(08-01-2024 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 02:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

Don't expect a response.

See?

lol

It is not surprising to some on this board that the real world and all it has to offer, can often get in the way of responding to a post within 24 hours.

You have 3.5 hours once a question is posed. Then OO starts freaking out.

(08-01-2024 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 02:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

Don't expect a response.

See?

lol

It is not surprising to some on this board that the real world and all it has to offer, can often get in the way of responding to a post within 24 hours.

You haven't responded yet. But you have the time to tell us you are busy in the real world.

Quote:Oversight Project@OversightPR

NON-CITIZENS REGISTERED IN GA

Footage obtained by @realmuckraker
shows numerous non-citizens admitting to being registered voters.

A staggering 14% of the non-citizens spoken to admitted to being registered to voters.

{VIDEO SHOWING ILLEGAL, REGISTERED VOTERS (a Crime)}

5:34 PM · Jul 31, 2024

Tell Legal American Citizens again how this is all in the imagination....NOT!
FACT: Illegal criminals were let into the US INTENTIONALLY and ILLEGALLY to steal yet another election.
FACT:DEmocrats and RINOs are Liars and Cheaters.

(08-01-2024 07:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 02:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

Don't expect a response.

See?

lol

It is not surprising to some on this board that the real world and all it has to offer, can often get in the way of responding to a post within 24 hours.

You have 3.5 hours once a question is posed. Then OO starts freaking out.

I didn't pose a question, nor have you responded to George's question.

QED.

Good grief, you and lad are so predictable. Rather than respond to a question, you prefer to act like you have been imposed upon. You will take time to air your grievance, but not to respond to the question.

(08-01-2024 08:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 07:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 02:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Don't expect a response.

See?

lol

It is not surprising to some on this board that the real world and all it has to offer, can often get in the way of responding to a post within 24 hours.

You have 3.5 hours once a question is posed. Then OO starts freaking out.

I didn't pose a question, nor have you responded to George's question.

You didn’t pose a question and yet you immediately took up the mantle of demanding a response.

Plus… is it not clear that when you say things like “Don’t expect an answer!” that nobody wants to feel goaded into a discussion? Speaking for myself here it is annoying.

Quote:QED.

Good grief, you and lad are so predictable. Rather than respond to a question, you prefer to act like you have been imposed upon. You will take time to air your grievance, but not to respond to the question.

Good grief. I have been busy and was not involved in today’s discussion. The question was not posed to me. I read some comments today and made a joke about your oh-so-typical behavior. Don’t have time to deep-dive this discussion though.

certainly is different:

https://x.com/ValentinaForSOS

https://www.instagram.com/valentinaformissouri/

(08-01-2024 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 02:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

Don't expect a response.

See?

lol

It is not surprising to some on this board that the real world and all it has to offer, can often get in the way of responding to a post within 24 hours.

You haven't responded yet. But you have the time to tell us you are busy in the real world.

Yep - I wrote that while walking the dog, in between single parenting while my wife was out of town, and catching up on work after being out of office.

It requires much less brain power and time to respond to these idiotic posts than to actually have a substantive back and forth.

(08-02-2024 05:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 02:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Don't expect a response.

See?

lol

It is not surprising to some on this board that the real world and all it has to offer, can often get in the way of responding to a post within 24 hours.

You haven't responded yet. But you have the time to tell us you are busy in the real world.

Yep - I wrote that while walking the dog, in between single parenting while my wife was out of town, and catching up on work after being out of office.

It requires much less brain power and time to respond to these idiotic posts than to actually have a substantive back and forth.

Well, whatever small amount of brainpower it takes to respond, you saved it.

I don't think anybody was expecting a substantive back and forth. Don't know why you or all people would be.

But, FTR, here is the question you have spent much time and effort in dodging:

Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

A simple, factual response, could have been done a long time ago, as in (example)

California, at Trump's behest, enacted a total abortion ban. (or whatever did in fact occur)

However, I predicted a response of any kind would not be forthcoming, and indeed it has not. Thus the QED.

You guys spend more time fussing about being asked questions than you would answering them.

BTW, hard to tell if your single parenting remark refers to the dog or to an actual human child, but if the latter, congratulations. Being a good dad is the highest calling for a man that I know.

(08-02-2024 08:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 05:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  See?

lol

It is not surprising to some on this board that the real world and all it has to offer, can often get in the way of responding to a post within 24 hours.

You haven't responded yet. But you have the time to tell us you are busy in the real world.

Yep - I wrote that while walking the dog, in between single parenting while my wife was out of town, and catching up on work after being out of office.

It requires much less brain power and time to respond to these idiotic posts than to actually have a substantive back and forth.

Well, whatever small amount of brainpower it takes to respond, you saved it.

I don't think anybody was expecting a substantive back and forth. Don't know why you or all people would be.

But, FTR, here is the question you have spent much time and effort in dodging:

Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

A simple, factual response, could have been done a long time ago, as in (example)

California, at Trump's behest, enacted a total abortion ban. (or whatever did in fact occur)

However, I predicted a response of any kind would not be forthcoming, and indeed it has not. Thus the QED.

You guys spend more time fussing about being asked questions than you would answering them.

BTW, hard to tell if your single parenting remark refers to the dog or to an actual human child, but if the latter, congratulations. Being a good dad is the highest calling for a man that I know.

Now with a little time looking back at the exchange it certainly seemed that George's original question that made OO set his timer was rhetorical? I think that everybody knows that super-liberal states have not placed any severe restrictions on abortion.

I think the overall point that Tanq made is correct, though. Republicans stupidly decided to wax poetic about national abortion bans and actually enact extreme abortion laws in many states right before the 2024 election. This stuff is wildly unpopular to moderate/swing voters. Dems are going to slam them incessantly on this issue. Oof.

Of course... Dems have their own dumb things they can't stop doing as well...

(08-02-2024 09:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 08:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 05:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  lol

It is not surprising to some on this board that the real world and all it has to offer, can often get in the way of responding to a post within 24 hours.

You haven't responded yet. But you have the time to tell us you are busy in the real world.

Yep - I wrote that while walking the dog, in between single parenting while my wife was out of town, and catching up on work after being out of office.

It requires much less brain power and time to respond to these idiotic posts than to actually have a substantive back and forth.

Well, whatever small amount of brainpower it takes to respond, you saved it.

I don't think anybody was expecting a substantive back and forth. Don't know why you or all people would be.

But, FTR, here is the question you have spent much time and effort in dodging:

Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

A simple, factual response, could have been done a long time ago, as in (example)

California, at Trump's behest, enacted a total abortion ban. (or whatever did in fact occur)

However, I predicted a response of any kind would not be forthcoming, and indeed it has not. Thus the QED.

You guys spend more time fussing about being asked questions than you would answering them.

BTW, hard to tell if your single parenting remark refers to the dog or to an actual human child, but if the latter, congratulations. Being a good dad is the highest calling for a man that I know.

Now with a little time looking back at the exchange it certainly seemed that George's original question that made OO set his timer was rhetorical? I think that everybody knows that super-liberal states have not placed any severe restrictions on abortion.

I think the overall point that Tanq made is correct, though. Republicans stupidly decided to wax poetic about national abortion bans and actually enact extreme abortion laws in many states right before the 2024 election. This stuff is wildly unpopular to moderate/swing voters. Dems are going to slam them incessantly on this issue. Oof.

Of course... Dems have their own dumb things they can't stop doing as well...

I agree it was rhetorical, kind of.

Point(s) are, (1) a national ban cannot be enacted on a matter returned to the states, and (2) Trump and a majority of Republicans have not asked for that, and (3) therefore the Dems are lying through their discolored teeth when they say Trump wants to enact a national abortion ban.

Of course, the rhetorical question was in response to this not-so-rhetorical statement:

RiceLad15 Wrote:
Also, as Tanq said, the narrative that many liberals were told was false (that “returning this issue to the states” was just code for severely restricting abortion access), has turned out to be true.

I don't care one way or the other about abortion. What moves my meter are economics and foreign policy. But I do enjoy pointing out the inconsistencies and outright lies in the pro-abortion claims.

(08-02-2024 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 09:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 08:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 05:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You haven't responded yet. But you have the time to tell us you are busy in the real world.

Yep - I wrote that while walking the dog, in between single parenting while my wife was out of town, and catching up on work after being out of office.

It requires much less brain power and time to respond to these idiotic posts than to actually have a substantive back and forth.

Well, whatever small amount of brainpower it takes to respond, you saved it.

I don't think anybody was expecting a substantive back and forth. Don't know why you or all people would be.

But, FTR, here is the question you have spent much time and effort in dodging:

Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

A simple, factual response, could have been done a long time ago, as in (example)

California, at Trump's behest, enacted a total abortion ban. (or whatever did in fact occur)

However, I predicted a response of any kind would not be forthcoming, and indeed it has not. Thus the QED.

You guys spend more time fussing about being asked questions than you would answering them.

BTW, hard to tell if your single parenting remark refers to the dog or to an actual human child, but if the latter, congratulations. Being a good dad is the highest calling for a man that I know.

Now with a little time looking back at the exchange it certainly seemed that George's original question that made OO set his timer was rhetorical? I think that everybody knows that super-liberal states have not placed any severe restrictions on abortion.

I think the overall point that Tanq made is correct, though. Republicans stupidly decided to wax poetic about national abortion bans and actually enact extreme abortion laws in many states right before the 2024 election. This stuff is wildly unpopular to moderate/swing voters. Dems are going to slam them incessantly on this issue. Oof.

Of course... Dems have their own dumb things they can't stop doing as well...

I agree it was rhetorical, kind of.

Point(s) are, (1) a national ban cannot be enacted on a matter returned to the states, and (2) Trump and a majority of Republicans have not asked for that, and (3) therefore the Dems are lying through their discolored teeth when they say Trump wants to enact a national abortion ban.

Really? You do know that Trump seemed initially supportive of Project 2025 and of those groups that were putting this "action plan" together? And then when people realized how extreme Project 2025 he tried to distance himself?

You do know that Trump picked a running mate that had voiced support for a national ban on abortion in the past?

So there's plenty of reasons to think that there is some interest in a national abortion ban from Republicans.

(08-02-2024 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 09:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 08:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 05:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep - I wrote that while walking the dog, in between single parenting while my wife was out of town, and catching up on work after being out of office.

It requires much less brain power and time to respond to these idiotic posts than to actually have a substantive back and forth.

Well, whatever small amount of brainpower it takes to respond, you saved it.

I don't think anybody was expecting a substantive back and forth. Don't know why you or all people would be.

But, FTR, here is the question you have spent much time and effort in dodging:

Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

A simple, factual response, could have been done a long time ago, as in (example)

California, at Trump's behest, enacted a total abortion ban. (or whatever did in fact occur)

However, I predicted a response of any kind would not be forthcoming, and indeed it has not. Thus the QED.

You guys spend more time fussing about being asked questions than you would answering them.

BTW, hard to tell if your single parenting remark refers to the dog or to an actual human child, but if the latter, congratulations. Being a good dad is the highest calling for a man that I know.

Now with a little time looking back at the exchange it certainly seemed that George's original question that made OO set his timer was rhetorical? I think that everybody knows that super-liberal states have not placed any severe restrictions on abortion.

I think the overall point that Tanq made is correct, though. Republicans stupidly decided to wax poetic about national abortion bans and actually enact extreme abortion laws in many states right before the 2024 election. This stuff is wildly unpopular to moderate/swing voters. Dems are going to slam them incessantly on this issue. Oof.

Of course... Dems have their own dumb things they can't stop doing as well...

I agree it was rhetorical, kind of.

Point(s) are, (1) a national ban cannot be enacted on a matter returned to the states, and (2) Trump and a majority of Republicans have not asked for that, and (3) therefore the Dems are lying through their discolored teeth when they say Trump wants to enact a national abortion ban.

Really? You do know that Trump seemed initially supportive of Project 2025 and of those groups that were putting this "action plan" together? And then when people realized how extreme Project 2025 he tried to distance himself?

You do know that Trump picked a running mate that had voiced support for a national ban on abortion in the past?

So there's plenty of reasons to think that there is some interest in a national abortion ban from Republicans.

Related... for those here that plan to vote for Trump.

How are you feeling about his VP pick? It seems that the vetting process was... ummm... maybe not so good? I'm not sure what JD brought to the table when it comes to attracting swing voters. He seems to be just a hard-core MAGA guy and Donnie already has those hardcore MAGA votes sewn up.

(08-02-2024 10:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How are you feeling about his VP pick? It seems that the vetting process was... ummm... maybe not so good? I'm not sure what JD brought to the table when it comes to attracting swing voters. He seems to be just a hard-core MAGA guy and Donnie already has those hardcore MAGA votes sewn up.

I may not be in the category you posed this question to, but I do have an opinion about the pick: while it continues the trend of knucklehead nominees picking knucklehead running mates, only a fool would expect such nominees to do anything else.

And of course, these are the nominees whom the primary voters picked. This is what the Great Republic has become.

(08-02-2024 11:07 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 10:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How are you feeling about his VP pick? It seems that the vetting process was... ummm... maybe not so good? I'm not sure what JD brought to the table when it comes to attracting swing voters. He seems to be just a hard-core MAGA guy and Donnie already has those hardcore MAGA votes sewn up.

I may not be in the category you posed this question to, but I do have an opinion about the pick: while it continues the trend of knucklehead nominees picking knucklehead running mates, only a fool would expect such nominees to do anything else.

And of course, these are the nominees whom the primary voters picked. This is what the Great Republic has become.

Agree.

(08-02-2024 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 09:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 08:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 05:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You haven't responded yet. But you have the time to tell us you are busy in the real world.

Yep - I wrote that while walking the dog, in between single parenting while my wife was out of town, and catching up on work after being out of office.

It requires much less brain power and time to respond to these idiotic posts than to actually have a substantive back and forth.

Well, whatever small amount of brainpower it takes to respond, you saved it.

I don't think anybody was expecting a substantive back and forth. Don't know why you or all people would be.

But, FTR, here is the question you have spent much time and effort in dodging:

Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

A simple, factual response, could have been done a long time ago, as in (example)

California, at Trump's behest, enacted a total abortion ban. (or whatever did in fact occur)

However, I predicted a response of any kind would not be forthcoming, and indeed it has not. Thus the QED.

You guys spend more time fussing about being asked questions than you would answering them.

BTW, hard to tell if your single parenting remark refers to the dog or to an actual human child, but if the latter, congratulations. Being a good dad is the highest calling for a man that I know.

Now with a little time looking back at the exchange it certainly seemed that George's original question that made OO set his timer was rhetorical? I think that everybody knows that super-liberal states have not placed any severe restrictions on abortion.

I think the overall point that Tanq made is correct, though. Republicans stupidly decided to wax poetic about national abortion bans and actually enact extreme abortion laws in many states right before the 2024 election. This stuff is wildly unpopular to moderate/swing voters. Dems are going to slam them incessantly on this issue. Oof.

Of course... Dems have their own dumb things they can't stop doing as well...

I agree it was rhetorical, kind of.

Point(s) are, (1) a national ban cannot be enacted on a matter returned to the states, and (2) Trump and a majority of Republicans have not asked for that, and (3) therefore the Dems are lying through their discolored teeth when they say Trump wants to enact a national abortion ban.

Of course, the rhetorical question was in response to this not-so-rhetorical statement:

RiceLad15 Wrote:
Also, as Tanq said, the narrative that many liberals were told was false (that “returning this issue to the states” was just code for severely restricting abortion access), has turned out to be true.

I don't care one way or the other about abortion. What moves my meter are economics and foreign policy. But I do enjoy pointing out the inconsistencies and outright lies in the pro-abortion claims.

Points you should consider, yet fail to: Trump has denoted that Democrats overall support 'abortion after birth' and 'abortion until birth'. He repeated that crap in his not so successful National Association of Black Journalists interview (rant) just the other day, mind you.

Perhaps you should amend your unidirectional statement about 'lying through [their] discolored teeth' to a more objective and omnidirectional lens on presenting your gleeful comments on how much you enjoy 'pointing out the inconsistencies and outright lies in the [abortion related] claims.'

But I hazard a guess that the only people who seemingly 'lie through discolored teeth' are Democrats on the issue (or just about any issue, mind you) in your worldview.

(08-02-2024 10:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 09:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 08:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, whatever small amount of brainpower it takes to respond, you saved it.

I don't think anybody was expecting a substantive back and forth. Don't know why you or all people would be.

But, FTR, here is the question you have spent much time and effort in dodging:

Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

A simple, factual response, could have been done a long time ago, as in (example)

California, at Trump's behest, enacted a total abortion ban. (or whatever did in fact occur)

However, I predicted a response of any kind would not be forthcoming, and indeed it has not. Thus the QED.

You guys spend more time fussing about being asked questions than you would answering them.

BTW, hard to tell if your single parenting remark refers to the dog or to an actual human child, but if the latter, congratulations. Being a good dad is the highest calling for a man that I know.

Now with a little time looking back at the exchange it certainly seemed that George's original question that made OO set his timer was rhetorical? I think that everybody knows that super-liberal states have not placed any severe restrictions on abortion.

I think the overall point that Tanq made is correct, though. Republicans stupidly decided to wax poetic about national abortion bans and actually enact extreme abortion laws in many states right before the 2024 election. This stuff is wildly unpopular to moderate/swing voters. Dems are going to slam them incessantly on this issue. Oof.

Of course... Dems have their own dumb things they can't stop doing as well...

I agree it was rhetorical, kind of.

Point(s) are, (1) a national ban cannot be enacted on a matter returned to the states, and (2) Trump and a majority of Republicans have not asked for that, and (3) therefore the Dems are lying through their discolored teeth when they say Trump wants to enact a national abortion ban.

Really? You do know that Trump seemed initially supportive of Project 2025 and of those groups that were putting this "action plan" together? And then when people realized how extreme Project 2025 he tried to distance himself?

You do know that Trump picked a running mate that had voiced support for a national ban on abortion in the past?

So there's plenty of reasons to think that there is some interest in a national abortion ban from Republicans.

Related... for those here that plan to vote for Trump.

How are you feeling about his VP pick? It seems that the vetting process was... ummm... maybe not so good? I'm not sure what JD brought to the table when it comes to attracting swing voters. He seems to be just a hard-core MAGA guy and Donnie already has those hardcore MAGA votes sewn up.

A 'hard core MAGA guy' who has previously directly equated Trump to Hitler, mind you. Among other various Trump related issues he has espoused.

I'll denote an opinion much like George's -- JD is as good a pick as I would expect from a candidate such as Trump where there is only one real criteria for the job.

(08-02-2024 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Point(s) are, (1) a national ban cannot be enacted on a matter returned to the states,

Nothing in Dobbs precludes Federal legislation. In either direction. Strike 1.

Quote:and (2) Trump and a majority of Republicans have not asked for that,

National harsh restrictions on abortion had, in fact, up until July 3, 2024 been a mainstay plank in the Republican party. Strike 2.

Quote: and (3) therefore the Dems are lying through their discolored teeth when they say Trump wants to enact a national abortion ban.

Well Strike 1 and Strike 2.

Quote:But I do enjoy pointing out the inconsistencies and outright lies in the pro-abortion claims.

Then I hope you enjoy strike 1 and strike 2.

(08-02-2024 10:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Related... for those here that plan to vote for Trump.

How are you feeling about his VP pick? It seems that the vetting process was... ummm... maybe not so good? I'm not sure what JD brought to the table when it comes to attracting swing voters. He seems to be just a hard-core MAGA guy and Donnie already has those hardcore MAGA votes sewn up.

Did you start the clock on me yet?

Never mind. I will do you the courtesy of answering without kvetching about being asked.


Don't particularly like the choice. I had others I would have preferred. Several others.

BUT I will be voting for the top of the ticket as opposed to voting for the top of the Democratic ticket.

First day of early voting. At my age and health, cannot take chances.

Return question: If you can call him Donnie, does that make it OK for me to call her Kammie?

(08-02-2024 11:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 09:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 08:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 05:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep - I wrote that while walking the dog, in between single parenting while my wife was out of town, and catching up on work after being out of office.

It requires much less brain power and time to respond to these idiotic posts than to actually have a substantive back and forth.

Well, whatever small amount of brainpower it takes to respond, you saved it.

I don't think anybody was expecting a substantive back and forth. Don't know why you or all people would be.

But, FTR, here is the question you have spent much time and effort in dodging:

Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

A simple, factual response, could have been done a long time ago, as in (example)

California, at Trump's behest, enacted a total abortion ban. (or whatever did in fact occur)

However, I predicted a response of any kind would not be forthcoming, and indeed it has not. Thus the QED.

You guys spend more time fussing about being asked questions than you would answering them.

BTW, hard to tell if your single parenting remark refers to the dog or to an actual human child, but if the latter, congratulations. Being a good dad is the highest calling for a man that I know.

Now with a little time looking back at the exchange it certainly seemed that George's original question that made OO set his timer was rhetorical? I think that everybody knows that super-liberal states have not placed any severe restrictions on abortion.

I think the overall point that Tanq made is correct, though. Republicans stupidly decided to wax poetic about national abortion bans and actually enact extreme abortion laws in many states right before the 2024 election. This stuff is wildly unpopular to moderate/swing voters. Dems are going to slam them incessantly on this issue. Oof.

Of course... Dems have their own dumb things they can't stop doing as well...

I agree it was rhetorical, kind of.

Point(s) are, (1) a national ban cannot be enacted on a matter returned to the states, and (2) Trump and a majority of Republicans have not asked for that, and (3) therefore the Dems are lying through their discolored teeth when they say Trump wants to enact a national abortion ban.

Of course, the rhetorical question was in response to this not-so-rhetorical statement:

RiceLad15 Wrote:
Also, as Tanq said, the narrative that many liberals were told was false (that “returning this issue to the states” was just code for severely restricting abortion access), has turned out to be true.

I don't care one way or the other about abortion. What moves my meter are economics and foreign policy. But I do enjoy pointing out the inconsistencies and outright lies in the pro-abortion claims.

Points you should consider, yet fail to: Trump has denoted that Democrats overall support 'abortion after birth' and 'abortion until birth'. He repeated that crap in his not so successful National Association of Black Journalists interview (rant) just the other day, mind you.

Perhaps you should amend your unidirectional statement about 'lying through [their] discolored teeth' to a more objective and omnidirectional lens on presenting your gleeful comments on how much you enjoy 'pointing out the inconsistencies and outright lies in the [abortion related] claims.'

But I hazard a guess that the only people who seemingly 'lie through discolored teeth' are Democrats on the issue (or just about any issue, mind you) in your worldview.

Funny how there are always lawyers on both sides of every question, all claiming the facts.

The discolored teeth was a response to a Dem's use of "gap-toothed idiots". You are right - I should not lower myself to their standards.

But have you seen the whitewashing of Harris's record that is going on? Second coming of Ronald Reagan. I think inconsistencies is the nicest way to put it. Lies is pretty accurate. But you defend what you want to defend, as I will.

One thing I don't want to defend is the 2025 project. Know even less about that than the 1619 project.

Not do I want to defend a full ban on abortion. My lifetime experiences tell me that as distasteful both sides are, I am good with compromise. What I don't see is any compromise from the left. But to me this issue is as fraught with importance as the sale of Thin Mint cookies. I don't see any national momentum to ban abortion from the right as a whole. But even if I did,, would that be enough to make the Dems the lesser evil? IMO, not even close.

(08-02-2024 03:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 11:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Points you should consider, yet fail to: Trump has denoted that Democrats overall support 'abortion after birth' and 'abortion until birth'. He repeated that crap in his not so successful National Association of Black Journalists interview (rant) just the other day, mind you.

Perhaps you should amend your unidirectional statement about 'lying through [their] discolored teeth' to a more objective and omnidirectional lens on presenting your gleeful comments on how much you enjoy 'pointing out the inconsistencies and outright lies in the [abortion related] claims.'

But I hazard a guess that the only people who seemingly 'lie through discolored teeth' are Democrats on the issue (or just about any issue, mind you) in your worldview.

Funny how there are always lawyers on both sides of every question, all claiming the facts.

If you have an issue with my statement about what Trump said at his NABJ fiasco, perhaps look it up. If it isnt about that, then I have zero idea what your point is.

In short... Trump. Lied. Through. His. [Pearly]. [White]. Teeth. About the stance of Democrats on abortion overall. I thought you were clutching pearls about lying -- apparently it may only be about Democratic lying.

Quote:The discolored teeth was a response to a Dem's use of "gap-toothed idiots". You are right - I should not lower myself to their standards.

Its no better nor no worse than many of your asides in your comments about Democrats in general. No need to change.

Quote:But have you seen the whitewashing of Harris's record that is going on? Second coming of Ronald Reagan. I think inconsistencies is the nicest way to put it. Lies is pretty accurate. But you defend what you want to defend, as I will.

Where am I defending that? Funny, I dont see it. Can you point it out? Specifically please.

Quote:One thing I don't want to defend is the 2025 project. Know even less about that than the 1619 project.

Maybe you *should* learn about it. The vast majority of its architects are heavily involved not just in normal Republican efforts, but specifically in the Trump fold.

Or just ignore it. You are a free, sentient being able to make your choices for you.

Quote:Not do I want to defend a full ban on abortion. My lifetime experiences tell me that as distasteful both sides are, I am good with compromise. What I don't see is any compromise from the left.

What many dont see is any compromise from the right re: abortion. They think the Texas abortion laws are the cats paws in legislative effort.

Quote:But to me this issue is as fraught with importance as the sale of Thin Mint cookies. I don't see any national momentum to ban abortion from the right as a whole.

Its there when you bother to actually look. Much like issues on Project 2025 are.

Quote: But even if I did,, would that be enough to make the Dems the lesser evil? IMO, not even close.

Good for you.