(05-26-2022 07:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='18250949' dateline='1653592001']
>> But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons.

Well, there are a number of states that have holdover laws, mind you. By my redneck sense ot time, those will kick right at the moment that Roe is overturned (if that does indeed happen). That seems to cut straight across your 'for a while' analysis. But then again, thats just a redneck gander at timing. Do those count in your astute calculus above?

You misunderstood what I was saying there (and were unnecessarily rude to boot).

Coming from the [] that that so nicely noted "I doubt you knew of a Senator from Delaware 40 years ago" a few hours ago you sure are a fing pile of laughs with that snively observation and retort. Amazing that.

I quite literally posted that all we were doing was lobbing personal grenades at each other after that post, because it is all we were doing. Substance had long gone out the window and it was just personal insult after personal insult. If you missed it, here is the link:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-948069-post-18...id18250564

I hope that post, and the one you just responded to, were clarifyinPoindexter.

Saw it the first time, poindexter.

I guess the world's smartest guy doesn't see the long term irony between his whiny comments now and has ****** art9gznt as fk comments that he hasn't answered for.

Bummer.

(05-26-2022 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 07:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='18250949' dateline='1653592001']
>> But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons.

Well, there are a number of states that have holdover laws, mind you. By my redneck sense ot time, those will kick right at the moment that Roe is overturned (if that does indeed happen). That seems to cut straight across your 'for a while' analysis. But then again, thats just a redneck gander at timing. Do those count in your astute calculus above?

You misunderstood what I was saying there (and were unnecessarily rude to boot).

Coming from the [] that that so nicely noted "I doubt you knew of a Senator from Delaware 40 years ago" a few hours ago you sure are a fing pile of laughs with that snively observation and retort. Amazing that.

I quite literally posted that all we were doing was lobbing personal grenades at each other after that post, because it is all we were doing. Substance had long gone out the window and it was just personal insult after personal insult. If you missed it, here is the link:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-948069-post-18...id18250564

I hope that post, and the one you just responded to, were clarifyinPoindexter.

Saw it the first time, poindexter.

I guess the world's smartest guy doesn't see the long term irony between his whiny comments now and has ****** art9gznt as fk comments that he hasn't answered for.

Bummer.

I’m not sure what the mistyped/misspelled comments were, but I doubt it matters.

If you want to have a conversation let’s do that, but we’ve both wasted enough time needlessly insulting each other and it’s just not worth it to me to engage in it at the moment.

If you want to continue to call me names and personally insult me, that’s your prerogative. I’m going to try and avoid to do that as best I can.

(05-26-2022 07:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, I appreciate the clarification, as your previous posts made it sound like you felt that states would react in a moderate manner and that abortion bans like this wouldn’t occur, and that the trigger laws had just been political stunts.

EVENTUALLY, I think most, maybe all states will come to some more or less reasonable accomodation of abortion - some more, some less. The trigger laws were just political. I don't thinkk anybody expected the SC to return it to the states.

Quote:That there would always be allowable elective abortions, but there would be varying timeframes as to when those become illegal.

That is exactly what the landscape will look like - in 2-4 years.

Quote:So does that mean you don’t think the trigger laws were political stunts since you believe some states will end up with abortion bans?

I have said several times they were just stunts to appeal to a certain base. I don't believe there will be any states that end up with bans, but certainly some will be more restrictive than others.

Quote:And does that mean you expected some states to ban all instances of elective abortions like Oklahoma has?

In the long run, I believe no state will ban all instances. In the short run, the trigger laws will take effect.

Man, you have nearly everything I said backward.

(05-26-2022 08:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 07:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='18250949' dateline='1653592001']
>> But I think that will not happen in many states for a while for a few reasons.

Well, there are a number of states that have holdover laws, mind you. By my redneck sense ot time, those will kick right at the moment that Roe is overturned (if that does indeed happen). That seems to cut straight across your 'for a while' analysis. But then again, thats just a redneck gander at timing. Do those count in your astute calculus above?

You misunderstood what I was saying there (and were unnecessarily rude to boot).

Coming from the [] that that so nicely noted "I doubt you knew of a Senator from Delaware 40 years ago" a few hours ago you sure are a fing pile of laughs with that snively observation and retort. Amazing that.

I quite literally posted that all we were doing was lobbing personal grenades at each other after that post, because it is all we were doing. Substance had long gone out the window and it was just personal insult after personal insult. If you missed it, here is the link:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-948069-post-18...id18250564

I hope that post, and the one you just responded to, were clarifyinPoindexter.

Saw it the first time, poindexter.

I guess the world's smartest guy doesn't see the long term irony between his whiny comments now and has ****** art9gznt as fk comments that he hasn't answered for.

Bummer.

I’m not sure what the mistyped/misspelled comments were, but I doubt it matters.

If you want to have a conversation let’s do that, but we’ve both wasted enough time needlessly insulting each other and it’s just not worth it to me to engage in it at the moment.

If you want to continue to call me names and personally insult me, that’s your prerogative. I’m going to try and avoid to do that as best I can.

That mis-type was a bright room attempt at 'arrogant'.

What do you call someone who says 'I seriously doubt you had any idea who Joe Biden was 40 years ago'? Informed? On top of it? Diplomatic?

Funny, most of us over 55 will have known who Joe was in the 80's, much to the opposite of your whiny as **** pulling it out of your wet behind the ears comment. So really noting your utter arrogance as to that may probably be more closer to the truth than a personal insult.

Again, perhaps you wish to regale us of your life experience in that time as to Joe, maybe a comment on his plagiarism in his presidential run, or his comments during the original borking to buttress you all fing knowing comment about knowledge about Slow Joe at that time.

Ooops, I forgot. You werent even alive at that point to buttress your whiny retort as to that. Imagine that.

Honestly, if I was to challenge #s over knowledge of events that took place during his teens and twenties and even just as I was born, I dont think I would hesitate to denote an arrogance to that.

Apparently you are fing omniscient thus not arrogant as to that.

Glad to know.

No name calling there, lad. Just a statement of fact. Live with it.

(05-26-2022 08:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 07:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, I appreciate the clarification, as your previous posts made it sound like you felt that states would react in a moderate manner and that abortion bans like this wouldn’t occur, and that the trigger laws had just been political stunts.

EVENTUALLY, I think most, maybe all states will come to some more or less reasonable accomodation of abortion - some more, some less. The trigger laws were just political. I don't thinkk anybody expected the SC to return it to the states.

Quote:That there would always be allowable elective abortions, but there would be varying timeframes as to when those become illegal.

That is exactly what the landscape will look like - in 2-4 years.

Quote:So does that mean you don’t think the trigger laws were political stunts since you believe some states will end up with abortion bans?

I have said several times they were just stunts to appeal to a certain base. I don't believe there will be any states that end up with bans, but certainly some will be more restrictive than others.

Quote:And does that mean you expected some states to ban all instances of elective abortions like Oklahoma has?

In the long run, I believe no state will ban all instances. In the short run, the trigger laws will take effect.

Man, you have nearly everything I said backward.

/Gomer Pyle mode on

Surprise surprise surprise

/Gomer Pyle mode off

(05-26-2022 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 07:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, I appreciate the clarification, as your previous posts made it sound like you felt that states would react in a moderate manner and that abortion bans like this wouldn’t occur, and that the trigger laws had just been political stunts.

EVENTUALLY, I think most, maybe all states will come to some more or less reasonable accomodation of abortion - some more, some less. The trigger laws were just political. I don't thinkk anybody expected the SC to return it to the states.

Quote:That there would always be allowable elective abortions, but there would be varying timeframes as to when those become illegal.

That is exactly what the landscape will look like - in 2-4 years.

Quote:So does that mean you don’t think the trigger laws were political stunts since you believe some states will end up with abortion bans?

I have said several times they were just stunts to appeal to a certain base. I don't believe there will be any states that end up with bans, but certainly some will be more restrictive than others.

Quote:And does that mean you expected some states to ban all instances of elective abortions like Oklahoma has?

In the long run, I believe no state will ban all instances. In the short run, the trigger laws will take effect.

Man, you have nearly everything I said backward.

/Gomer Pyle mode on

Surprise surprise surprise

/Gomer Pyle mode off

So does that mean you don’t think the trigger laws were political stunts since you believe some states will end up with abortion bans? Just backward from what I said.

Shazam.

(05-26-2022 10:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 07:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, I appreciate the clarification, as your previous posts made it sound like you felt that states would react in a moderate manner and that abortion bans like this wouldn’t occur, and that the trigger laws had just been political stunts.

EVENTUALLY, I think most, maybe all states will come to some more or less reasonable accomodation of abortion - some more, some less. The trigger laws were just political. I don't thinkk anybody expected the SC to return it to the states.

Quote:That there would always be allowable elective abortions, but there would be varying timeframes as to when those become illegal.

That is exactly what the landscape will look like - in 2-4 years.

Quote:So does that mean you don’t think the trigger laws were political stunts since you believe some states will end up with abortion bans?

I have said several times they were just stunts to appeal to a certain base. I don't believe there will be any states that end up with bans, but certainly some will be more restrictive than others.

Quote:And does that mean you expected some states to ban all instances of elective abortions like Oklahoma has?

In the long run, I believe no state will ban all instances. In the short run, the trigger laws will take effect.

Man, you have nearly everything I said backward.

/Gomer Pyle mode on

Surprise surprise surprise

/Gomer Pyle mode off

So does that mean you don’t think the trigger laws were political stunts since you believe some states will end up with abortion bans? Just backward from what I said.

Shazam.

Watch him go to town on inherencies and implications and all the other jive shuffle steps he puts on as a nightclub act as a response where he really isnt wrong. Like the pile of garbage where 'all' really means 'not all'. Kind of amazing when you really look at it as a whole body of work.

Especially when he says 'I demand your reasons -- here are mine'.

Then starts his 'you have no reasons' schtick.

When I do answer, saying that his reasons stand in part, then there are others. And yes the SLow Joe administration is responsible for many of the issues or even a substantial number, yet not all -- like a detective he says "Oh so really ALL".

I mean, jeezus fing krist you cant make that **** up.

Not even going to get into his crappy parsing of him stating where I defended Cruz being in Uvalde, and when I said I didnt defend anything about Ted 'in the manner he brings up above', he charges head long into 'AHA, but you *did* defend him over a fing year ago on something else.'

Its like he magically reformulates everything in the world to what the little guy wants and needs to hear. Gets frightfully stupid after a bit.

I really had it last night when the little guy said 'there is no way you could remember anything about Slow Joe from 35-40 years ago' --- notwithstanding Slow has been in the national scene for 40 years. The **** he just makes up on the fly is just astounding. And the ire he shows when his crappy rhetoric that many times use 'all', or 'never', or other forms of extreme words dont pan out because of HIS choice of words.

(05-26-2022 08:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 07:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, I appreciate the clarification, as your previous posts made it sound like you felt that states would react in a moderate manner and that abortion bans like this wouldn’t occur, and that the trigger laws had just been political stunts.

EVENTUALLY, I think most, maybe all states will come to some more or less reasonable accomodation of abortion - some more, some less. The trigger laws were just political. I don't thinkk anybody expected the SC to return it to the states.

Quote:That there would always be allowable elective abortions, but there would be varying timeframes as to when those become illegal.

That is exactly what the landscape will look like - in 2-4 years.

Quote:So does that mean you don’t think the trigger laws were political stunts since you believe some states will end up with abortion bans?

I have said several times they were just stunts to appeal to a certain base. I don't believe there will be any states that end up with bans, but certainly some will be more restrictive than others.

Quote:And does that mean you expected some states to ban all instances of elective abortions like Oklahoma has?

In the long run, I believe no state will ban all instances. In the short run, the trigger laws will take effect.

Man, you have nearly everything I said backward.

I appreciate you clarifying your position.

We’ll have to check back in 2 to 4 years then, to see where states end up. Until then, we’ll see what direction states move, and unfortunately, there will be 2 to 4 years where women in these states are negatively impacted as they have access to abortion services restricted (which is already happening and I think will continue to happen in other states).

So far, I’m not hopeful that no other states will join Oklahoma and severely restrict abortion access - enacting laws such as theirs, where there is no hope of an elective abortion.

I think we will see numerous states engage, and maintain, overly restrictive abortion laws for the reasons I’ve articulated to Tanq.

(05-27-2022 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 10:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 07:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, I appreciate the clarification, as your previous posts made it sound like you felt that states would react in a moderate manner and that abortion bans like this wouldn’t occur, and that the trigger laws had just been political stunts.

EVENTUALLY, I think most, maybe all states will come to some more or less reasonable accomodation of abortion - some more, some less. The trigger laws were just political. I don't thinkk anybody expected the SC to return it to the states.

Quote:That there would always be allowable elective abortions, but there would be varying timeframes as to when those become illegal.

That is exactly what the landscape will look like - in 2-4 years.

Quote:So does that mean you don’t think the trigger laws were political stunts since you believe some states will end up with abortion bans?

I have said several times they were just stunts to appeal to a certain base. I don't believe there will be any states that end up with bans, but certainly some will be more restrictive than others.

Quote:And does that mean you expected some states to ban all instances of elective abortions like Oklahoma has?

In the long run, I believe no state will ban all instances. In the short run, the trigger laws will take effect.

Man, you have nearly everything I said backward.

/Gomer Pyle mode on

Surprise surprise surprise

/Gomer Pyle mode off

So does that mean you don’t think the trigger laws were political stunts since you believe some states will end up with abortion bans? Just backward from what I said.

Shazam.

Watch him go to town on inherencies and implications and all the other jive shuffle steps he puts on as a nightclub act as a response where he really isnt wrong. Like the pile of garbage where 'all' really means 'not all'. Kind of amazing when you really look at it as a whole body of work.

Especially when he says 'I demand your reasons -- here are mine'.

Then starts his 'you have no reasons' schtick.

When I do answer, saying that his reasons stand in part, then there are others. And yes the SLow Joe administration is responsible for many of the issues or even a substantial number, yet not all -- like a detective he says "Oh so really ALL".

I mean, jeezus fing krist you cant make that **** up.

Not even going to get into his crappy parsing of him stating where I defended Cruz being in Uvalde, and when I said I didnt defend anything about Ted 'in the manner he brings up above', he charges head long into 'AHA, but you *did* defend him over a fing year ago on something else.'

Its like he magically reformulates everything in the world to what the little guy wants and needs to hear. Gets frightfully stupid after a bit.

I really had it last night when the little guy said 'there is no way you could remember anything about Slow Joe from 35-40 years ago' --- notwithstanding Slow has been in the national scene for 40 years. The **** he just makes up on the fly is just astounding. And the ire he shows when his crappy rhetoric that many times use 'all', or 'never', or other forms of extreme words dont pan out because of HIS choice of words.

Ok.

For those worried about a partisan SCOTUS:

win for emvironmentalists

I am confidant that the six justices considered conservative will continue to make their decisions based on the Constitution.

(05-27-2022 09:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  For those worried about a partisan SCOTUS:

win for emvironmentalists

I am confidant that the six justices considered conservative will continue to make their decisions based on the Constitution.

Which is exactly what leftists deliberately refuse to understand: that Constitutional faithfulness is not a political ideology, but simply a principle of judicial decision-making, rooted in the notion that judges are not supposed to make things up based on their own wishes.

In contrast, the godfather of current leftist jurisprudential theory is Roger Taney, author of Dred Scott v. Sanford, who infamously (and disastrously) made things up based on his own wishes. But for some reason, nearly all leftists are too dense to realize that.

The irony is that the core of leftist self-perception is the conceit that they have the lion's share of intelligence. So why many of them persist, decade after decade, in being too stupid (or pretending to be too stupid) to understand this simple concept is a mystery.

Alito’s reasoning

https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/naked-hunt...un-photos/

Would Hunter trigger a red flag?

Remember this is the shitbird the MSM and major social media went all in to suppress news about during the election.

And, I seem to remember a comment on how dare people have distrust of MSM from one of the erstwhile posters here on the left.

(06-07-2022 01:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/naked-hunt...un-photos/

Would Hunter trigger a red flag?

Remember this is the shitbird the MSM and major social media went all in to suppress news about during the election.

And, I seem to remember a comment on how dare people have distrust of MSM from one of the erstwhile posters here on the left.

Are you referring to me?

(06-07-2022 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 01:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/naked-hunt...un-photos/

Would Hunter trigger a red flag?

Remember this is the shitbird the MSM and major social media went all in to suppress news about during the election.

And, I seem to remember a comment on how dare people have distrust of MSM from one of the erstwhile posters here on the left.

Are you referring to me?

Don’t know. I remember a comment noting a complaint earlier. Didn’t remember who said it, not worth my time or effort to search for it.

(06-07-2022 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 01:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/naked-hunt...un-photos/

Would Hunter trigger a red flag?

Remember this is the shitbird the MSM and major social media went all in to suppress news about during the election.

And, I seem to remember a comment on how dare people have distrust of MSM from one of the erstwhile posters here on the left.

Are you referring to me?

Don’t know. I remember a comment noting a complaint earlier. Didn’t remember who said it, not worth my time or effort to search for it.

Asking because I had a back and forth with Owl#s about the quality of sources, but it was a very different conversation than whether or not people could, or should, rightfully distrust the MSM.

I also don't remember 93 (or Big, who has popped back up), commenting in way that should elicit your response.

To add, if you don't remember the specific comment or who said it, is it a good idea to ascribe that to one of the people who post here?

(06-07-2022 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 01:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/naked-hunt...un-photos/

Would Hunter trigger a red flag?

Remember this is the shitbird the MSM and major social media went all in to suppress news about during the election.

And, I seem to remember a comment on how dare people have distrust of MSM from one of the erstwhile posters here on the left.

Are you referring to me?

Don’t know. I remember a comment noting a complaint earlier. Didn’t remember who said it, not worth my time or effort to search for it.

Asking because I had a back and forth with Owl#s about the quality of sources, but it was a very different conversation than whether or not people could, or should, rightfully distrust the MSM.

I also don't remember 93 (or Big, who has popped back up), commenting in way that should elicit your response.

To add, if you don't remember the specific comment or who said it, is it a good idea to ascribe that to one of the people who post here?

I remember the fairly stupid attribution one made on something about those that think all MSM information == outright lies.

As I said, not worth my time to search and attribute. Nor worth my time to get into an argument about nothing with you.

(06-07-2022 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 01:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/naked-hunt...un-photos/

Would Hunter trigger a red flag?

Remember this is the shitbird the MSM and major social media went all in to suppress news about during the election.

And, I seem to remember a comment on how dare people have distrust of MSM from one of the erstwhile posters here on the left.

Are you referring to me?

Don’t know. I remember a comment noting a complaint earlier. Didn’t remember who said it, not worth my time or effort to search for it.

Asking because I had a back and forth with Owl#s about the quality of sources, but it was a very different conversation than whether or not people could, or should, rightfully distrust the MSM.

I also don't remember 93 (or Big, who has popped back up), commenting in way that should elicit your response.

To add, if you don't remember the specific comment or who said it, is it a good idea to ascribe that to one of the people who post here?

I definitely haven't said anything close to that. I have stated more than once how biased I believe that most news sources are these days. I don't remember Big saying it either.

Tanq has got this one wrong.

(06-07-2022 03:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 01:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/naked-hunt...un-photos/

Would Hunter trigger a red flag?

Remember this is the shitbird the MSM and major social media went all in to suppress news about during the election.

And, I seem to remember a comment on how dare people have distrust of MSM from one of the erstwhile posters here on the left.

Are you referring to me?

Don’t know. I remember a comment noting a complaint earlier. Didn’t remember who said it, not worth my time or effort to search for it.

Asking because I had a back and forth with Owl#s about the quality of sources, but it was a very different conversation than whether or not people could, or should, rightfully distrust the MSM.

I also don't remember 93 (or Big, who has popped back up), commenting in way that should elicit your response.

To add, if you don't remember the specific comment or who said it, is it a good idea to ascribe that to one of the people who post here?

I remember the fairly stupid attribution one made on something about those that think all MSM information == outright lies.

As I said, not worth my time to search and attribute. Nor worth my time to get into an argument about nothing with you.

You talking about post 538 in the Biden failures thread?

(06-07-2022 03:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 01:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/naked-hunt...un-photos/

Would Hunter trigger a red flag?

Remember this is the shitbird the MSM and major social media went all in to suppress news about during the election.

And, I seem to remember a comment on how dare people have distrust of MSM from one of the erstwhile posters here on the left.

Are you referring to me?

Don’t know. I remember a comment noting a complaint earlier. Didn’t remember who said it, not worth my time or effort to search for it.

Asking because I had a back and forth with Owl#s about the quality of sources, but it was a very different conversation than whether or not people could, or should, rightfully distrust the MSM.

I also don't remember 93 (or Big, who has popped back up), commenting in way that should elicit your response.

To add, if you don't remember the specific comment or who said it, is it a good idea to ascribe that to one of the people who post here?

I remember the fairly stupid attribution one made on something about those that think all MSM information == outright lies.

As I said, not worth my time to search and attribute. Nor worth my time to get into an argument about nothing with you.

That was me from earlier.

In no way should you have read it that I believe that news sources aren't biased as hell. Give me more credit than that given the amount of times I have said exactly that.

I just thought it was interesting that CNN had an article that one would not have been suprrsed to find on the frontpage of foxnews.com. It basically said Democrats were going to lose control of liberal stronghold cities because people are so pissed off about law and order/approach to the homeless, etc.