for Trump???

You think Vlad cannot target someone as an asset and use nefarious means to groom them without there knowledge or cooperation?

You think Vlad cannot target someone as an asset and use nefarious means to groom them without there knowledge or cooperation?

Without their knowledge or cooperation? Well of course not!! He can get someone to run as a third party candidate without their knowledge??? That's laughable.

Without their knowledge or cooperation? Well of course not!! He can get someone to run as a third party candidate without their knowledge??? That's laughable.

Here you go again.

The question is NOT can Vlad get someone to run as a third party candidate without their knowledge. As been patiently explained to you already, the grooming is done WITHOUT the candidate's knowledge. This ain't rocket science.

The dufus seems a willing Russian asset. Wonder if he owes Vlad momey, or maybe Vlad co signed for him to get money since American banks shun this idiot. Or he has a deal in place with Vlad we know nothing about. There are those phone calls and meeting unchaperoned, and those laughing boy White House encounters with Russian officials that our press was barred from. If Vlad hadn't told us we would never know.

We all know how those dufus phone calls to foreign leaders always screw things up.

The question is NOT can Vlad get someone to run as a third party candidate without their knowledge. As been patiently explained to you already, the grooming is done WITHOUT the candidate's knowledge. This ain't rocket science.

And that is strictly, 100% your opinion. You don't have the slightest idea what HC meant when she said that, you only have an opinion. TG did not take it that way at all, and interestingly enough, HC has not walked back her comments or explained that she meant something similar to what you said. Like you said, it's not rocket science.


The dufus seems a willing Russian asset. Wonder if he owes Vlad momey, or maybe Vlad co signed for him to get money since American banks shun this idiot. Or he has a deal in place with Vlad we know nothing about. There are those phone calls and meeting unchaperoned, and those laughing boy White House encounters with Russian officials that our press was barred from. If Vlad hadn't told us we would never know.

I wonder if maybe all those millions of dollars BC was paid for making speeches came with strings attached. I wonder if the millions of dollars given to the Clinton Foundation by Russians while HC was Sec. of State came with strings attached? If wonder what Lynch and BC agreed to in that secret meeting? Maybe they were Russian "assets".

You see how that blade cuts both ways? It's just all pure conjecture.

And that is strictly, 100% your opinion. You don't have the slightest idea what HC meant when she said that, you only have an opinion. TG did not take it that way at all, and interestingly enough, HC has not walked back her comments or explained that she meant something similar to what you said. Like you said, it's not rocket science.
With Jill Stein as a third-party candidate in 2016, the Russian strategy worked, didn't it. Those Russian bots were all over Facebook, dumping out promos for her.

With Jill Stein as a third-party candidate in 2016, the Russian strategy worked, didn't it. Those Russian bots were all over Facebook, dumping out promos for her.

I could only agree with that if I was silly enough to believe this nonsense about a "Russian strategy", none of which has been proven. If the Russkies were so wild about getting Trump elected, then why did they donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation? Why did they pay Bill Clinton to make speeches to the tune of 500 thousand per? Did they pay Trump to make speeches? No, but they did pay BC.

And that is strictly, 100% your opinion. You don't have the slightest idea what HC meant when she said that, you only have an opinion.

It is NOT my opinion. IT IS WHAT THE WORDS MEAN!!


TG did not take it that way at all

You are correct. TG MISQUOTED HC saying she was called a "Russian AGENT"! HC NEVER called her an agent. She called TG an asset". I won't explain the difference again here.

TG is not stupid. She is spinning it to her advantage.

Jl - You really don't seem to be up on the cyber-spying - for lack of a better word. There have been tons of words written about it, and how successful the Russians have been. Are you aware that the US Intelligence Community has unanimously said the Russians interfered in 2016? What they successfully did in 2016, they are, as we speak, doing the same thing again. Why not? It worked then, it will surely work again.


interestingly enough, HC has not walked back her comments or explained that she meant something similar to what you said.

There is nothing to walk back.

As far as explaining, she expects those who heard what she said to understand what she said. The thing was all over the cable TV News today and while she took a lot of criticism for dissing her own party, nobody commenting made the mistake of saying HC called TG an agent. Several of them keyed on what "grooming" means, which was as I indicated.


You see how that blade cuts both ways?

Only in your mind does it cut both ways. Didn't you say you were a teacher? Why not ask some of your teacher friends what Hillary meant?

It is NOT my opinion. IT IS WHAT THE WORDS MEAN!!


She said TG was an "agent" and was being "groomed" by the Russians. You claim that HC meant the Russians were doing that without TG's knowledge. She did not say that. That is strictly your opinion. I realize you highly value your opinion. I don't quite have that high view of it.


You are correct. TG MISQUOTED HC saying she was called a "Russian AGENT"! HC NEVER called her an agent. She called TG an asset". I won't explain the difference again here.

TG is not stupid. She is spinning it to her advantage.

That might be true, but you don't know that for sure either. As to the asset/agent disparity, the word "asset" can very easily mean something very similar to agent, and at the least mean a person who is knowingly an ally of a particular government.


Jl - You really don't seem to be up on the cyber-spying - for lack of a better word. There have been tons of words written about it, and how successful the Russians have been. Are you aware that the US Intelligence Community has unanimously said the Russians interfered in 2016? What they successfully did in 2016, they are, as we speak, doing the same thing again. Why not? It worked then, it will surely work again.

I am aware of it. It is also largely agreed that they interfered in 2018. So are we to conclude that they favored the democrat party takeover of the House?

But all of that is irrelevant to HC's crazy Russian accusations. Even if she only meant what you suggest, how would she know that both Stein and TG, whether wittingly or unwittingly, were Russian assets? If she know for sure, then how did she know? And if she could not be sure, then wouldn't it be the height of irresponsibility to allege it?

She said TG was an "agent" and was being "groomed" by the Russians

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She said "asset", NOT agent. Go watch the video - it's around somewhere.

Interesting how Trump has the power to influence his followers - fascinating example right here where the truth means nothing, facts don't count, yet the false comments - the same ones, to boot - continue unabated.

For the rest, get somebody else to do your explaining for you.

I swear, if I were a candidate, particularly a POTUS candidate, I would hire these damned RUSSIAN BOTS! From what I am reading here, they seem to be very, very effective at getting the votes for whomever they are trying to get elected! And, with the Exchange Rate the way it is, they are probably a whole heck of a lot cheaper than traditional campaign agencies!

She said TG was an "agent" and was being "groomed" by the Russians. You claim that HC meant the Russians were doing that without TG's knowledge. She did not say that. That is strictly your opinion. I realize you highly value your opinion. I don't quite have that high view of it.
Hillary Clinton:
“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her [Gabbard] to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”

She said "asset", NOT agent. Go watch the video - it's around somewhere.

You are absolutely correct. That was a typo on my part which can be clearly seen from my previous posts such as 184 where I posted, "I thought TG was a "Russian asset" who was being "groomed" by the Russkies to run a third party effort and thus, so the theory goes, ensure the election of Trump."

Still, that does not change the fact that her words do not say that the "assets" were unknowing, and the "grooming" was done without their knowledge. That is 100% speculation on your part. You claimed that was what her words said (the part about them being unwitting assets) and that is a false statement.


but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”

I wonder how HC could make that "guarantee"?

You are absolutely correct. That was a typo on my part which can be clearly seen from my previous posts such as 184 where I posted, "I thought TG was a "Russian asset" who was being "groomed" by the Russkies to run a third party effort and thus, so the theory goes, ensure the election of Trump."

Still, that does not change the fact that her words do not say that the "assets" were unknowing, and the "grooming" was done without their knowledge. That is 100% speculation on your part. You claimed that was what her words said (the part about them being unwitting assets) and that is a false statement.
People don't realize they're being groomed. That's the whole point in the grooming, e.g., pedophiles grooming children toward perversive activity.

I wonder how HC could make that "guarantee"?
It was done during the 2016 campaign.

People don't realize they're being groomed. That's the whole point in the grooming, e.g., pedophiles grooming children toward perversive activity.


That is completely ridiculous. An internet definition for "groomed" is this. "prepare or train (someone) for a particular purpose or activity. "star pupils who are groomed for higher things."

So plainly the word "groomed" has no inherent idea of an unwitting participant. It CAN have that meaning, but as the example above clearly shows, it generally does not. Come on. You work in a library. Use a dictionary.


It was done during the 2016 campaign.

So? Trump won in 2016. Does that "guarantee" he wins in 2016? How can she make such a guarantee? Does she have some confidential info that she's leaking?

And what, for that matter, is your evidence that Jill Stein was some kind of Russian asset? That's really a wild allegation. What proof is there other than the word of one of the two people on the earth that, to some on this board, can never be wrong?

That is completely ridiculous. An internet definition for "groomed" is this. "prepare or train (someone) for a particular purpose or activity. "star pupils who are groomed for higher things."

So plainly the word "groomed" has no inherent idea of an unwitting participant. It CAN have that meaning, but as the example above clearly shows, it generally does not. Come on. You work in a library. Use a dictionary.
Thanks for the slap....That's why I rarely post here now.

I'm a retired librarian. I've been a psychotherapist since 1991, so watch it, buddy!

Wikipedia says: Child grooming is befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, and sometimes the family, to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse).[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming#cite_note-2) Child grooming is also regularly used to lure minors into various illicit businesses such as child trafficking (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour), child prostitution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_prostitution), or the production of child pornography (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography).[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming#cite_note-CrossonTower208-3)[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming#cite_note-Levesque64-4)[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming#cite_note-Wortley14-5)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming


So? Trump won in 2016. Does that "guarantee" he wins in 2016? How can she make such a guarantee? Does she have some confidential info that she's leaking?
It worked well in the 2016 election. The sheep are still grazing in tRump's meadow.


And what, for that matter, is your evidence that Jill Stein was some kind of Russian asset? That's really a wild allegation. What proof is there other than the word of one of the two people on the earth that, to some on this board, can never be wrong?
You must not be on Facebook, thus missed all the promo for Jill Stein. Hmmm, another slam. Do you do this in RL?

I'm a retired librarian. I've been a psychotherapist since 1991, so watch it, buddy!
I consider myself duly warned!


Wikipedia says: Child grooming is befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, and sometimes the family, to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse.[1][2] Child grooming is also regularly used to lure minors into various illicit businesses such as child trafficking, child prostitution, or the production of child pornography.[3][4][5]

That's fine except, of course, for the fact that HC was not referring to child grooming or anything remotely resembling it. Why would you even refer to that? You might as well refer to the grooming of hair.


It worked well in the 2016 election. The sheep are still grazing in tRump's meadow.


You don't know if "it" worked well or not. You have no evidence that the Russkies sponsored, in any way, Jill Stein's candidacy. Yes, I'm on FB just about every day. Evidently the Russians didn't want me to vote for her.

Now as for me giving you a "slap". When you try and suggest that HC's use of "grooming" was in the same vein that child predator's groom children, then you should have your wrist slapped. That's just a stretch that is not warranted, and I think you know that. I actually consider you to be quite intelligent, but when you make those kinds of suggestions then I'm going to call you on it. I expect you to do the same with me as you do when I said "agent" rather than "asset". Was that a slap???

Stay in the game, WG! Get a little tough. When you need to, call me down. I know I can get a little overly excited about this. I don't mind you knocking me on the side of the head when you need to.

That's fine except, of course, for the fact that HC was not referring to child grooming or anything remotely resembling it. Why would you even refer to that? You might as well refer to the grooming of hair.

No HC was referring to insidious grooming as in criminals spies and espionage by foreign nations to achieve a political or economic end or advantage. WG was just giving an example of grooming with bad intent and most people can infer different scenarios of bad intent. Except you it seems. No wonder you slipped on the dufus poop!

I say that's the silliest post of the day. Do you really think HC meant the Russians were grooming someone's yard, or grooming someone's hair, or that they were grooming a horse??? No one on the earth thought she meant that, so why would I have included such an array of completely unrelated definitions?

As to WG's claim, do you really, really think that HC was suggesting that the Russians were preparing Jill Stein to be abused by a sexual predator? Not only that, but that definition was at the end of the list meaning it is the least used of the group.

Come on, guys. I know you love HC dearly, but you really need to stop defending her every move as though it is completely legitimate.

No HC was referring to insidious grooming as in criminals spies and espionage by foreign nations to achieve a political or economic end or advantage. WG was just giving an example of grooming with bad intent and most people can infer different scenarios of bad intent.

Well of course that's what she was referring to!! That's not even in question. It's the idea that they are doing this with the unknowing participation of JS and TG that is being asserted and that is just completely unwarranted. Your definition helps none at all with that.

And now you're saying that JS and TG are criminals!
"as in criminals spies and espionage"

That's fine except, of course, for the fact that HC was not referring to child grooming or anything remotely resembling it. Why would you even refer to that? You might as well refer to the grooming of hair.
Yet you wrote, "So plainly the word 'groomed' has no inherent idea of an unwitting participant. It CAN have that meaning, but as the example above clearly shows, it generally does not. Come on. You work in a library. Use a dictionary."

Of course, she meant it in the same way!

You don't know if "it" worked well or not. You have no evidence that the Russkies sponsored, in any way, Jill Stein's candidacy. Yes, I'm on FB just about every day. Evidently the Russians didn't want me to vote for her.
Yes, I know it worked. tRump won because of the presence of Russian bots and their activity to confuse the election with the electoral college.

Now as for me giving you a "slap". When you try and suggest that HC's use of "grooming" was in the same vein that child predator's groom children, then you should have your wrist slapped. That's just a stretch that is not warranted, and I think you know that. I actually consider you to be quite intelligent, but when you make those kinds of suggestions then I'm going to call you on it. I expect you to do the same with me as you do when I said "agent" rather than "asset". Was that a slap???
Sexual predator grooming = Russia grooming.

Stay in the game, WG! Get a little tough. When you need to, call me down. I know I can get a little overly excited about this. I don't mind you knocking me on the side of the head when you need to.
I'm holding back. Ask Athos for verification on that.

Well of course that's what she was referring to!! That's not even in question. It's the idea that they are doing this with the unknowing participation of JS and TG that is being asserted and that is just completely unwarranted. Your definition helps none at all with that.

And now you're saying that JS and TG are criminals!

No I CLEARLY asserted that the ones doing the grooming are the criminals.

No I CLEARLY asserted that the ones doing the grooming are the criminals.

Nope. Your definition clearly said that "No HC was referring to insidious grooming as in criminals spies and espionage." It is the criminals and spies that are being groomed. Hence, TG and JS.


Yet you wrote, "So plainly the word 'groomed' has no inherent idea of an unwitting participant. It CAN have that meaning, but as the example above clearly shows, it generally does not. Come on. You work in a library. Use a dictionary."

Of course, she meant it in the same way!

Well, have it your way. So HC was saying that the Russians were grooming JS and TG so they can put sexual predators on them. If anything, that's even crazier than thinking they were actively grooming them to be a third party candidate. I am so glad I am not a liberal democrat and having to defend that.

Look. If you want to say that it is possible that HC meant the Russkies are clandestinely arranging things to encourage the possibility of TG running as a third party candidate, then that's fine. I think it is extremely unlikely and it would be a real shot in the dark for them, but yeah, it's possible. But to suggest that you KNOW that she meant that, then you've got an enormous credibility problem. You cannot possibly know that for sure and HC has not suggested that meaning is accurate.

As to your supposed evidence of the Russians supporting Jill Stein's third party being Trump's win in 2016, then does the dems winning the House in 2018 also qualify as evidence for Russians supporting Nancy Pelosi and the House dems?

I really think you are smarter than this.

Where did your post go?#204.

Well, have it your way. HC was saying that the Russians were grooming JS and TG so they can put sexual predators on them. If anything, that's even crazier than thinking they were actively grooming them to be a third party candidate. I am so glad I am not a liberal democrat and having to defend that.
Have you eaten anything today? Your brain is missing nutrients. As a mom-type, I'm starting to worry about you.

As to your supposed evidence of the Russians supporting Jill Stein's third party being Trump's win in 2016, then does the dems winning the House in 2018 also qualify as evidence for Russians supporting Nancy Pelosi and the House dems?
Just change the subject, why doncha.

I really think you are smarter than this.
When in doubt, insult.

I wasn't looking for your post. I was looking for Tal's.


Have you eaten anything today? Your brain is missing nutrients. As a mom-type, I'm starting to worry about you.

I'm afraid that not eating is not a problem of mine. Kind of wish it was.


As to your supposed evidence of the Russians supporting Jill Stein's third party being Trump's win in 2016, then does the dems winning the House in 2018 also qualify as evidence for Russians supporting Nancy Pelosi and the House dems?

Just change the subject, why doncha.

Now that's what I'm talking about with you being smarter than this. I think you know I did not change the subject. I simply challenged your thinking. If Trump winning is your evidence of Russian influence, then why isn't the dems winning the House evidence of Russian interference?



When in doubt, insult.
It was no more an insult than your food/brain comment was. I do think you are smarter than some of your conclusions would indicate.

I wasn't looking for your post. I was looking for Tal's.
It's not mine. It's Tal's. Hmmm, what would you say to a student who hadn't checked?

I'm afraid that not eating is not a problem of mine. Kind of wish it was.
Are you a bit fluffy, more to love?

Now that's what I'm talking about with you being smarter than this. I think you know I did not change the subject. I simply challenged your thinking. If Trump winning is your evidence of Russian influence, then why isn't the dems winning the House evidence of Russian interference?
Don't get me started correcting your grammar. And you deliberately changed the subject. We weren't finished with the topic on the table.

It was no more an insult than your food/brain comment was. I do think you are smarter than some of your conclusions would indicate.
I've been a Mensan for years, actually all my life. And no, I cushioned the food comment so it wasn't an insult. Wanna hear me insult you?

Hmm, maybe the Russians did help the dems win back the House. But the bi partisan Senate Intell commitee report (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bipartisan-senate-report-indicates-russian-election-interference-efforts-have-only-increased-since-2016-2019-10-08) backs up the Mueller Report. If repubs and dems agree shouldn't we ALL at least PAY ATTENTION?

BREAKING NEWS!

​Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor testified on Capitol Hill! (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-taylor-trump-ukraine-quid-pro-quo_n_5daf5003e4b0f34e3a7dc014)*

*Taylors opening statement included in link.

you a bit fluffy, more to love?

My doc today told me to lost five or ten pounds.


Don't get me started correcting your grammar. And you deliberately changed the subject. We weren't finished with the topic on the table.

OK. Have it your way. Finish the topic.


I've been a Mensan for years, actually all my life. And no, I cushioned the food comment so it wasn't an insult. Wanna hear me insult you?

I'm impressed...slightly. I bear up under insults quite well. It always tells me that the person has run out of logical arguments and has decided to become offensive.

OK. Have it your way. Finish the topic.
Tal is helping.

I'm impressed...slightly. I bear up under insults quite well. It always tells me that the person has run out of logical arguments and has decided to become offensive.
'Twon't be me.

Tal is helping.I try to never count on someone else to do my work for me.


'Twon't be me.

Right.


BREAKING NEWS!

​Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor testified on Capitol Hill!*

*Taylors opening statement included in link.

Unsurprisingly, democrat lawmakers said that, in private testimony, the ambassador said that he heard that someone else had suggested that the President wanted Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian gas company and possible interference in the 2016 election. If they did not, then he heard that someone else had said that all those military thingies the Ukrainians wanted might not be delivered on time.

In the meantime, Ukrainian officials continue to deny that any quid pro quo existed. Hmmm.

There is a large mound of nothing that has accumulated about this case, and today's testimony added even more nothing to it.

I try to never count on someone else to do my work for me.
Aren't we all working together here? We be a team?

Right.
'Twon't be me.
...who runs out of logical arguments.

I try to never count on someone else to do my work for me.



Right.



Unsurprisingly, democrat lawmakers said that, in private testimony, the ambassador said that he heard that someone else had suggested that the President wanted Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian gas company and possible interference in the 2016 election. If they did not, then he heard that someone else had said that all those military thingies the Ukrainians wanted might not be delivered on time.

In the meantime, Ukrainian officials continue to deny that any quid pro quo existed. Hmmm.

There is a large mound of nothing that has accumulated about this case, and today's testimony added even more nothing to it.

He named names and had emails and phone records, but go ahead, ignore, dismiss, and harp on old right wing loony conspiracy theories. What else should we expect from you?

Aren't we all working together here? We be a team?
Right.

...who runs out of logical arguments.


I'm still waiting on you to make one. You said I was changing the subject, so I'm waiting on you to continue the conversation with rational, logical arguments. Hopefully it will be something more substantial than trying to convince me that HC really believes the Russians were setting up TG for a sexual predator.


He named names and had emails and phone records, but go ahead, ignore, dismiss, and harp on old right wing loony conspiracy theories. What else should we expect from you?

You know the details of what was said in a private deposition? From what I have read, it is just more of he said/she said. At some point you have to come up with real evidence. In the meantime, Ukrainian officials continue to say...well, you know.

I'm still waiting on you to make one. You said I was changing the subject, so I'm waiting on you to continue the conversation with rational, logical arguments. Hopefully it will be something more substantial than trying to convince me that HC really believes the Russians were setting up TG for a sexual predator.
That makes absolutely no sense. Whatchu bin readin', Willis???

That makes absolutely no sense. Whatchu bin readin', Willis???

Yes. And therein lies the problem.

That's not a problem, it is an admission

WG, maybe we can agree on something. HC said that TG was a "Russian asset" being "groomed" by the Russians. Now maybe she meant TG was an unwitting participant. Maybe she meant TG was involved in a conspiracy with the Russians. None of us know for sure what she meant.

Can you agree to that?

I cannot!, as I thought HC's warning was crystal clear beyond the politis. It's not about JS or TG, but VLAD!

WG, maybe we can agree on something. HC said that TG was a "Russian asset" being "groomed" by the Russians. Now maybe she meant TG was an unwitting participant. Maybe she meant TG was involved in a conspiracy with the Russians. None of us know for sure what she meant.

Can you agree to that?
She said TG is a Russian asset and is being groomed by them. That's difficult to understand?

She said TG is a Russian asset and is being groomed by them. That's difficult to understand?

I cannot!, as I thought HC's warning was crystal clear beyond the politis. It's not about JS or TG, but VLAD!


Forget it. You would have had to pay attention to the fifty posts prior.

Forget it. You would have had to pay attention to the fifty posts prior.
Someone didn't. ;)

Someone didn't. ;)

Exactly.

Well the House repubs answered the dufus rally cry to defend him better after damning reports about the Amb. Taylor impeachment testimony by storming the chamber and delaying the inquiry by 5 hours. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-republicans-demand-democrats-call-whistleblower-to-testify-publicly/ar-AAJfXGL?ocid=spartanntp) I've seen such stunts before by repubs and dems and they never work but done any way.

Usually the minority party is pretty helpless to stop whatever the majority is doing, but I suppose it makes good news by rallying the troops.

I can't imagine why they would be upset about this. "As members of the minority, House Republicans do not have the authority to call witnesses themselves, unless given the power to do so by the Democratic majority."

Just another ridiculous aspect of what is becoming a kangaroo court.

I remember when these things were negotiated between them out of the public eye, actually they still are, but every party takes depositions behind closed doors, and repubs in the House have 37 members in those meetings with the same rights as the dems.

The dufus REQUIRES a public show of loyalty though. Makes it rather hard on House repubs. Moscow Mitch said the other day that he never even talked to the dufus about the Ukraine call, let alone praise how perfect it was, so the dufus lies again as he did about recapturing those escaped ISIS prisoners, blown up by Jim Jeffers his special representative to Syria. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/100-isis-prisoners-are-now-at-large-e2-80-94-we-do-not-know-where-they-are-a-us-official-says/ar-AAJeP50)

repubs in the House have 37 members in those meetings with the same rights as the dems.

No, they don't. They cannot call witnesses.

No, they don't. They cannot call witnesses.

Yes that may be true, but the minority can ask questions and have the same time allotted as the majority. They can ask the chairman to add a witness, but I have no idea how often that is granted by either party.

So they don't have the same rights.

I guess not.

You do realize that this is TWO TIMES this week that we have agreed on something. Does it feel a little eerie?

Naw, it's a HOPEFUL sign that two people can find agreement after some rather stubborn and oft times highly contentious and protracted back and forth. Man look at the range of topics we go through. I forgot what we butted heads on last week. Don't worry though JL, that eerie feeling you have will be short lived once we get another topic to jump into.

Coffee HOT?

8}

*popping popcorn and adjusting reading glasses*

Coffee HOT?

Where do you live relative to Austin?

I reside in North Texas, Fort Worth to be exact, right down the highway from Dallas. The Cowboys and Rangers play 10 minutes away.

*popping popcorn and adjusting reading glasses*

You got the routine down pat. I prefer bags of white cheddar though because I'm LAZY.

Talaniman: I didn't know you were a Texan! Well, I don't know if by birth or not,.....I have done a lot of work over the years in Orange, Texarkana, and Silsbee....have flown into DFW to drive up through Plano and go to Valliant, Okl., where I stayed in Idabel (what a sad town!). Love East Texas!

I have a parent born here so many peeps, I worked in the steel mills up north until I retired and came down here, but I have lived in MANY cities in the area including Plano, and in Irving right next to the DF...dub. All my summers as a kid were spent here, so where else would I go to escape those bitter winters and Lake effect snow?

Talaniman: I get it: You have go with what feels right, where your spirit feels at ease.....I could never imagine living anywhere except S.C., Ga., or Fla., its in my soul....and have to be in reach of the salt water....that's in my veins!

I get over to Dallas every once in a blue moon. Went to Bible College there. I'm gonna drop by some day. If you ever pass through Meridian, MS, then I'll buy you coffee.

jlisenbe: I did some work once about 25-30 years ago at a Roofing/Shingle plant in Meridian....I believe it was ATLAS? ATLAS ROOFING...can't really remember now? Anyway, I remember having to throw away all my clothes from there because I got the glass additive component into them and it irritated the hell out of my skin.

jlisenbe: I did some work once about 25-30 years ago at a Roofing/Shingle plant in Meridian....I believe it was ATLAS? ATLAS ROOFING...can't really remember now? Anyway, I remember having to throw away all my clothes from there because I got the glass additive component into them and it irritated the hell out of my skin.

No safety equipment like a paper suit? Masks, filters, eye protection, gloves? I remember all the stuff we use to do before OSHA showed up.

I've driven through the Panhandle on our way to visit the fire ants on our vacant land west of Kingman. And have been friends for years with the now-retired Plainview public library director. And for 4.5 years have emailed/messaged daily with a young man who lives between Paris and Texarkana. Do these count?

I've driven through the Panhandle on our way to visit the fire ants on our vacant land west of Kingman. And have been friends for years with the now-retired Plainview public library director. And for 4.5 years have emailed/messaged daily with a young man who lives between Paris and Texarkana. Do these count?

Sure they count. For what I'm not sure but Texas is so vast with so many small towns spread out all over the place you can't remember them all.

I've driven through the Panhandle on our way to visit the fire ants on our vacant land west of Kingman. And have been friends for years with the now-retired Plainview public library director. And for 4.5 years have emailed/messaged daily with a young man who lives between Paris and Texarkana. Do these count?

Fire ants - ha ha.

This is getting to be a daily morning kaffe-klatch. I can almost tell who gets up when and who had their morning coffee. (smile)

As for grumpy old me, I won't join until cheeseburgerhead is tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

How long, O Lord, how long?