ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Time To Get Angry, Democrats

[ Posted Friday, May 6th, 2022 – 18:02 UTC ]

We're going to write our introductory weekly wrap-up in reverse this week (since it was a week for reversals). Then after we get the lesser political stories out of the way (in accelerated fashion), we'll get to the big bombshell scoop that drove the rest of the political world all week -- and will continue to do so for months to come.

So, as quickly as possible, let's run through the minor stories from the week:

The White House Correspondents' Dinner was held, and just as host Trevor Noah predicted in his speech, it was indeed a COVID superspreader event.

The White House announced that Karine Jean-Pierre will be replacing Jen Psaki as press secretary. She will be the first Black gay woman to ever hold the job.

A special grand jury was selected and seated in Georgia this Monday, whose sole focus will be to examine Donald Trump's attempt to interfere with the 2020 election results (that whole "I just want to find 11,780 votes" phone call).

The Trump campaign agreed to pay $750,000 to Washington D.C. to settle a case against it for financial shenanigans surrounding its use of Trump's hotel.

Madison Cawthorn is still wheeling wildly out of control, and this week's video link is truly N.S.F.W. It's really not safe for anywhere, so be warned before you watch it -- you'll never be able to unsee a naked Cawthorn forcibly face-humping another guy in a bed.

Primary season is underway, and Trump's big pick in the Ohio Senate race won -- even though Trump can't even remember the guy's name.

In a rematch, liberal House candidate Nina Turner lost again (and by a much worse margin) to the establishment Democrat, Shontel Brown.

Norm Mineta passed away -- Requiescat In Pace.

President Joe Biden and the Democrats are doing better in the polls of late, and Biden's handling of the pandemic in particular is ticking up.

Biden got the good news that over 400,000 jobs were added last month, making it a full 12 months in a row of 400K-plus months -- the best record since World War II. The unemployment rate is only 0.2 percent higher than its lowest point ever, as a result.

And a state GOP committee member in Michigan resigned his party seat in disgust this week, saying "feckless, cowardly [Republican] party 'leaders' have made the election here in Michigan a test of who is the most cravenly loyal to Donald Trump and re-litigating the results of the 2020 cycle." And he was just getting started. Here's a few other choice excerpts from his resignation letter (where he also called Trump a "deranged narcissist"):

Incredibly, rather than distancing themselves from this undisciplined loser, far too many Republican 'leaders' have decided that encouraging his delusional lies -- and, even worse -- cynically appeasing him despite knowing they are lies, is the easiest path to ensuring their continued hold on power, general election consequences be damned.

Rather than assembling the courage to do the right thing, at the right time, and guide the activist base towards the truth, they've repeatedly backed down and dissembled, hoping that just one more act of cowardice will be what does the trick.

Intraparty, Republican-on-Republican violence aside, however, this was really a one-story week in Washington.

That story was the immense scoop of Politico publishing an almost-100-page draft opinion from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. This is virtually unheard of -- such a major leak from the Supreme Court. But it's easy to see why someone decided it was time to tell the public what was about to happen.

The draft opinion would completely overturn Roe v. Wade and leave what has been a fundamental constitutional right for American women for almost 50 years up to each individual state. Call it Alito's response to Barack Obama's declaration that: "There are no red states or blue states; just the United States." In Alito's brave new world, we will indeed be two nations, red and blue, at least as far as basic human rights for half the population are concerned.

The draft opinion is stunning. But savvy court-watchers weren't exactly surprised by it. The really stunning thing is that it appeared roughly two months before it normally would have. But the court was going to rule this way even if the leak had never happened, whether they used Alito's first draft or not. Roe was either going to be overturned or completely gutted to the point where it was legally meaningless to women in states led by Republicans -- that was really the only question, whether they'd do so blatantly or in a more sneaky fashion.

This is the end of a very long fight, of course. Since the 1980s, at least, the anti-abortion movement has slowly taken over the Republican Party and then whatever seats they could get in the federal judiciary. With Donald Trump's election (and Mitch McConnell's unprecedented refusal to even consider a Supreme Court nomination from Barack Obama), this was the inevitable end of the road.

The anti-abortion activists see this as the day they've been dreaming about for decades. The pro-choice activists see this as the day they've all been warning us was going to happen for roughly the same period.

Alito tries to do two things in his draft that need pointing out. The first is to somehow excuse his radicalism by pointing to a bunch of Supreme Court decisions which overturned earlier decisions. "See? It's not like this is unprecedented or anything!" he is essentially saying. Here's David Cole, who used to be the national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, ripping that argument to shreds:

In his leaked draft opinion for the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. points to Brown v. Board of Education, one of the Court's most celebrated decisions, as support for his reasoning. Brown, after all, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" doctrine, and marked the beginning of the end of the Jim Crow era.

But the difference between Brown and what the court appears poised to do in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization could not be more basic. In Brown, the court extended fundamental rights, as it has done in virtually all its decisions overturning constitutional precedents. A decision overturning Roe, by contrast, would eliminate the constitutional right to abortion altogether. The proper analogy is not Brown overruling Plessy, but a decision reviving Plessy, reversing Brown, and relegating Black people to enforced segregation after nearly 70 years of equal protection.

The second thing Alito tries to disavow is that this decision could ever possibly be cited by future decisions on other subjects. Alito specifically states that it shouldn't, but that would in no way tie the hands of any future Supreme Court -- or the current one, for that matter -- on all sorts of issues grounded in the right to privacy. Paul Waldman of the Washington Post destroys this argument, as he warns that liberals are not panicking enough [Links preserved in this excerpt, because there are so many important ones presented]:

As we grapple with the Supreme Court's apparent and imminent decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats are warning that this portends an attack on many other rights guaranteed in prior decisions. The right to use birth control could go next, because the 1965 case that guaranteed it, Griswold v. Connecticut, was the foundation on which Roe was built. The conservatives could reverse Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that guaranteed marriage equality.

Heck, under the rationale Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. used in his decision, even Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws outlawing interracial marriage, would be vulnerable.

To these warnings, many conservatives have replied: "Oh, come on. You liberals are exaggerating. The Supreme Court isn't going to do that, and Republican state legislatures aren't going to go nuts and outlaw contraception. Just calm down."

But the truth is that, if anything, liberals aren't panicking enough. The future of any particular right might be hard to predict, but we can say for sure that both the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority and Republican politicians are feeling unrestrained, unlimited in their ambitions, with the kind of freedom only a complete lack of accountability can provide.

Do you doubt? Let's take a look around:

  • There is a push within the antiabortion movement -- which will need a new focus once Roe is overturned -- to go after contraception. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) recently denounced the ruling in Griswold, and she's not alone. Republican states are already moving to limit access to birth control in various ways, and this is a clear target of many in the movement. They will likely begin by targeting Plan B, then IUDs and the pill.
  • A Louisiana House committee approved a bill this week that defines a fetus as "a human being from the moment of fertilization," making both a woman who has an abortion and her doctor guilty of participating in homicide. Some GOP states have already outlawed receiving medication for abortions through the mail; more will follow, and do you think they won't be arresting women who get them? Even under existing law, prosecutors in red states have often investigated and arrested women who have had miscarriages; under the new abortion regime such arrests are almost certain to accelerate.
  • Republican legislators are exploring ways to stop women from having abortions not only in their own states but in other states, as well.
  • Though Alito's draft ruling included a passage denying it is a prelude to nullifying other rights, many legal experts read it to suggest that Obergefell could be the next precedent to be reversed; it was a 5-to-4 decision of a court far less conservative than this one, which believes that stare decisis is for losers. Alito, Clarence Thomas, and John G. Roberts Jr. all dissented angrily from that decision; they now have three more conservatives who could join in reversing it on a nearly identical rationale to the one they will use to overturn Roe.
  • . . .

There is simply no doubt that conservatives -- both on the Supreme Court and in elected offices -- are feeling unleashed in a way they have not been in modern history. To any suggestion of "They'd never go that far," you have to ask, why not?

. . .

The conservative movement has many more ambitions -- and a Supreme Court eager to fulfill them. So, no, liberals are not being hyperbolic when they warn about the retrograde right-wing revolution that could follow the end of Roe. The right is not hiding its plans. All you have to do is believe them.

This is really an all-hands-on-deck moment for the Democratic Party. Both parties started (back in the 1970s and 1980s) with a mix of positions along the abortion spectrum (Joe Biden was first sworn in as a senator 17 days before the Roe v. Wade decision was announced, and used to be fairly anti-abortion, for instance), but slowly the anti-abortionist Democrats and the pro-choice Republicans have all but disappeared (or changed their position on the issue, as Biden did). It is now a partisan issue. And if the Democrats don't treat it as an existential crisis for their party, then they deserve everything that is coming.

Republicans, in victory, are actually weak and on their back foot. They are vulnerable because their extremism on abortion is not popular with the public at large. They really liked having Roe around as a political issue, because it worked so well in firing up certain segments of their base. With Roe gone, they will have to actually defend not only their unpopular position, but the actions that red states have already taken or soon will be to criminalize abortion.

Their initial responses have been to flat-out lie about everything, and to make as big a stink as they can about the leak itself.

First, the lies. From a Republican talking points memo circulated this week comes this jaw-dropping instruction to Republican politicians: "Be the compassionate, consensus-builder on abortion policy." Consensus-builder? You must be kidding. Later in this document comes the lie that Republicans somehow aren't going to throw doctors and women in jail. This, while Republican state legislatures are busily enacting laws to do precisely that.

As a segue, here is Mitch McConnell apparently trying standup comedy:

Last night's stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the Supreme Court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left's ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law.

"Substitute mob rule for the rule of law"? You mean, like what happened on January 6th, Mitch? You know, when an actual mob tried to halt the peaceful transfer of power? You think that was "the radical left"? I don't. To equate a leaked document with an insurrection is just laughable. Also heavily ironic is the fact that Republicans from Chief Justice John Roberts on down are bemoaning the Supreme Court's loss of privacy. To which we reply: "Boo freakin' hoo."

So Republicans have nothing but lies, as time goes on it will become painfully apparent precisely how far they are willing to go in state-level legislation, and they don't want to talk about it in the campaign. In other words, it is time for Democrats to launch a relentless attack on the subject. Which we'll be doing ourselves, in lieu of this week's talking points.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have to give an Honorable Mention to Senator Elizabeth Warren, for showing some righteous anger about Alito's draft opinion this week. Warren has not been timid, and she's right not to be. Democrats need to show anger right now, especially Democratic women in office.

But by that metric, we have to award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to Vice President Kamala Harris. Fortuitously, this week she was scheduled to address the annual gathering of Emily's List. It was a pretty friendly crowd, obviously. Harris gave a great speech, leaning heavily into the fact that Democrats need to express some anger right now.

From her speech (which is well worth watching in full):

Let's talk about what a world without Roe looks like. Women in almost half the country could see their access to abortion severely limited. In 13 of those states, women would lose access to abortion immediately and outright. Those Republican leaders who are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women -- well, we say: How dare they? How dare they tell a woman what she can do and cannot do with her own body? How dare they? How dare they try to stop her from determining her own future? How dare they try to deny women their rights and their freedoms?...

They want to ban abortion in every state. They want to bully anyone who seeks or provides reproductive health care. And they want to criminalize and punish women for making these decisions.... When the right to privacy is attacked, anyone in our country may face a future where the government can interfere with their personal decisions -- not just women; anyone. And it has never been more clear which party wants to expand our rights and which party wants to restrict them.... It has never been more clear which party wants to lead us forward and which party wants to push us back....

Friends, we must link arms in this fight. I invite all people to join us. If you stand for freedom, for self-determination, for the right to privacy -- if you stand for these principles, stand with us. Because women's issues are America's issues. And democracies -- democracies cannot be strong if the rights of women are under attack.

It is a time for Democratic righteous anger. Kamala Harris showed exactly what that looks like: "How dare they?!?" For immediately getting out in front of this issue and showing some real leadership, Vice President Kamala Harris was the obvious choice this week for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Vice President Kamala Harris on the White House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one's pretty easy, too. Round up the usual suspects, in other words.

Oh, and a footnote: since we don't give awards to Republicans, we will leave it to others to scathingly heap all the derision and scorn on Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski that they so richly deserve. Instead, we look to our side of the aisle.

Our two winners of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week are (once again) Senators Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin.

Now, Manchin has always been anti-abortion, so we can't get too upset that he's not on board in the vote Chuck Schumer has called next week -- a repeat performance where a bill to codify Roe v. Wade will be voted on, and fail. And we can't even get too upset that he won't vote to amend the filibuster rules to allow bills which deal with basic constitutional rights to pass on a majority vote, since he's done so previously on the subject of voting rights. So instead, we're going to give Manchin the MDDOTW award for endorsing a Republican in a West Virginia House race. Seriously? Is this guy still even a Democrat? Maybe someone should check....

As for Sinema, well she gets her MDDOTW award for saying she's pro-choice, but then choosing not to do anything about it. Which means she could vote for the bill codifying Roe next week, but she's already announced that she still won't vote to reform the filibuster to give the bill an actual chance of passing.

This will adversely affect her own constituents, mind you. Arizona is one of those states with laws already on the books criminalizing abortion -- which would put doctors in jail for years -- meaning that the instant the Supreme Court does issue its final opinion, all the women in Arizona will lose this right. You know, the women Sinema is supposed to be representing in the Senate.

We would be interested in seeing a poll of Arizona women which asked: "Do you support Senator Sinema's strong stand to uphold the Senate filibuster, even though you will lose your right to an abortion as a direct result of her stance?" Because that is the reality of the situation.

So for "standing up" for the right to choose, by choosing to do absolutely nothing, Senator Sinema also wins another Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. Women of Arizona, take note -- and remember, when you next vote in a Democratic Senate primary.

[Contact Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, and Senator Kyrsten Sinema on her Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 661 (5/6/22)

We've already written one rant this week on this subject, but we truly felt it was a two-rant kind of week. We don't know about anyone else, but we feel one overpowering emotion about the Alito draft leak. So what follows (instead of our usual discrete talking points) is the speech we would strongly urge Democratic politicians to start using or adapting, because now is the time for an emotional appeal to voters.

 

It Is Time To Get Angry

I don't know about you, but when I heard the Supreme Court is on the brink of jettisoning Roe v. Wade, my immediate reaction was to get angry. Five unelected activist judges -- some of whom blatantly lied under oath during their confirmation hearings -- have decided it is now up to state-level politicians what constitutional rights people will have.

That is not America -- at least not the America I believe in. I believe the Constitution protects all Americans, equally.

This is an "all hands on deck" moment, folks. This is not some hypothetical fear of what "could happen" in the future, this is going to happen or indeed already has happened in something like half the states. It is happening now. It will continue to happen all summer long. And the only way to stop is if you get angry about it and vote in November to give Democrats a chance of forcefully fighting back against the only Supreme Court in history to take fundamental rights away rather than expand them to all people. This isn't just extreme -- this is a radical change in the way this country is governed. And we've only really got one chance to right this horrible wrong -- by voting in federal legislation that codifies into law the rights that Roe gave to every American woman. But before we can successfully pass such a law, we need your vote, to make it possible.

Republicans will not stop at this. Don't anyone believe that they will, because you are deluding yourselves if you do. They are, as Joe Biden said, the most extreme political organization in modern American history. The next thing they'll come after is the right to contraception. This is obvious -- the Republicans have already attacked this right as forcefully as they can elsewhere, and once Roe is gone the anti-abortion activists are going to train their sights on birth control methods they consider -- wrongly -- to be "abortifacients." Got that? They will make this medical decision -- wrongly -- for all women.

The exact same reasoning Justice Alito used in his draft opinion could be applied to any right of privacy any citizen now thinks he or she enjoys. Which definitely means they'll try to get their zealots on the court to overturn the decision which made contraception a right for all women.

Next up will be gay marriage, since that decision was also based on the fundamental right of privacy too. I mean, just look at how cruelly they are going after L.G.B.T.Q. kids right now! This shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone, really. They could even successfully argue -- using exactly the same reasoning Alito used -- that interracial marriage should properly be each state's business to decide upon.

That is the new world we are entering into, folks. Those are the stakes of this fight. What will stop Republicans from pushing the most extreme and anti-freedom policies on their agenda? Nothing. Except a strong majority of Democrats in Congress. That's the only thing that would stop them.

In this new dystopia, parents in blue states will have to think long and hard about paying for their sons and daughters to attend universities in states which deny basic rights. Corporations will have to think long and hard about the quality of employees that will work for them in such states, when they consider where to build factories or headquarters. Crossing a state line will mean travelling from a modern democratic state to a repressive and theocratic one, where doctors and women can be sent to jail even on the suspicion that a miscarriage was actually an abortion. These states will be scrutinizing the mail to try to prevent abortion medication from entering, and they will try to throw women in jail who travel to blue states to get an abortion.

How un-American is that? What sort of insane logic leads to one state trying to make it illegal for any of its residents to travel to another American state and do anything under the sun that is legal in that state? Republicans used to say they were for "freedom," but that sounds like the farthest thing from freedom imaginable. What state would try to ban people from going to Las Vegas to gamble, even if gambling wasn't allowed in that state? Will New Jersey make it illegal for its residents to cross state lines and actually pump their own gas? Where does it end?

I don't know about you, but that is not the kind of country I want to live in. That is not what America means to me. That is the farthest thing from freedom imaginable. No state owns me or can tell me what to do when I'm not physically present within it, but that is exactly what they are trying to do.

To every Republican who is against abortion and wants to outlaw it, I ask: "Would you force a 12-year-old rape victim to bear the child of her rapist? Really? What would you say to her, to explain this? What would you say to an 11-year-old girl -- not a woman, mind you, a little girl for god's sake -- who was raped by her father and is now pregnant?"

These are not some hypothetical stories, either. Anyone who doesn't believe that this is sometimes the hard, cold reality of the situation should talk to some doctors or nurses who have to deal with these heinous crimes on a regular basis. Because this is exactly what Republicans want, when they remove any exemption for rape and incest from their Draconian new abortion bans. This is the new reality of what they want for America, folks.

Or maybe ask these Republicans why they are so strongly in favor of a fetal rights but after the baby is born they refuse to allow the government to do much of anything to make the mother's or the child's life easier and better.

Republicans are now using the same old "state's rights" argument that they used for so long to deny Black people their rights as American citizens to essentially say to women in blue states: "Don't worry, we'll just do this sort of thing in our states." Well, that will last about as long as Democrats hold the House and Senate. Cecile Richards, who used to run Planned Parenthood, called this one exactly right: "I fully expect that if the Republicans gain control of Congress as early as this November, that House Bill 1 will be some form of abortion ban." Yeah, so do I. This is not just an issue for red states -- sooner or later, they're going to try this nationwide. And the only way to stop them is to elect more Democrats to Congress so they never get the chance.

Some people thought it was just partisan rhetoric when Democrats started talking about the Republicans waging a "war on women." Think that's still just rhetorical? In Colorado, the Republicans are running a candidate for governor who was previously arrested for violently assaulting his pregnant wife. Need more? Here's a headline I read this week: "GOP Candidate Accused Of Murdering His Wife Wins Primary Election From Jail." That is today's Republican Party, folks. That is what they now support. That is precisely what you are voting for when you vote Republican -- a party that has so lost its moral compass that it allows such odious creatures to run for office using its brand.

So this November, I hope you all remember all of this. I hope you think about it when you go vote. For Congress, and for your own state's legislature and governor too. I hope you are just as angry then as I am now. We only have one chance to push back on this destruction of constitutional rights in this country, and that is to vote blue! Your daughters' rights are in danger -- so vote blue! Your own rights are either in danger or will be soon -- so vote blue! Don't let them get away with taking rights and freedoms away, vote instead for the party which will restore and protect those rights, in the name of American freedom.

Thank you. Vote blue!

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

297 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Time To Get Angry, Democrats”

  1. [1] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Testing, one, two...

  2. [2] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    So Republicans have nothing but lies, as time goes on it will become painfully apparent precisely how far they are willing to go in state-level legislation, and they don't want to talk about it in the campaign. In other words, it is time for Democrats to launch a relentless attack on the subject. Which we'll be doing ourselves, in lieu of this week's talking points.

    No, not quite. Like DOJ investigating J6 right now is not the time to go nuts is the time to get it right, first. Let all those knucklehead Repugs go legislatively nuts... the more the better come Labor Day, when I hope all kinds of bombs are dropping.

    ChillBabyBabyChill.

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Speaking of Emily's List, they withdrew all support for Sinema some months ago.

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Purdy darn satisfying rant there, California. Getting enough of the Democratic herd of cats to relentlessly and collectively hammer just a few talking points on the Republican alternative of Fear, Faith and Facism I like their chances. Not demagogic but righteously indignant.

    Sales requires an emotional response on the part of the Client, even investment activities. This is not news.

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Here's a talking point:

    So, because your mad about inflation and disappointed in the Dems you're going to replace them with the Repugs who have voted against almost everything Dems have tried to do for you?

    Good luck with that!

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Or,

    The only freedom Repugs care about is freedom to pollute, freedom to get even richer and freedom to jam your religious opinion down the majority's throats.

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Gaetz, MTG, Gomert, Jim Jordan, Cawthorn and Rudy and Sidney and Trump?

    The Party of Putin?

    Really?

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    The entire world is suffering inflation because Covid trashed the supply chain and Vlad invaded.

    Vote against the Dems if that makes you feel better.

    This is America and you always have the right to vote against yourself and your family.

    Or you can do your homework, Citizen.

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Hey, this talking points thing is fun! I'm shooting for emotional appeal while being entirely factually based. Short and ideally punchy.

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Repetition.

    Repetition.

    Repetition.

    It's been working for Faux News for decades.

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    It'd be nice if you would suck on -- er, if you would react to some of these talking points, Michale.;)

  12. [12] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Alrighty...

    I'm outta here, bitches.

    (mic drop)

  13. [13] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Kick, some of us have, shall we call it, object permanence challenges.

    So when you don't post for a while we naturally feel you're "gone away." And we like you. So when you "come back" we reflexively say, welcome back.

    Work with us, okay?

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And Kick,

    As your new BFF Michale refuses to self identify as a Repug he does seem partial to their philosophies.

    Likewise, although you don't (undoubtedly for personal safety reasons) self identify as a Dem you seem to lean the Fellow Traveler way.

    Coincidence, I'm sure.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    And Kick,

    As your new BFF Michale refuses to self identify as a Repug he does seem partial to their philosophies.

    Likewise, although you don't (undoubtedly for personal safety reasons) self identify as a Dem you seem to lean the Fellow Traveler way.

    Coincidence, I'm sure.

    The difference being is that my bona fide NPA status is official, archived and documented..

    Kick's claim of being an independent has not been..

    So.... :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    It'd be nice if you would suck on -- er, if you would react to some of these talking points, Michale.;)

    Which talking points are you referring to?? Yours or the commentaries??

    As to the commentaries, my response is simple.

    Elections have consequences.. Ya'all lost..

    Time to suck it up.. :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Now, if yer talking about YOUR talking points....

    So, because your mad about inflation and disappointed in the Dems you're going to replace them with the Repugs who have voted against almost everything Dems have tried to do for you?

    Dems have PROVEN they cannot govern.. Democrats have a complete lock on all facets of the government *AND* they have media and academia in their pockets and they can't get SHIT done...

    Not only can they not get shit done, the things Democrats DO get done simply makes things worse..

    It goes back to what I have said before.. CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER...

    Now it's time to reset the timeline..

    It's time to put right what once went wrong...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only freedom Repugs care about is freedom to pollute, freedom to get even richer and freedom to jam your religious opinion down the majority's throats.

    As oppose to the only freedom Democrats care about is the freedom to do things OUR way or just go ahead and die already..

    We already have seen what Democrat "freedom" looks like..

    22+ years of Democrat BLM and AntiFa riots and attacks on HUNDREDS of government buildings all over the country..

    In the last year and a half, Democrats have PROVEN beyond any doubt that they simply cannot govern... Democrats have the White House, they have the Senate and they have the House..

    And what does America have to show for it?? According to Democrats, over a million dead from COVID..

    Skyrocketing inflation the likes we haven't seen since the 70s...

    A southern border that is, for all intents and purposes an open border...

    A chaotic military withdrawal, the humiliation of the US Military unheard of since the 70s..

    Democrats have been PROVEN to be completely and utterly incompetent..

    And what is even worse is that Democrats don't even SEE their own incompetence.. The lunatics are completely in control of the Party and THEY believe that the Party hasn't been incompetent enough.. Party leaders believe that they need to DOUBLE DOWN on the incompetence!!

    It's Democrat POLICIES that are the problem.. Not the messaging of those policies..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, MC...

    Based on your talking points, are you coming around to the fact that Democrats will indeed, lose in November and lose big??

    The only unknown here is how BAD Democrats are going to lose??

    Is that your way of thinking now??

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    well, since i've been double DOG dared...

    https://medium.com/exploring-history/gender-bending-in-viking-ancient-greek-and-egyptian-mythology-c58645fd50dc

    So, let me see if I have this straight..

    The original ask was for you to show me how gender-bending was a SOCIATAL CONCERN in the past..

    Your response was to give me, throughout the ENTIRETY of human history, two or three examples of a SINGLE GENDER-BENT person....

    How EXACTLY is a single person a "SOCIATAL CONCERN"??

    Answer.. It's not...

    Do you have any FACTS that prove at ANY POINT in human history, that gender-bending was the CONCERN OF SOCIETY that it is today in the here and now..

    No. You do not.. There are no facts to support such a claim because there never has been ANY instance that a group of people has made gender-bending and psychological/psychiatric gender health a SOCIATAL CONCERN..

    Until we had the Democrat Party who has forced this gender-bending, this psychological abnormality, this psychiatric disorder, this mental health problem on our society...

    There is NOTHING in the history of the world that compares to what Democrats have done to today's American society...

    Democrats have taken a psychological deformity, a psychiatric abnormality, a mental health disorder and turned it into something that is, according to Democrats, simply a normal state of being that is just different from other normal states of being..

    It's like Democrats are saying, "You are sick from COVID.. But it's simply a normal state of being and you shouldn't try to change being sick from COVID.. You shouldn't try to CURE COVID..
    You should simply enjoy your diversity of being sick from COVID instead of not being sick from COVID."

    Gender Bending is the COVID of psychological/psychiatric/mental health disorder..

    It is something that needs to be CURED.. NOT catered to.. NOT made mainstream. And DEFINITELY NOT made normal..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is the crux of the abortion issue that ya'all are completely ignoring..

    Roe v Wade was bad law... PERIOD... FULL STOP...

    The Democrats that have gone on record making this EXACTLY SAME CLAIM are very high up on the ESTEEM pole and there are a ton of them..

    ROE V WADE WAS BAD LAW

    It should NEVER have been created..

    Another point that ya'all ignore is that THERE IS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION... Just as there THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST BLACK AMERICANS

    Justice Alito is simply putting right what once went wrong.. Just like when the SCOTUS overruled PLESSY v FERGUSON.. Just like when the SCOTUS overruled DRED SCOT v SANFORD..

    THOSE laws were ALSO bad law...

    Let me play it again, since ya'all keep missing the point..

    Roe v Wade was BAD LAW.. There IS no right under the Constitution to kill your baby.. PERIOD.. FULL STOP..

    How do we know this??

    Because Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg FLAT OUT said so..

    So, cry in yer milk all ya want..

    It won't change the FACT that A> RvW was bad law and 2> There is no Constitutional right to kill your baby...

    There is no Casey Anthony law ANYWHERE in the US Constitution..

    Ya'all just gotta suck it up and accept these facts. This reality..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    So when you don't post for a while we naturally feel you're "gone away." And we like you. So when you "come back" we reflexively say, welcome back.

    Work with us, okay?

    "I know, right!!??"
    -Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

    NO ONE can be "here" in Weigantia ALL THE TIME. It's a factual impossibility...

    I think we can ALL agree that I am Weigantia's most prolific commenter.. I have been here from the beginning and I was the "FIRST REAL COMMENTER" that Weigantia ever had..

    And even *I* admit that I am not here ALL the time.. I would be daft if I made such a claim and expected anyone to believe it.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everyone claims that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barret "lied" during their confirmation hearings..

    Can anyone here detail those "lies" with facts???

    Anyone at all???

    I would be VERY interested to hear ya'all's FACTS on this accusation..

    Please.. I don't want to hear your "truth"... I don't want to hear ya'all's INTERPRETATIONS of what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret actually meant..

    I want to hear ya'all's FACTS on these "lies" that they allegedly told..

    Do ya'all have any FACTS to support the claims of "lies"???

    Any facts at all???

    Or is this more PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RACIST kind of BS where there are no actual FACTS to support the claim...???

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    The draft opinion is stunning. But savvy court-watchers weren't exactly surprised by it. The really stunning thing is that it appeared roughly two months before it normally would have. But the court was going to rule this way even if the leak had never happened, whether they used Alito's first draft or not.

    So, it's safe to say that the draft opinion IS the way the law is going to go down..

    This is in keeping with Chief Justice Robert's claim that the leak will have NO EFFECT on the ruling..

    So, we can all assume for the sake of the argument that nothing will change between now and the time that the ruling is "OFFICIALLY" released..

    What we see now is how the SCOTUS will rule..

    Roe v Wade is dead.. It will be thrown on the trash heap of history where it belongs..

    Amen.. :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the silence from ya'all regarding Democrats who have DOX'ed the SCOTUS Justices continues to be deafening..

    How can ya'all remain silent on such a heinous act??

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You've made the claim that you will condemn actions taken by Democrats when those actions are worthy of condemnation..

    Surely the DOX'ing of SCOTUS Justices private family residences by Democrat activists is worthy of condemnation,
    no??

    Time to put up or shut up, my friend.. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of the Democrats who are hysterical that throwing Roe v Wade on the trash heap of history where it belongs will endanger other un-enumerated Constitutional "rights" are ignoring the most salient fact.

    Gay marriage and all the other fear mongering hysterics from the Democrats don't have an innocent 3rd party involved..

    Abortion does.. And that's why the Court's ruling ONLY applies to abortion and to no other issue...

    Of course this FACT won't stop the hysterical Democrat fear mongering..

    It just makes the hysterical Democrat fear mongering easier to ignore or ridicule.. :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some more facts for the baby killing crowd..

    For most of Europe abortions are illegal after 15 weeks...

    The ONLY countries who are with the US as far as abortions go are China, North Korea and Iran...

    That's some really great company Democrats keep, eh? :eyeroll:

    To paraphrase Captain Smilin' Jack Ross from A FEW GOOD MEN..

    "{Roe v Wade} is gone. There is no {Roe v Wade}.."

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Roe was either going to be overturned or completely gutted to the point where it was legally meaningless to women in states led by Republicans -- that was really the only question, whether they'd do so blatantly or in a more sneaky fashion.

    So, what you are saying is that the GOP had the guts to call a spade a spade... :D

    Democrats could learn a lesson from the GOP, eh? :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    With Donald Trump's election (and Mitch McConnell's unprecedented refusal to even consider a Supreme Court nomination from Barack Obama), this was the inevitable end of the road.

    And I am willing to bet that no one is more surprised than McConnell himself that his plan actually worked! :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a sad state of affairs when a commentary relies nearly SOLELY on WaPo for it's guidance..

    No further proof is necessary that the "reality" part of this reality based forum is no where to be found... :^/

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrat who leaked the SCOTUS decision to trash RvW was obviously hoping it would galvanize Democrats in the mid-terms..

    Looks like Democrats lose again.. :D

    CNN poll: The Supreme Court's draft opinion on Roe v. Wade hasn't shaken the midterm landscape
    https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/06/politics/cnn-poll-abortion-midterms-roe-v-wade/index.html

    If Democrats didn't have bad luck, they'de have no luck at all.. :D

  33. [33] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [16]

    You'll note that this column is a rant and not the usual List of Seven talking points.

    Those are my original talking points. That's why they're boldified.

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Much better quality of comments on yesterday's article. :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    You'll note that this column is a rant and not the usual List of Seven talking points.

    Those are my original talking points. That's why they're boldified.

    Yea, I am beginning to understand MC'ese :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Friday Talking Points -- Time To Get Angry, Democrats

    Aww, com'on... Who are ya'all kidding..

    It's *ALWAYS* time for Democrats to "get angry"...

    The problem is, even when Democrats get angry, they are useless and never accomplish anything..

    This is simply going to be one more of those times where Democrats get "angry" and they STILL lose...

    Ho hum... Same ol same ol...

  37. [37] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [17]


    So, because your mad about inflation and disappointed in the Dems you're going to replace them with the Repugs who have voted against almost everything Dems have tried to do for you?

    ***

    You wrote,

    Now, if yer talking about YOUR talking points....

    Since CW wrote a rant and not talking points yeah, they are my talking points. That's why they're all boldified.


    Dems have PROVEN they cannot govern...

    Oh? Capitalizing the word PROVEN does not, of course, prove anything. Why do you even bother typing blabbering statements?


    Democrats have a complete lock on all facets of the government *AND* they have media and academia in their pockets and they can't get SHIT done...

    I won't even try to talk you out of believing this, if you actually do.


    Not only can they not get shit done, the things Democrats DO get done simply makes things worse..

    It goes back to what I have said before.. CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER...

    No, Repugs have PROVEN they're not even interested in governing, except on behalf of the rich, the racists, the rubes and the religious nuts. Whatever it takes to concentrate even more wealth at the top and heck, let 'em pollute if'n they like, because freedom.

    How have Dems made things worse? A short list should readily come to your mind, right?

    How did Dems cheat? Because Trump said so is meaningless and got tossed out of court sixty times.

  38. [38] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [19]

    Why would I come around to celebrating your GOP imaginary future GQP election November victories six months ahead of time? As you celebrated 2020 -- and then disappeared and hid away in shame for a year.

    There's a reason they actually make people vote, last I heard.

    Isn't it obvious that these talking points completely blow away any reason to vote Repug?

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh? Capitalizing the word PROVEN does not, of course, prove anything. Why do you even bother typing blabbering statements?

    Yer right.. Me capitalizing PROVEN doesn't prove anything.

    The fact that this country is so bad off now is what makes PROVEN proven..

    I won't even try to talk you out of believing this, if you actually do.

    Of course you won't try to talk me out of it.. You can't..

    It's a bona fide and documented FACT that Democrats DO indeed have a lock on the executive and legislative government which handles day to day governing...

    Democrats have the lock on government and they can't do ANY good with it..

    No, Repugs have PROVEN they're not even interested in governing, except on behalf of the rich, the racists, the rubes and the religious nuts.

    The problem with YOUR use of PROVEN is that there are no facts to support your claim..

    It's your opinion only, supported SOLELY by political bigotry..

    How have Dems made things worse? A short list should readily come to your mind, right?

    Oh, there is a long list, but I will shorten it for you..

    Economy
    Inflation
    COVID response
    Open Border

    The list is virtually endless..

    How did Dems cheat?

    You keep asking the same question.. I keep giving you the same answer and then you drop it because you have no response to the FACTS..

    Democrats bought ENTIRE county election boards and stocked them SOLELY with Democrat operatives who "magically" found pristine ballots after everyone was sent home... This is ALL well documented..

    Democrats ALSO cheated by hiding and limiting the dissemination of FACTS that would have caused Joe Biden to lose the election...

    This is ALSO well documented...

    I only have to point to ya'all's reaction on election night to prove that Democrats cheated.. Ya'all were totally and completely sure that President Trump had WON the election.. And ya'all were factually 1000% accurate..

    It was only after Democrat cheating was put in play did the election turn to Biden..

    The facts are clear...

    As I am sure you will ignore again.. :D

    But I still luv ya.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Isn't it obvious that these talking points completely blow away any reason to vote Repug?

    And yet, all the facts and all the polls and EVERY Democrat with more than 2 brain cells to rub together (yes, they DO exist) acknowledge that Democrats are going to lose the House (even KICK acknowledges this) are are most likely to lose the Senate as well...

    As you celebrated 2020 -

    And as ya'all acknowledged the loss on election night.. Up until Democrat cheating kicked in..

    Ya'all's OWN actions confirm that cheating did, in fact, take place..

  41. [41] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [33]

    [37]

    [38]

    K, Michale. If you'll kindly address these replies I'll be incentivized to plow through some more of your column yards of right-wing rants. I don't want to get into a Don Harris scenario where I say, "But what about x, y and z?" and you do anything and everything to dodge addressing x, y and z.

    By all means you have the right to pretend that folks not responding to miles of your repetitive opinions doesnt mean it isn't fever swamp stuff. But why should anyone bother if all you or Don do is shine the effort we put into trying to engage with you?

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    [33]

    You'll note that this column is a rant and not the usual List of Seven talking points.

    Those are my original talking points. That's why they're boldified.

    I have already addressed this in comment #35.. Towhit:

    You'll note that this column is a rant and not the usual List of Seven talking points.

    Those are my original talking points. That's why they're boldified.

    Yea, I am beginning to understand MC'ese :D

    I have already addressed [37] in comment #39.

    And I have already addressed [38] in comment #40.

    By all means you have the right to pretend that folks not responding to miles of your repetitive opinions doesnt mean it isn't fever swamp stuff. But why should anyone bother if all you or Don do is shine the effort we put into trying to engage with you?

    I am at a loss to explain why you think I am ignoring your comments when the facts CLEARLY show that I am not ignoring your comments..

    Color me cornfused..

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It's time to get angry is a great title.

    And the rest is just pure bullshit.

    It's time to get angry at the Deathocrats for selling out to the big money interests which is what put us in the situation we are in now.

    The Deathocrats held down democracy while Republikillers raped it for decades and are complicit in the devil baby pregnancy it has resulted in creating.

    And you, CW, are Mia Farrow nurturing Rosemary's baby.

    The only way to stop it is to vote for Deathocrats?

    How is repeating the same mistake that caused the problem going to fix it?

    It's time for an abortion as the devil baby is putting the life of the mother (democracy) in jeopardy.

    The Deathocrats are not the party that wants to protect our rights. That is an outright lie- The Big Lie.

    That makes you complicit in the rape of democracy by the Deathocrats, Republikillers and big money interests.

    You protect the devil baby it has spawned and abort a healthy good democracy baby in One Demand.

    You are the equivalent of telling your daughter to lie back and enjoy it when rape is inevitable by helping the Deathocrats hold democracy down while it is raped.

    Someone might get hurt if we try to stop the rape really doesn't cut the mustard.

    Shame on you.

    "I'm angry at the problem I caused by spewing propaganda as a porter on the gravy train instead of being a REporter." is not righteous indignation- it is self -delusion.

    It is looking for someone to blame so you don't have to acknowledge your own role in creating the problem and your failure to have the courage and integrity to fix it.

    You stand on your front porch as the flood waters rise over the steps and say to the truck driver that shows up to evacuate you "No thanks, God will save me."

    Then you lean out your second story window and say to the person in the boat "No thanks, God will save me."

    Then you are standing knee deep in water on your roof holding a sign for the helicopter that says "No thanks, God will save me."

    Then when you die you ask God why he didn't save you.

    God says "I sent you a truck, a boat and a helicopter."

    As God does not actually exist here in reality you have to accept from real people the transportation that will take you away from the land where you only have a choice between those holding down democracy so it can be raped and those doing the raping.

    Wake up.
    Wise up.
    Rise up.

    TAKE THE VACCINE!

  44. [44] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[20],
    You've got it backwards. Because we're the vast majority, you, me and all the rest of today's cis individuals have convinced ourselves that something called gender exists, depends completely on one's sex organs, and divides everyone neatly into one of two distinct categories. The historical examples i provided were by no means intended to be exhaustive, they're just drops in an ocean of cultures that each defined sex-based social roles differently. In my everyday personal life i tend to share in our binary gender mythology, but as a social scientist i must accept that the fact of the matter is the existence of two distinct genders that depend on our sex organs is all in our heads.

  45. [45] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Wow. Dude there is way too much [insert noun] here to wade through.

    What I want from you is to know that it's worth trying to discuss politics in any detail with you in that I get as much investment back from you as I'm willing to invest in you.

    You say many things that I disagree with. Your wall of [insert noun] is overwhelming and my natural reaction is, "My God, where do I start? There's so much to unpack here!"

    So I bap out a response to a couple things you posted and by the time I post you've added tons more controversial stuff.

    It's really too much. It's also mysterious to me why this M.O. is satisfying to you. I'm frustrated because there's so much "there" there and we never get close, IMO, to fully and properly digesting a given subject.

    That's why I used to be convinced you were a troll and that you're not interested in anything beyond posting a ton of right-wing crap on somebody's left-wing crap website. You know, "owning Libs" and stuff.

    I like getting along with you so please accept this feedback in the sincere spirit in which I offer it.

    Otherwise, I'll keep plowing through as much of your product as I can first thing,
    without feeling the need to comment on it.

  46. [46] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    vocem tuam electionis

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    You've got it backwards. Because we're the vast majority, you, me and all the rest of today's cis individuals have convinced ourselves that something called gender exists, depends completely on one's sex organs, and divides everyone neatly into one of two distinct categories. The historical examples i provided were by no means intended to be exhaustive, they're just drops in an ocean of cultures that each defined sex-based social roles differently. In my everyday personal life i tend to share in our binary gender mythology, but as a social scientist i must accept that the fact of the matter is the existence of two distinct genders that depend on our sex organs is all in our heads.

    OK... So it's all in their heads..

    Which is what I said from the outset..

    It's a psychological/psychiatric abnormality..

    A sickness that must be TREATED, not catered to...

    Democrats are using the SHUTTER ISLAND ploy... Going along with the psychosis, playing into the psychotic episode..

    It's ridiculous...

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Oooh I bet you're wondering how I knew
    'Bout your plans to make me blue
    With some other guy you put us on the floor
    And repeat the rape you've done before
    It wasn't a surprise I must say
    That you would lie to cover up the rape
    Yes you spew it through the RAPEvine
    Once again you say it's rape time
    Yes you spew it through the RAPEvine
    And it makes you just a useless slime

    Scummy, scummy, yeah..."

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    You wish me to address your comments.. I address them point by point, quoting the comment that YOU made with italics and then putting my response to your comment in normal type..

    If you like, I can break it down numerically for you..

    Your comment #33 I addressed with my comment #35

    Your comment #37 I addressed with my comment #39

    Your comment #38 I addressed with my comment #40

    I am honestly confused at your confusion here...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    After Horrific SCOTUS Leak, Justices Must Plow Ahead and Overturn Roe
    https://www.newsweek.com/after-horrific-scotus-leak-justices-must-plow-ahead-overturn-roe-opinion-1704063

    Yea!!!!

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    OK.. After rereading your comment, I realized that what I thought you said was not actually what you said.. So, as such, let me rephrase my initial comment..

    i must accept that the fact of the matter is the existence of two distinct genders that depend on our sex organs is all in our heads.

    That is not scientifically accurate..

    SCIENCE says that there are 2 distinct genders.. And ONLY 2 distinct genders..

    The science of psychology/psychiatry says that for those who think there are more than 2 genders or those that science says are one gender but they "feel" like they are the other gender is a mental health illness.. A psychological/psychiatric sickness that needs to be TREATED...

    But, in the case of Democrats, they want to CATER to that illness, rather than treat that illness..

    Democrats are using the SHUTTER ISLAND ploy... Going along with the psychosis, playing into the psychotic episode..

    It's ridiculous...

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy (45)-
    Exactly the same thing you do to me and I am asking of you.

    So let me use your tactic of saying Bashi speaks for you by saying you speak for me regarding you doing the same thing to me Michale is doing to you.

    So please now argue with yourself over which one of you is right. :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Republicans take the House, we’ll finally get answers about Hunter and Joe Biden
    https://nypost.com/2022/05/06/when-gop-takes-the-house-well-get-answers-about-hunter-and-joe-biden/

    AND monthly impeachments of Joe Biden! :D

    Don't forget monthly impeachments of Joe Biden... :D

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Rapelieland is much more accurate than Weigantia.

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    I realize I may be going a bit over your head on this, but let me try to break it down. Sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is a combination of DNA, development, hormones and body organs. Gender is in our brains. EVERYONE'S brains. As such, the binary gender division we claim exists is imaginary.

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    We need a Welcome to Rapelieland sign with an appropriate slogan.

    Something like:

    Abandon all hope ye that enter here. :D

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And maybe a warning sign that says:

    Danger. Watch for falling propaganda.

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And

    Caution. Devil baby crossing.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gender is in our brains. EVERYONE'S brains. As such, the binary gender division we claim exists is imaginary.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree, as there is no REAL scientific fact to support that claim..

    Oh, I know.. You'll come back with a litany of DEMOCRAT "science" that "proves" me wrong..

    But, as I have already established as fact, your Democrat "science" is nothing more than Democrat activism masquerading as real and actual science..

    So, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.. As I have the facts and REAL science on my side and you'll never concede that fact, so.... :D

    Agreeing to disagree is the only logical course of action..

  60. [60] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And would somebody please issue an Amber Alert on CW?

  61. [61] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Your determination of your gender is in your ass? :D

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, everyone! Whadya all say we do Mom tunes tomorrow night?

  63. [63] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    I am taking the wife into town for some shopping.. I'll be gone a couple hours..

    I don't want you to think I am ignoring you if you come back with comments.. :D

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Do Mom tunes?!?!?!

    "Tempted by the fruit of his mother
    tempted by what's under the covers
    should they get it on
    or would it be wrong

    With his mother
    tempted but he's run out of rubbers
    will it be his son or his brother..."

    You are a very sick woman, EM. :D

  66. [66] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    As you celebrated 2020 -

    And as ya'all acknowledged the loss on election night.. Up until Democrat cheating kicked in..

    Ya'all's OWN actions confirm that cheating did, in fact, take place..

    What? People being bummed out here about the earliest batches of election results proves there was imaginary cheating?

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Inigo Montoya
    THE PRINCESS BRIDE

    I don't follow your logic.

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    Funny, isn't it, how Queen always shows up on a Sunday night! :)

    Anyway, when we did favourite covers last Sunday, I didn't know about this one ... just stumbled across this brilliant cover today ... we all have a rock and roll soul, no matter how deep down!

    Stairway Cover

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    What? People being bummed out here about the earliest batches of election results proves there was imaginary cheating?

    No.. Early batches.. Mid batches. And LATE batches all confirmed President Trump won re-election..

    THAT is why ya'all were bummed..

    It was only after batches that magically appeared after everyone was sent home was Biden pushed over the top..

    I don't follow your logic.

    Of course you don't.. because to do so would be against the ideological agenda.. :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of ideological agenda..

    Oh, I know.. You'll come back with a litany of DEMOCRAT "science" that "proves" me wrong..

    But, as I have already established as fact, your Democrat "science" is nothing more than Democrat activism masquerading as real and actual science..

    Keep in mind, JL.. We are talking about Democrat "science" where Democrats alter the DATA to fit the theory... Instead of REAL science where THEORIES are altered to fit the DATA.. Democrat "science" alters the DATA to fit the theory...

    Democrats alter word definitions to fit the activism...

    This is the basis of Democrat "science" and, as such, it's completely, wholly and unequivocally untrustworthy...

  70. [70] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    On topic (just to be different)

    Food for thought.

    Why should women be the only persons entitled to legally kill human beings?

    Why does a woman's right to kill the humans she gives birth to expire once the human is expelled from her womb?

    Should not the woman have the ability to assign her right to kill the humans she gives birth to to 2nd parties?

    Should the woman who does not choose to exercise her right to kill the humans she incubates, not have the right to exercise it retroactively?

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Good questions all..

    Good luck getting an answer for them.. :D

    It's been my experience that Weigantians don't like to address questions that are inconvenient to their ideological beliefs.. :D

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Governor Ron DeSantis sent me an email this morning..

    Michale,

    Do you think that Elon Musk buying Twitter is a good first step in the fight against Big Tech?

    I think it's a VERY good first step in the fight against Big Tech, Governor..

    A VERY good first step.. :D

    Thank you for asking..

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    2000 Mules Documentary Provides Compelling Evidence That 2020 Election Was Stolen
    https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/05/2000-mules-documentary-provides-compelling-evidence-that-2020-election-was-stolen/

    And the FACTS continue to roll in... :D

  74. [74] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MtnCaddy [45]

    Great posting! Sadly, it’s almost identical to the one that I and just about every person who has spent any real time here has posted previously, pleading with Michale that everyone, including himself, would benefit if he would just tone it down. Truth is that Michale isn’t here to debate politics; he’s here to agitate and increase the number of posts… or he is truly a pathological liar with psychopathic tendencies.

    But maybe your plea will be the one to get him to stop with the accusations against ALL Democrats based in rhetoric and claiming to know what everyone thinks and believes. We can only hope.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Truth is that Michale isn’t here to debate politics; he’s here to agitate and increase the number of posts… or he is truly a pathological liar with psychopathic tendencies.

    Yes, Russ.. That is EXACTLY your "truth"... I fully believe that you honestly believe this as your "truth"...

    But as usual, it's not factually accurate..

    I had hoped we would have moved past this need for personal attacks and comments of personal destruction..

    Sadly, apparently, we have not...

  76. [76] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS

    Why should women be the only persons entitled to legally kill human beings?

    They aren’t the only ones legally killing human beings. George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self defense. Ukrainian soldiers are killing the Russians invading their country. Republicans get giddy over the death penalty… that kills a human being.

    Are you opposed to families being able to determine that their loved ones that are only alive by artificial means should be allowed to die? “Pulling the plug” is killing another human being.

    Your first question was based on a fallacy; so there is no point to answer the others. We get it…you want to make women who get abortions hate themselves and know how you view them.

  77. [77] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "And they were singing
    Bye, bye the new dynamic has died
    Made a comment in Rapelieland
    and it was not worth the try
    Just trolling, stupid dodges
    and a pack full lies
    singing this is how democracy dies,
    This is how democracy dies...."

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ[76],

    Very well stated; spot on analysis.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    They aren’t the only ones legally killing human beings. George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self defense.

    So, you are making a self-defense argument on behalf of the woman against an unborn baby...

    "Well... Good luck with that.."
    -Jim Carrey, BRUCE ALMIGHTY

    :eyeroll:

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    you want to make women who get abortions hate themselves K/I>

    Women who kill their unborn child because the child is socially inconvenient SHOULD hate themselves..

    They are despicable human beings and deserve all the hate that society can foist upon them...

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww carp!

    Reposted for clarity....

    you want to make women who get abortions hate themselves

    Women who kill their unborn child because the child is socially inconvenient SHOULD hate themselves..

    They are despicable human beings and deserve all the hate that society can foist upon them...

  82. [82] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Yet all those that have complained about Michale not engaging in political debate and just being here to agitate have chosen to not engage in political discussion on One Demand and have just made comments to agitate.

    It is doubtful Mtn Caddy's plea will work on Michale as it has not even worked on Mtn caddy or anyone else here.

    Of course, we all know Mtn caddy will just plead the fifth. (the measurement- not the amendment :D)

  83. [83] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And people that are trying to prevent One Demand from being born because it is inconvenient to their delusions are despicable beings (the human part being in question) and deserve all the hate society can foist upon them.

    Good thing the New Dynamic is dead or that would have been inappropriate! :D

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I wonder what the situation would be like if it was men who had the babies ...

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you want to take a stab at what that would be like? ;)

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wonder what the situation would be like if it was men who had the babies ...

    Can't say.. But I feel the same way about men who encourage/force their wives/gfs to kill the baby..

    So, for me.. Much wouldn't change..

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you want to take a stab at what that would be like? ;)

    According to Democrats, it already IS like that..

    Gender is a frame of mind, so MEN can get preggers too... :D

  88. [88] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (84)-
    It would be just aboot the same as it is here with my baby.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkcNLtn2gtk

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think if it was men who carried a new life for nine months, then there would be a lot less human beings in the world and it wouldn't be because men chose not to get pregnant. Ahem.

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, I could be dead wrong about that. But, I think you may get my point.

    Which is that EVERYTHING would be different and very much would change for you, Michale!

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not really, no.. I am WELL past my child bearing years.. :D

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hunter Biden laptop repairman details first encounter with president's son

    Delaware repairman describes encountering porn, financial statements on laptop
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-laptop-repairman-first-encounter-president-son

    Kinda a different story than Democrats told initially...

    Blind Computer Repairman, my arse!!! :eyeroll:

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    I highly encourage Democrat scumbags to picket and protest at Judges residences..

    It's ILLEGAL and protesters will be thrown in jail quicker n anything..

  94. [94] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[87/91],

    you still don't understand what gender is. gender is the social and cultural aspect of sex, not the biological or genetic. it's in the dictionary definition if that helps.

    JL

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    you still don't understand what gender is. gender is the social and cultural aspect of sex, not the biological or genetic. it's in the dictionary definition if that helps.

    Yea.. The same dictionary that just changed the definition of "racism" to match the Democrat Party ideology.. :eyeroll:

    I have already addressed how ya'all "define" things in comment #69...

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ: "Truth is that Michale isn’t here to debate politics; he’s here to agitate and increase the number of posts… or he is truly a pathological liar with psychopathic tendencies."

    Liz: "Very well stated; spot on analysis."

    Wow... OK, that hurts but, well.. :^/

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I'll live..

    It's just Russ spewing his fact-less and ignorant opinion..

    "Per the norm"
    Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Leftists respond after Justice Clarence Thomas says court won’t be ‘bullied’: ‘Bully them harder’

    'Thomas like the rest of GOP want us to shut up and be subservient to them,' tweeted one MSNBC contributor
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/justice-clarence-thomas-triggers-leftists-speech-saying-court-wont-bullied-bully-them-harder

    Tactics For Democrats.. From the mouths of Democrats themselves..

    Can't wait for these punks and scumbags to be thrown in jail..

  99. [99] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Every sperm is sacred
    Every sperm is good
    Every is needed
    in your neighborhood

    Every sperm is sacred
    Every sperm is great
    If a sperm gets wasted
    God gets quite irate."
    -Monty Python's The Meaning of Life

    One Demand is the sperm needed to fertilize democracy.

    Why do all of you refuse to swallow my sperm?

  100. [100] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    When you are bullied bully back harder.

    If you insist, asshole.

  101. [101] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    sure, it's a vast left-wing conspiracy to take over all the dictionaries and make words mean what they actually mean instead of what you want them to.

    ;p
    JL

  102. [102] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    No. There is a difference between definitions and what words mean.

    Definitions are in a dictionary. What words mean is in how those words are used and how our brains interpret the usage.

    The binary definition of a word defined as one thing and not another in the dictionary we claim exists is imaginary.

  103. [103] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    aaaaanyhow, i'm quite sure the definition of gender hasn't changed much since the mid 1970's when people started researching what it was. the reason they started to use the word is that it was necessary to draw a distinction between biological sex and social roles.

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    make words mean what they actually mean instead of what you want them to.

    Actually, Democrats are CHANGING the definitions of words to make them mean what DEMOCRATS want them to mean, to fit the Democrat agenda..

    Changing the definition of racism to fit the Democrat agenda is a perfect example.

    Are you trying to claim that the definition of racism that Dr Martin Luther King lived and died by was WRONG!!???

    Is THAT what you are really trying to say, JL???

    REALLY!!????

    the reason they started to use the word is that it was necessary to draw a distinction between biological sex and social roles.

    So, NOW what you are saying is that there are more than 2 genders..

    OK, I'll be your huckleberry.. Name the other genders beyond male and female and show the FACTS of when those extra fantasy genders entered the language in common usage...

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pro-choice activists for ‘reproductive freedom’ protest outside homes of Supreme Court justices
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pro-abortion-protesters-kavanaugh-roberts-homes-roe-wade

    "Let's terrorize SCOTUS Justices' families and children.. THAT will endear us to the American voter!!"
    -Democrat Party

    :eyeroll:

    What a disgusting display of hate and bigotry put on by Democrats..

    Do ya'all HONESTLY believe this will help Democrats in November???

    Terrorizing the children of SCOTUS Justices???

  106. [106] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    You've made the claim that you will condemn actions taken by Democrats when those actions are worthy of condemnation..

    Surely the DOX'ing of SCOTUS Justices private family residences by Democrat activists is worthy of condemnation, no??

    I’m just waiting for you to provide me with the DNC’s release where they are DOX’ing SCOTUS. You falsely claiming that an entire Party is doing something unacceptable and then demanding that we condemn their actions would require me to condemn folks for things based solely because you said they did it. Sorry, but your history with the TRUTH…with FACTS… is horrific. Actual evidence to support your allegations is a MUST.

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    One has to wonder if AG Garland will FBI Agents to surveille, photograph, interrogate, intimidate, and build files on THESE domestic terrorists?

    Oh, silly me.. Garland only does that against parents who speak out at school board meetings..

    Scumbag Democrats who terrorize children in there homes are perfectly acceptable to Democrats. :eyeroll:

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    And here is our Russ, moving the goal posts...

    Why am I not surprised..

    Obviously Russ missed the comment where I SHOWED Democrats protesting at the HOMES of SCOTUS Justices.

    I am betting Russ is going to say that those aren't Democrats...

    Watch...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those protestors are breaking federal law..

    But, of course, Biden and Democrats are on the side of the protesters so there will be no prosecutions..

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats like to compare US gun laws to the rest of the world.. Democrats claim that the US should be like the rest of the world..

    OK, fine. Let's take a world tour of baby killing laws..

    For most of Europe baby killing is allowed up to 12 weeks..

    Any abortions done after 12 weeks, the persons involved are criminally prosecuted..

    In Malta and Cyprus, baby killing is illegal throughout the pregnancy and those involved in the baby killing are criminally prosecuted..

    Sweden is 18 weeks and Netherlands is 24 weeks.. And, once again, those who violate these laws are CRIMINALLY prosecuted..

    So... Democrats believe that Europe's gun laws are good enough for the US to follow.. This is, of course, total bullshit because of the US 2nd Amendment..

    But there is no Casey Anthony Constitutional right that says women can kill their babies..

    So, Europe's abortion laws should be good enough for the US...

    Right??? Russ?? JL??? Isn't that factually accurate?? Shouldn't Europe's baby killing laws be good enough for the US???

    Hmmmm??? Inquiring minds want to know.. :D

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Russ: "Truth is that Michale isn’t here to debate politics; he’s here to agitate and increase the number of posts… or he is truly a pathological liar with psychopathic tendencies."

    Liz: "Very well stated; spot on analysis."

    Wow... OK, that hurts but, well.. :^/

    Oh, Michale, Michale ... when I wrote, "Very well stated; spot on analysis.", I was talking about a whole other post, not that one about you, my friend!

    I was, in FACT, referring to Russ's [76]!

    It hurts to think you think I would hurt like that. :(

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    My apologies, Liz.. I don't know HOW I could have made that mistake..

    I know you don't think like that.. That's why I was so shocked..

    My humblest and most sincerest apologies..

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    . You falsely claiming that an entire Party is doing something unacceptable and then demanding that we condemn their actions would require me to condemn folks for things based solely because you said they did it.

    Which is EXACTLY what you do with the GOP and Trump supporters..

    So, what's yer point???

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYC church swarmed by pro-abortion protesters: 'I'm killing the babies'

    Abortion groups have called for nationwide protests in response to the potential striking down of Roe v. Wade
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-church-abortion-protesters

    For Democrats, it's ALL about killing babies.. :eyeroll:

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I can't believe I made that mistake.. That was certainly a nimnull thing to do..

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    "So the wise political minds of "The View" may not understand, but I do. Sunny Hostin says "Black Republicans" is an oxymoron, but an oxymoron is Democrats saying they care about Black lives while supporting Planned Parenthood, whose founding mission was to exterminate Black and Brown babies. An oxymoron is Democrats saying all kids should have access to quality education, but siding with the teachers' union over students and parents. An oxymoron is saying that the government is systemically racist, and then thinking the same government, [that's] racist, will solve all of our problems. In the words of a classic R&B song, "Ex-Factor": "It could all be so simple, but you'd rather make it hard. Tell me who I have to be to get some reciprocity." It's a song about an ex and a woman who's just asking for something in return for all that she's committed. When I hear that song today, I can't help but think about the Democrats and how they're struggling to connect with their usual voting bloc. Now on this show I have the privilege of traveling across the country. I speak with people from all different walks of life. And I can tell you all of them are upset. At this very moment, more than six in 10 Americans believe our country is on the wrong track. And neither Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer understand why. You see, for far too long, the Democrats have just assumed they'll have the support of Black voters. But those days are over. Black voters are frustrated with the president and the Democratic Party. "
    -Lawrence Jones

    And there it is.. Why Democrats are losing hispanic and black American votes by the tens of thousands..

    Hispanic and black Americans are beginning to realize that Democrats don't really care about them...

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's rather ironic.. The leak of the SCOTUS decision may actually have the opposite effect.. It might push Justice Roberts to side with the majority and make the decision to throw Roe v Wade a 6-3 decision..

    THAT would be poetic justice for Democrats, eh?? :D

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell says national abortion ban is 'possible' if Roe v. Wade is overturned

    A leaked draft opinion from Justice Samuel Alito indicated that the Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade-overturned

    Democrats believe that the US should mirror Europe's laws when it comes to guns..

    Awww right... Aww right...

    So, Democrats should ALSO believe that mirroring Europe's laws on the issue of baby killing is ALSO a good thing..

    Unfortunately, for Dems, the US can't mirror Europe's gun laws due to that pesky 2nd Amendment..

    But, since NO WHERE in the Constitution is there ANY mention of baby killing AKA abortion, there is NO REASON the US can't mirror Europe's anti-baby killing laws..

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    So, Democrats will get their way.. The US will mirror Europe's laws.. At least when it comes to baby killing..

    Everyone's happy.... Right??

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it is "possible" abortion will be banned nationwide if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this summer.

    During an interview with USA Today, published Friday, McConnell suggested a national abortion ban could happen but noted that such a discussion is premature.

    "All of this puts the cart before the horse," he said.

    When asked if a conversation on a national abortion ban is worthy of debate, the senator said federal restrictions on the procedure are possible.

    "If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies – not only at the state level but at the federal level – certainly could legislate in that area," McConnell said.

    "And if this were the final decision, that was the point that it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process. So yeah, it's possible," he continued.

    And just think..

    This ALL could have been avoided if Democrats would have just been happy to keep abortions Safe, legal and rare..

    RvW would not be being thrown on the trash heap of history and there would not be the threat of a total NATION WIDE BAN on baby killing..

    And, if Democrat prognostication is accurate, NOW Democrats stand to lose ALL the "rights" that they have gotten by the SCOTUS.. Gay marriage?? ppffffttttt gone..

    ALL be cause Democrats had to push further and further to the Left....

    Pigs get fed.. Hogs get slaughtered..

    Looks like Democrat "rights" are going to be slaughtered...

    "afw'ein Mnhei'sahe"
    -Romulan Proverb

    It loosely translates to You deserve no pity, I will give you no sympathy and it serves you right!!

    Democrats are their own worst enemies..

  120. [120] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    Your response is kinda all over the place... Here's something from actual scientists to at the NIH:

    Only two sex forms but multiple gender variants: How to explain?

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    That's okay ... I pardon you! :-)

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Left Wing gobbledygook...

    Bisexuality is not a gender, it's a lifestyle.. Gay is not a gender, it's a lifestyle..

    If gay were a gender, then gay men would use women's bathrooms.. And bisexual people would use whatever bathroom they wished..

    Inadvertently (I am sure :D) you prove my point for me..

    Notice the date of this gobbledygook?? 2018...

    Your link is nothing more than Democrat activism masquerading as "science"...

    Just another example of how Democrats change the FACTS that become Democrat "truth"..

    As I said, were better off just agreeing to disagree..

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's okay ... I pardon you! :-)

    Awesome sauce.. :D

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ironically enough, had the progressive who leaked the SCOTUS decision simply waited until the SCOTUS officially released the decision (June) it would likely have had a BIGGER impact on the mid-terms due to being closer to the mid-terms by a month..

    By leaking the official decision earlier, the progressive leaker gave people an extra month to get used to the idea...

    Once again, Democrats refuse to think things thru...

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    If gay were a gender, then gay men would use women's bathrooms.. And bisexual people would use whatever bathroom they wished..

    Apologies.. After re-reading this, it got me to think you might not see it as the joke that it is..

    If gay were a gender, then gay men would use women's bathrooms.. And bisexual people would use whatever bathroom they wished.. :D

    There.. :D

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Great Rage

    By now, the stories are familiar. Most, though not all, start on social media: a post on Facebook or Twitter identifies a name, and then the threats begin. Shortly after the 2020 presidential election, conspiracy theorists focused on a video of a voting-machine technician at work in Gwinnett County, Georgia. One Twitter user published the young man’s name, declaring him “guilty of treason,” along with, according to the Georgia election official Gabriel Sterling, an animation of a swaying noose.

    Around that same time, Ruby Freeman, another Georgia election worker, received a flood of menacing emails, texts, and phone calls from people convinced that she had worked to steal the election from Donald Trump, leading her to leave her home and spend months fleeing from house to house. Health-care workers, too, have faced threats. In the fall of 2021, Allison Berry, a local health officer in Washington State, stopped going into the office out of caution following a wave of harassment—including a protest at her former home address—over mask and vaccination requirements imposed in her county.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-great-rage/ar-AAWWGyk

    All of that is BAD, right???

    But, according to Democrats, doing that kind of harassment to SCOTUS Justices and their families...

    THAT is perfectly acceptable to Democrats..

    Hypocrisy. It's not a bug in Democrat Programming. It's a feature.

    :eyeroll:

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Carp!! Forgot to close the attribute after the title..

    Apologies MC... :D

  128. [128] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The definition of gender hasn't changed?

    I suppose the definition of gay hasn't changed either.

    We all remember those Flintstone episodes with Fred and Barney having a gay old time! :D

  129. [129] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    I'd be more comfortable disagreeing with you if i understood what you were talking about.

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  131. [131] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Rapelieland dictionary defines coward and troll with the same definition:

    Michale, Mtn caddy. Nypoet, Listen and Kick.

    The only difference is coward also includes someone named CW. Probably someone that used to comment here but doesn't anymore. :D

  132. [132] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Perhaps it is not cowardice or trolling.

    When they ring the bell and all of you salivate on cue maybe you are just confusing the word salivation with the word salvation. :D

  133. [133] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Rapelieland dictionary defines salvation as:

    One Demand.

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd be more comfortable disagreeing with you if i understood what you were talking about.

    I do..

    It's Democrats who like to change definitions and change their activism into "science"...

    This is fact and is well-documented..

    A perfect example of this is that I go by the actual factual definition of racism.. The same definition that Dr Martin Luther King lived by and died for..

    You go by the Democrat-created definition of racism..

    Since you go by the Democrat definitions of things and I go by the real factual definitions of things, there can be no agreement because we are not on the same plane of reality..

    I am on the REAL/FACTUAL plane of reality and you are on the DEMOCRAT plane of reality..

    Hence.. The agreement to disagree..

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    :D

  135. [135] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Your link says that the definition of gender depends on how the word is used, who uses it and in what context it is used. Pretty much what I said in comment 102.

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Watching the first episode of STAR TREK STRANGE NEW WORLDS

    I'll keep ya'all apprised.. :D

  137. [137] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Id be more comfortable disagreeing with you if i understood what you were talking about."

    Yet you understand what One Demand is about and instead of disagreeing with rational argument you use pie jokes as a dodge and to ridicule to go after the person because you are uncomfortable with the fact that you have no rational argument disagreeing with One Demand as a choice that citizens could make to use the basic principles of democracy to get the big money out of politics.

  138. [138] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    Sex is physical, hormonal and genetic.

    Gender is social, cultural and psychological.

    These terms were defined that way in the 1970s by scientists, not politicians, and unlike racism have not acquired any additional definitions since then.

    I don't know how it's physically possible to disagree about that, it's just what those those words mean.

  139. [139] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    Pie is tasty, extremely popular, includes countless varieties, and is a viable political strategy.

    Your comments are profane, abusive, tasteless, completely lacking in self-awareness, and above all, boring. At this point nobody much cares what they may once have been about.

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    PURE... UNADULTERATED... TREK!!!!!

    And not a Democrat Party talking point in the entire episode!!!! :D

    LOVE IT!!!

    It's going to be a winner...

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Sex is physical, hormonal and genetic.

    Gender is social, cultural and psychological.

    I know you honestly believe that...

    Being gay is NOT a gender..

    Being bisexual is NOT a gender..

    If it were then bathrooms would have to be created for each gender out of concerns for privacy..

    Agree to disagree is still in effect..

    I don't know how it's physically possible to disagree about that, it's just what those those words mean.

    And, up until recently, racism meant what racism meant..

    And then Democrats discovered that what racism meant is not compatible with what Democrats NEED them to mean..

    So, for Democrats the meaning of racism was changed.. To fit what Democrats NEEDED racism to mean..

    Data from global warming means what data from global warming means..

    But Democrats discovered that what data from global warming meant was NOT compatible with what Democrat ideology DEMANDED that the data meant.

    So, Democrats changed the data to fit their pet ideologically based theory..

    You sensing the pattern here??

    When facts and reality does not comport with Democrat ideology, the ideology is not changed to conform to the facts and to reality..

    Democrats change the facts and their reality to conform with their ideology..

    The FACTS that prove this are as plentiful as they are conclusive..

    Agreeing to disagree is the ONLY logical course of action...

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL..

    PLEASE tell me you've watched the new Trek... :D

  143. [143] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    LoL, no i haven't, sorry.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awwww crap!!!!

    Do ya think you could break away for about 40 minutes and watch it today?? I can make it available for you to download if you wish...

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Check yer email...

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    It'll take a while to UL...

  147. [147] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Your pie jokes are saying fuck you to me without using the words.

    When commenters here responded to rational argument with trolling, lies and dodges I followed Michale's advice to reach common ground by coming to your level in a more honest way by actually using the words.

    My profanity, abusive and tasteless comments are a product of the behavior of the other commenters here that is what all of you asked for and desired to create with your behavior.

    Now you try to use that as an excuse to not care about what my comments might have once been about.

    That pig won't fly.

    I am completely aware of both what I am doing and what the rest of you are doing.

    One Demand is not boring to you- it is frightening because you have no rational argument which is proven by the fact that you resort to trolling and dodges and have never offered rational argument.

    Prove me wrong that you have no rational argument by making one or fuck off.

  148. [148] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @Don,

    Good luck with that.

  149. [149] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Agreed. Expecting any of you to have any integrity or decency is unlikely.

    I'll just have to settle for pointing out you are assholes until CW finally mans up and addresses One Demand.

  150. [150] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    LoL! not bloody likely.

  151. [151] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Time will tell.

  152. [152] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    LWYH [76]

    I perceive that you egregiously misinterpret my 'food for thought' questions posed in [70].

    I'm totally in favor of abortion rights. In fact, I would make certain abortions mandatory, and I would allow retroactive abortions in the case of some of those who were allowed to be born 'in error'. (Think Hitler, Trump, etc.)

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    California is making plans to become an abortion "sanctuary," where reproductive rights would be expansively protected and patients could travel from other states for services. One proposal seeks to guarantee a right to an abortion in the state constitution.

    If you want to kill your baby then California's the place you oughta be

    :eyeroll:

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Medical textbook strips gender dysphoria definition after being cited by Florida

    Flordia's surgeon general slammed the move as 'political activism disguised as scientific advancement'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/textbook-strips-gender-dysphoria-definition-cited-florida

    And THAT'S the way you do it, people!!

    Democrats want to make their activism into "science"???

    *AIN'T* gonna happen in Florida, people..

    Simple as that..

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House tacitly endorses intimidation of Supreme Court justices

    It was a horrific scene at a baseball field in Alexandria, Va. five years ago. Five people were shot while practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. Among the wounded was Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who was in critical condition while undergoing several surgeries to stop internal bleeding. Fortunately, he would survive, as would the others who were shot.

    They were extremely fortunate that three Capitol Police officers were present because they were assigned to Scalise given his leadership position in the House of Representatives. But if Scalise hadn’t been at practice that morning, the gunman would’ve had several more minutes before police arrived and could’ve killed or seriously injured more people.

    One would think that our leaders in Washington would have learned from this terrible day and would be doing everything in their power to condemn similar acts of violence from happening again.

    But the Biden White House doesn’t seem to care that angry mobs have gone to the homes of six conservative Supreme Court justices to protest the likely overturning of Roe v. Wade after a draft document stating such, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, was leaked earlier this week. A liberal firestorm followed, as the overturning of the 1973 decision would send abortion law back to the states.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3480825-white-house-tacitly-endorses-intimidation-of-supreme-court-justices/

    The group that is hysterical about a *SINGLE* Right Wing violent riot that got out of control approves of protests against SCOTUS Justices and their kids right at their homes.. :eyeroll:

    Hypocrisy. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature.

  156. [156] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If anyone physically assaults a judge in any way they should go to jail for a long time. However, citizens are entitled to voice their opinions in any public place they wish. If anti choice activists can picket a doctor, then pro choice activists can picket a judge.

  157. [157] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed!

  158. [158] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And I can picket Rapelieland.

  159. [159] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    I'm totally in favor of abortion rights.

    You could have fooled me by the wording you chose in your 'food for thought' comment[70].

    But, your point is well taken as we do tend to read stuff into comments that just aren't there, so ...

  160. [160] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS [152]

    My bad. I did take it the wrong way. My apologies.

    -R

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... I'm sorry.

  162. [162] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    A little Mothers of Invention
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tlLI8XQyBM

  163. [163] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  164. [164] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  165. [165] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Right letters, wrong song.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tBsF5pCEI0

  166. [166] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Dedicated to commenters here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPOHOtQ8Qw0

  167. [167] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    O's and zeros. L's and I's. Pain in the ass.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPOHOtQ8Qw0

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Don! I think. Should I actually click on those links? Don't answer that! :)

    So, Happy Mother's Day, everyone! And, welcome one and all to the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party where Moms just wanna have fun! Heh.

    Jann Arden - Good Mother

  169. [169] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  170. [170] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  171. [171] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My mom loved all sorts of music, including most of the stuff I liked to listen to, through the years, but her favourite singer was none other than Engelbert Humperdink and this was a constant favourite she love to sing along with.

    And, she was a Bon Jovi fan, too and loved the music video for Thank You For Loving Me

    Love you, Mom and miss you every day ...

  172. [172] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Good choices Liz

  173. [173] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Where are yours?

  174. [174] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  175. [175] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Working on it.

  176. [176] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "The incredible ballad, The incredible ballad, Mama, I’m Coming Home was a song written and performed by Ozzy Osbourne in full dedication to his wife, Sharon. Word for word, you can easily pick up how much he loves her and what he means to her. Many husbands also look upon their wife as a surrogate mom as it is she that helps them get through all the ups and downs life has to offer. Granted, she’s not really his mom, but in many cases, close enough."

  177. [177] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Then I'll be waitin' on it, Joshua!

  178. [178] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  179. [179] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  180. [180] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  181. [181] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [179] - very nice!

    "There is no greater song about Moms than the heartfelt song John Lennon wrote for his Mom named Julia. It’s a sad tale because John Lennon lost his mom in a car crash when he was quite young. There is nothing worse than losing one of your parents when you are young. John Lennon’s lyrics are incredibly touching as he expresses both pain and loving thoughtfulness in this breathtaking song he wrote for his mom. The song was released on the album The Beatles which was commonly referred to as The White Album. Julia was released in 1968."

  182. [182] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  183. [183] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    oh, yeah baby! i knew there would be pie!

  184. [184] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @162-167

    not interested, don't particularly care, certainly not clicking any of the links, but in case someone else wants to hear my reply:

    https://youtu.be/lnCeZY6nxjQ

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "What makes an awesome song to pay homage to moms doesn’t always have to come across as a heartfelt ballad. It doesn’t hurt to put a bit of hippy funk for that special woman in our lives. “A Real Mother for Ya” from Johnny Guitar Watson serves up as that awesome song too good not to play. Released in 1977, “A Real Mother for Ya” became a number five hit on the US Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, as well as a number forty-one hit on the US Billboard Hot 100, and a number forty-four hit on the UK Singles Chart. While this song may or may not pay an exact homage to mothers, there is a definite relation the need to run for cover often means running back home to mom who has a knack to make things seem a bit better."

    A Real Mother For Ya

  186. [186] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    thank you so much, that episode was amazing! great mix of TOS and TNG themes, almost like the entire franchise coming full circle.

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, we're not done here yet!

  188. [188] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I tried to resist ... heh.

    Fountains of Wayne - Stacie's Mom

  189. [189] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Canada lost one of its great rockers - Jerry Doucette - recently so I hope y'all don't mind hearing this one again!

    Mama Let Him Play!

  190. [190] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i tried to resist too. ;p

    for aficionados of rock n' roll and other children's records

    yup, you guessed it.

  191. [191] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    gotta sleep now. night all!

  192. [192] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's one for Michale,

    Paul Simon - Mother and Child Reunion

  193. [193] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That was (some dark) fun ... pleasant dreams, everyone!

  194. [194] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm gonna go listen to some Doors, now ... :)

  195. [195] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Day-yam Elizabeth I just got here!

  196. [196] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Today, er,yesterday we had a Mothers theme, right?

    Why then, herewith I offer Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention's Apostrophe. (5:51)

  197. [197] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    This is another Mother's fave Fifty-Fifty. (6:10)

    Skip to 1:30-ish if the vocal annoys you. It grows on you after a couple of listens.

    Jon Luc Ponty followed by George Duke followed by FZ in anABSOLUTELY fabulous instrumental interlude that is looove playing bass to.

  198. [198] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yes "is" would looove this funky bass track...and so would "I".

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL

    If anyone physically assaults a judge in any way they should go to jail for a long time. However, citizens are entitled to voice their opinions in any public place they wish. If anti choice activists can picket a doctor, then pro choice activists can picket a judge.

    Not according to federal law..

    Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or
    with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or

    in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or

    with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence,

    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
    -Title 18 US Code § 1507

    Of course, since the Democrat protesters are doing the Democrats' biding, the Biden Administration won't apply the law to these scumbags that break the law..

    Biden and his handlers only go after concerned parents and labels them "domestic terrorists".. :^/

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    thank you so much, that episode was amazing! great mix of TOS and TNG themes, almost like the entire franchise coming full circle.

    I know, right!!! It was awesome.. Star Trek at it's finest!!!

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    If anyone physically assaults a judge in any way they should go to jail for a long time. However, citizens are entitled to voice their opinions in any public place they wish. If anti choice activists can picket a doctor, then pro choice activists can picket a judge.

    Watch now: Madison anti-abortion headquarters hit by apparent Molotov cocktail, vandalism, graffiti

    Vandals set a fire inside the Madison headquarters of the anti-abortion group Wisconsin Family Action early Sunday, police and an official with the group said Sunday.

    Investigators are calling the fire at the building, on Madison’s North Side near the Dane County Regional Airport, an arson.

    Julaine Appling, president of the lobbying and advocacy organization, said she was getting ready for a Mother’s Day brunch in Watertown when a building staff member informed her of the break-in. A person on the way to the airport before dawn saw smoke rising from the building and called police, Appling said.

    Police said flames were seen coming from the building shortly after 6 a.m.
    https://madison.com/news/local/watch-now-madison-anti-abortion-headquarters-hit-by-apparent-molotov-cocktail-vandalism-graffiti/article_526660ea-776d-50ca-9baa-4b4a9337dca7.html

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:
  203. [203] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yeah, that's intimidation and completely unacceptable.

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    Common ground.. A wonderful thing.. :D

    Yer up early??

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    VERY interesting article here on the Democrat tendencies to change definitions to fit the ideology..

    The New Definition of Racism
    Can we find a way out of Mr. Rogers’s neighborhood?

    For Kendi in particular, racism is properly thought of not as simple out-group bias, but rather as any system that produces disparate outcomes between or across racial and ethnic groups. He says this openly. In his book How to Be an Antiracist and again in an interview with Vox just after he had been minted a MacArthur “genius,” Kendi argues that there are only two possible explanations for a measurable difference in performance between two large groups in a given undertaking—say, standardized testing. These are (1) some form of racism within a social “system,” no matter how hidden and subtle, or (2) actual (I read him as meaning genetic) “inferiority” on the part of the lower-performing of the two groups. “There’s only two causes of, you know, racial disparities,” Kendi said on a Vox podcast. “Either certain groups are better or worse than others, and that’s why they have more, or racist policy. Those are the only two options.”
    https://www.commentary.org/articles/wilfred-reilly/racism-ibram-x-kendi/

    It's a long read, but I highly recommend it.. It explains perfectly why the changing in word definitions to fit political agendas is not only blatantly and utterly fact-less, it's also wrong to attempt to do so..

  206. [206] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yeah, not feeling so great. going back to sleep if possible.

  207. [207] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i've heard that from IXK before. it's wrong, not because social systems don't include past and present racism, but because there are so many other possible confounding variables.

  208. [208] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    not doing such a good job at that going back to sleep thing.

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Kendi definition of racism so popular today simply fails when subjected to logical analysis. This leaves thinking people facing an obvious question: “So what does racism mean?” Fortunately for us, this is a query with a simple answer: Racism continues to mean what it has always meant. Tribalism is an ancient human vice, dating back to before the Bible, and virtually every dictionary, at least until the Great Awokening of the past few years, has defined “racism” in much the same way for decades: genetically or ethnically based animus against members of a human out-group. The Free Dictionary definition is typical of the genre and quite good. It says that racism is the belief that genetic race “accounts for differences in character or ability” and that “one race is superior” to one or more other races, and it is almost always combined with dislike, prejudice, or “discrimination.”

    And therein lies the problem with changing time worn and accepted definitions solely based on a political ideology..

    Words that have had common meaning lose ALL meaning..

    It's like throwing the word NAZI around to describe anyone or anything one doesn't like...

    If EVERYTHING is 'NAZI' than nazi loses all it's meaning.. We're seeing that in the Ukraine Russo war...

    So it is with racism.. If EVERYTHING is racist then NOTHING is racist and racism loses all it's horror and there is no need or desire to avoid racism because racism is everything we say or do regardless of what we actually say or actually do..

    "Death. Destruction. Disease. Horror. That’s what war is all about. That’s what makes it a thing to be avoided."
    -Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK, A Taste Of Armageddon

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    , but because there are so many other possible confounding variables.

    Exactly... And that's the problem with a lot of the "analysis" that comes from the Left Wing vis a vis racism..

    They are out to prove their point so they only look at data that supports their point and ignore the data that would indicate other factors are in play..

    The criminal justice/sentencing parameters is a perfect example of this...

    In addition to its insufficient explanatory power, another weakness of the newly proposed definition and theory of racism is its lack of any coherent causal mechanism. To provide an example, Michelle Alexander argues in The New Jim Crow that black and Hispanic overrepresentation in the criminal-justice system is due to bigotry. To this claim, a quantitative scholar of political science or criminal justice would respond by saying that group crime rates explain the gap in incarceration rates. The next argument, chess-match style, would be that some form of subtle racism must explain the crime-rate gap.

    But we then have to ask: How? What is the mechanism that inflicts a given set of social problems on black Americans today (and often afflicts working-class whites to the same degree)? And why did this mysterious mechanism have far less influence on genuinely abused black folks in the past—with all “non-whites” making up 24 to 27 percent of sentenced prisoners even during the 1930s (blacks make up 52 percent of non-Hispanic prisoners today)? What’s more, how is it that this mechanism is ineffective when it comes to virtually all African and South Asian immigrants in the U.S. today? During the fairly typical year of 2018, all Asian Americans combined—including dark-skinned South Asians—committed just 127,651 violent crimes in the U.S. versus 2,531,480 for non-Hispanic whites and 1,087,895 for the smaller black population?

    On a per capita basis, the Asian violent-crime rate breaks down to one such crime annually for every 153 citizens or residents of Asian descent, versus one crime per 79 among white Americans. And according to a somewhat classic but methodologically sound 1998 article produced by the National Bureau of Economic Research, native-born black Americans are “much more likely to be incarcerated” than black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean. Why? Such questions are never answered, and the argument dies on the spot.

    not doing such a good job at that going back to sleep thing.

    Hehe. I am probably not helping on that point.. We can table this discussion for later in the day if you wish.. :D

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    And to recap...

    We’ve seen enough of the fashionable arguments about racism to know that they’re only detrimental to that fight. The claim that “we know significant racism exists because the thing we have defined as significant racism exists” is not serious. If we were to accept it wholesale, it would mean, among other things, that the United States is a Korean-supremacist country. According to the proposed definition of racism, there’s no other way to interpret the outsize success of Korean Americans. This is why words must mean something. Rather than embracing the absurd, or choosing to deny the reality of continuing residual racism, thinking liberals, centrists, and conservatives need to reclaim the classic meaning of a critical term. If not, the proposed definition will become the definition. In a haunting indication of what’s to come, Merriam-Webster revised its definition of “racism” in 2020 to include “systemic racism.”

    Ibram X. Kendi was born Ibram Henry Rogers. It is time we left Mr. Rogers’s intellectual neighborhood and got back to consensus reality before the real meaning of the word becomes a cultural artifact.

    Let's just keep definitions as they are commonly accepted and adjust our ideology to fit the facts rather than adjusting the facts to fit the ideology..

    Mmm kay?? :D

  212. [212] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    part of the challenge therein is that language is not static. over time, words' meanings tend to change, which is why we no longer speak like shakespeare.

    over the past fifty years, the commonly accepted meaning of racism has expanded to include systems as well as individuals. it's only hold-overs such as yourself who adhere strictly to the definitions of fifty years ago.

    the definition of gender, on the other hand, has barely changed at all in the past fifty years. it meant the social and cultural aspects of one's sex then, and it means the social and cultural aspects of one's sex now. for whatever reason, you seem to have fixated on sexual orientation, which is not part of gender, because it's one's attitudes toward others rather than oneself.

    long story short, facts on the ground sometimes change, sometimes don't, and language needs to keep up to accurately reflect those facts.

    JL

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    the commonly accepted meaning of racism has expanded to include systems as well as individuals.

    The racist system is created by racist individuals. There is no need to totally change the definition of racism to encompass systems...

    The ONLY reason to change the definition is to fit the Democrat ideology..

    I believe it was you who told me (please correct me if I am wrong) that, under the Democrat definition of racism, black people simply CAN'T be racist..

    If that is an accurate representation of the facts then that alone PROVES that the Democrat definition of racism has nothing to do with facts or reality..

    long story short, facts on the ground sometimes change, sometimes don't, and language needs to keep up to accurately reflect those facts.

    Except that, in the case of gender and racism, the definitions are attempting to be changed SOLELY on the basis of a specific political ideology rather than actual facts..

    As such, such changes are simply unacceptable and not in keeping with the facts or reality..

    The attempts to "tweak" global warming facts to fit the Democrats global warming theory is a prime example of this..

    In REAL science, the theory is changed to fit the data.. In Democrat "science", the data is changed to fit the theory..

    Just as in the case of racism, the definition of racism is changed to fit the Democrat ideology, rather than Democrats changing their ideology to fit the definition of racism..

    This is probably another one of those agree to disagree areas.. But I am glad we can discuss and debate it rather than argue about it.. :D

  214. [214] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    of course we can agree to disagree, but before we get to that point we need to be clear what it is we actually disagree about.

    The racist system is created by racist individuals. There is no need to totally change the definition of racism to encompass systems...

    pre-civil rights, it wasn't necessary to differentiate the two because they went hand in hand. there were typically racist systems, populated by racist individuals. perhaps some people within the system weren't racist, but they were the exception, not the rule. the reason that aspect of the definition had to change wasn't some sort of political plot, it was actually a very positive development, namely not as many racist individuals. so why did a disproportionate percentage of black people keep getting mistreated even though the majority of the people mistreating them didn't have any racist intent? the system remained racially biased even after most of the people within it ceased to be intentionally racist. therefore, the definition of the word needed to change to reflect that difference in the facts on the ground.

    (please correct me if I am wrong) that, under the Democrat definition of racism, black people simply CAN'T be racist..

    black people can still be racist, but the criteria for racism are different, depending on the identity of the racist person and the identity of the person they're being racist against. think of it as sort-of being in different racism tax brackets. i'm sure you still disagree, but it's still useful for you to know exactly what it is you're disagreeing with.

    Except that, in the case of gender and racism, the definitions are attempting to be changed SOLELY on the basis of a specific political ideology rather than actual facts..

    that's simply not the case. there are many reasons why definitions change. we can rationally debate the percentages, but it's certainly not based ONLY on ideology. facts on the ground are indeed different.

    JL

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    Alabama leads the way in protecting America's children..

    Alabama law criminalizing gender transition surgery, drugs for minors takes effect

    Those convicted under the law would face up to 10 years in prison

    An Alabama law making it a felony to provide puberty blockers or perform gender transition surgery on minors took effect Monday.

    Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed the law in early April. The law makes it punishable by up to ten years in prison to provide puberty blockers, hormone treatments, or transition surgery to anyone under 19 years old.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/alabama-law-criminalizing-gender-transition-surgery-drugs-for-minors-takes-effect

    It's time we stopped catering to psychological/psychiatric abnormalities and disorders in children and start CURING them...

    Do people celebrate and support just living with cancer?? Or covid?? or alzheimers???

    No.. We CURE them...

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    the system remained racially biased even after most of the people within it ceased to be intentionally racist.

    There are no facts to support this claim.. The "system" voted for a black American for POTUS... That same "system" put in a black American as VPOTUS...

    There is simply NO WAY that a racist "system" would have accomplished that..

    black people can still be racist, but the criteria for racism are different, depending on the identity of the racist person and the identity of the person they're being racist against.

    That concept is, by definition, racist..

    If the criteria is race-based, then the criteria is racist..

    , but it's certainly not based ONLY on ideology.

    The fact that it's based on ideology AT ALL completely negates the validity of the point..

    If it makes you feel any better, you are one of two here that I enjoy going around in circles with.. :D

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    As always, a goodie from Glenn Greenwald..

    Homeland Security's "Disinformation Board" is Even More Pernicious Than it Seems

    The power to decree what is "disinformation" now determines what can and cannot be discussed on the internet. It is now in the hands of trained disinformation agents of the U.S. Security State.
    https://greenwald.substack.com/p/homeland-securitys-disinformation?s=r

    There was a time that **ALL** Weigantians without question would be against a Government run Ministry Of Truth, regardless of whether it was a Democrat or a Republican government..

    That was before the onset of PTDS..

    I miss the old Weigantia...

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    The most egregious and blatant official U.S. disinformation campaign in years took place three weeks before the 2020 presidential election. That was when dozens of former intelligence officials purported, in an open letter, to believe that authentic emails regarding Joe Biden's activities in China and Ukraine, reported by The New York Post, were "Russian disinformation.” That quasi-official proclamation enabled liberal corporate media outlets to uncritically mock and then ignore those emails as Kremlin-created fakes, and it pressured Big Tech platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to censor the reporting at exactly the time Americans were preparing to decide who would be the next U.S. president.

    The letter from these former intelligence officials was orchestrated by trained career liars — disinformation agents — such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Yet that letter was nonetheless crucial to discredit and ultimately suppress the New York Post's incriminating reporting on Biden. It provided a quasi-official imprimatur — something that could be depicted as an authoritative decree — that these authentic emails were, in fact, fraudulent.

    After all, if all of these noble and heroic intelligence operatives who spent their lives studying Russian disinformation were insisting that the Biden emails had all of the "hallmarks" of Kremlin treachery, who possessed the credibility to dispute their expert assessment? This clip from the media leader in spreading this CIA pre-election lie — CNN — features their national security analyst James Clapper, and it illustrates how vital this pretense of officialdom was in their deceitful disinformation campaign:

    That act of cheating alone, had it not occurred, would have swung the election to President Trump..

    Anyone who claims that the 2020 election was fair is simply ignorant or deluding themselves..

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    This same strategic motive — to vest accusations of “disinformation” with the veneer of expertise — is what has fostered a new, very well-financed industry heralding itself as composed of “anti-disinformation" scholars. Knowing that Americans are inculcated from childhood to believe that censorship is nefarious — that it is the hallmark of tyranny — those who wish to censor need to find some ennobling rationale to justify it and disguise what it is.

    They have thus created a litany of neutral-sounding groups with benign names — The Atlantic Council, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, various "fact-checking” outfits controlled by corporate media outlets — that claim to employ “anti-disinformation experts” to identify and combat fake news. Just as media corporations re-branded their partisan pundits as "fact-checkers" -- to masquerade their opinions as elevated, apolitical, authoritative decrees of expertise -- the term "disinformation expert" is designed to disguise ideological views on behalf of state and corporate power centers as Official Truth.

    Yet when one subjects these groups to even minimal investigative scrutiny, one finds that they are anything but apolitical and neutral. They are often funded by the same small handful of liberal billionaires (such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar), actual security state agencies of the U.S., the UK or the EU, and/or Big Tech monopolies such as Google and Facebook.

    It's like AntiFa claiming they are anti Fascist yet the employ ALL the aspects of fascism..

    As I am fond of saying..

    Biden's Disinformation Board is to REAL anti-disinformation what The Democratic Republic Of North Korea is to REAL Democracy...

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    This scam is the critical context for understanding why the Biden Administration casually announced last week the creation of what it is calling a "Disinformation Board” inside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). There is no conceivable circumstance in which a domestic law enforcement agency like DHS should be claiming the power to decree truth and falsity. Operatives in the U.S. Security State are not devoted to combatting disinformation. The opposite is true: they are trained, career liars tasked with concocting and spreading disinformation. As Politico's Jack Schafer wrote:

    Who among us thinks the government should add to its work list the job of determining what is true and what is disinformation? And who thinks the government is capable of telling the truth? Our government produces lies and disinformation at industrial scale and always has. It overclassifies vital information to block its own citizens from becoming any the wiser. It pays thousands of press aides to play hide the salami with facts….Making the federal government the official custodian of truth would be like Brink’s giving a safe-cracker a job driving an armored car.

  221. [221] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    (199)-
    Too much in that law that would seem to be unconstitutional.

    Interfering with, obstructing or impeding the administration of justice is fine, but influencing by picketing or parading is an act of free speech.

    The in a court part is okay, but near?

    Any public place should be okay to protest/ picket/parade but not personal residences.

    And for those that want to reply with that's what the law is, the point of my comment is what the law should be- not what it is.

  222. [222] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Adjust our ideology to fit the facts rather than adjust the facts to fit our ideology?

    Many leopards here will have to change their spots.

    But hey, let's see you do it. Then there would be at least be the two of us doing what you ask.

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was just one week after both Obama and Clinton called for greater government action against online disinformation that Homeland Security announced it is “standing up a new Disinformation Governance Board to coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security.” The trend here could not be clearer: Western governments are seeking greater and greater control of what information is and is not allowed on the internet, and are using both formal power (the force of law) and informal power (threats of legal and regulatory reprisals) to force tech companies to censor the internet in the name of fighting “disinformation.”

    For that reason, whoever wields the authority to decree what does and does not fall into the scope of that elastic, vague and ill-defined term has immense power to control what information populations around the world can access, and conversely what information is barred. That is what makes it so disturbing that Homeland Security has just seized this power for itself. An agency with a long history of lying, run by life-long disinformation agents, has just created a board to issue these official decrees, all overseen by a person who is so partisan and ideologically motivated that it is hard to take her seriously. Whether or not you take her seriously, the power that Homeland Security has just secured for itself is anything but a joke.

    The danger simply CANNOT be over-estimated...

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    From court packing to leaking to doxing: White House yields to a national rage addiction

    Nearly 70 years ago, a little-known lawyer named Joseph Welch famously confronted Sen. Joseph McCarthy (D-Wis.) in defense of a young man hounded over alleged un-American views. Welch told McCarthy that “I think I have never really gauged … your recklessness” before asking: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

    It was a defining moment in American politics as Welch called out a politician who had abandoned any semblance of principle in the pursuit of political advantage. This week, the same scene played out in the White House with one striking difference: This was no Joseph Welch to be found.

    After someone in the Supreme Court leaked a draft opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a virtual flash-mob formed around the court and its members demanding retributive justice. This included renewed calls for court “packing,” as well as the potential targeting of individual justices at their homes. Like the leaking of the opinion itself, the doxing of justices and their families is being treated as fair game in our age of rage.

    There is more than a license to this rage; there is an addiction to it. That was evident in March 2020 when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood in front of the Supreme Court to threaten Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Schumer’s reckless rhetoric was celebrated, not condemned, by many on the left, even after he attempted to walk it back by stating that “I should not have used the words I used … they did not come out the way I intended to.”
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3480452-from-court-packing-to-leaking-to-doxing-white-house-yields-to-a-national-rage-addiction/

    That came out EXACTLY as Schumer intended..

    Even here in Weigantia, we see people saying by commission and omission that protesting at judges HOMES and harassing judges' FAMILY and CHILDREN is acceptable..

    Age of rage indeed...

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, it's acceptable that protesters protested at Beau Biden's funeral???

    That's acceptable protest???

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Biden 'strongly condemns' Molotov cocktail attack on Wisconsin anti-abortion group

    The attack comes as the Supreme Court is expected to overturn Roe v. Wade
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-condemns-molotov-cocktail-attack-wisconsin-anti-abortion-group

    I'll believe that Biden's handlers are sincere when Merrick Garland opens up a DOJ investigation into the blatant insurrection aimed at the Judiciary branch of the US Government.. :eyeroll:

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's play WHO SAID THAT....

    “I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    Watch out, Democrats. The abortion ruling may help Republicans.

    Yes, polls show that most Americans say they don’t want the high court to overturn Roe. But polls also show that most Americans don’t know what overturning Roe actually means. A 2019 study reported that 65.7 percent of Americans incorrectly believe that if Roe were overturned, abortion would be illegal everywhere in the United States. It would not.

    But a Fox News poll released this week finds most Americans agree with the Mississippi abortion law at the heart of the Supreme Court case. The survey found that 54 percent favor state laws banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of a medical emergency — exactly what the Mississippi law does — while just 41 percent oppose such a law. This is consistent with the results of a 2018 Gallup poll that found most Americans want abortion restricted to the first trimester (the first 12 weeks of pregnancy), while only 28 percent support allowing abortions in the second trimester and just 13 percent in the third trimester.
    https://www.aei.org/op-eds/watch-out-democrats-the-abortion-ruling-may-help-republicans/

    If one asks the poll questions factual and apolitical, the vast majority of Americans support abortion restrictions in the 3rd trimester..

    This is fact...

    If the US institute this restriction nationally, it would be on par with the rest of the civilized world..

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, if Roe is overturned, Americans will wake up the next morning and discover that the justices have not in fact banned abortion nationwide but have simply upheld the right of states to impose restrictions — including restrictions that most of them support. That is unlikely to spark the kind of popular outrage Democrats are hoping for.

    If the Supreme Court does send abortion decisions back to the states, Democrats will have to own their abortion radicalism. Democrats used to argue that, in Bill Clinton’s famous phrase, abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” No longer. In 2012, they formally expunged “rare” from their party platform, declaring their support for “safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.” Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. Yet in 2016 Democrats approved a platform that called for repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding for abortions. To secure the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, Joe Biden had to surrender to the pro-abortion radicals and renounce his more-than-40-year support for the Hyde Amendment.

    And in recent years, Democrats have increasingly embraced unfettered abortion access far beyond what the majority of Americans support. In 2019, Democrats in New York lit up the Freedom Tower to celebrate the passage of a new state law that removed almost all restrictions on abortion, even in the third trimester, while in Illinois, Democrats repealed the state’s Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

    The new Democratic orthodoxy is taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand up to the moment of birth — a position supported by a tiny minority of Americans. So, if the battle over abortion moves from the Supreme Court to the states, Democrats will have to fight 15-week abortion bans (which most Americans support) and defend second- and third-trimester abortion (which most Americans oppose).

    Democrats are their own worst enemies in this issue....

    They should have been satisfied with SAFE LEGAL AND RARE...

  230. [230] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [203] nypoet22 wrote:


    yeah, that's intimidation and completely unacceptable.

    Ditto.

    Heh.

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Democrats bring a knife to a gunfight, and then use the knife to stab themselves."

    Heh

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    Protesters protesting at Beau Biden's funeral..

    What say ya'all?? YEA or NAY??

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors admits she LIED when she denied using group's $6m LA property ONLY for official business: Reveals she hosted parties for Biden's inauguration and her son's birthday
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10796319/The-AP-Interview-BLMs-Patrisse-Cullors-denies-wrongdoing.html

    BLM... Just a money-making con...

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    Protesters protesting at Beau Biden's funeral..

    What say ya'all?? YEA or NAY??

    Silence gives assent.. :D

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We need stronger leadership that makes it very clear that we don't just disagree with it. We are calling for it to stop right now. I understand the president used the word condemn. And, you know, is saying this is not what we think is appropriate, but there needs to be an overt call to stop it. And for him to say we're going to do what we need to do at the federal level to find these people and bring them to justice. I did not hear that in that statement."
    -Wisconsin Family Action President Julaine Appling

    Democrats need to condemn this blatant attack as passionately as they condemn 6 Jan or parents speaking out in schoolboards or their condemnation is meaningless..

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:
  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obstruction of Justice at the Supreme Court

    The Biden regime has made it absolutely clear there’ll be no justice in the leak case.

    18 U.S.C. § 1507 provides, in relevant part, the following:

    “Whoever … with the intent of influencing any judge … in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge … or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

    Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 1503 provides, in relevant part, the following:

    “Whoever … by any threatening … communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate or impede any … officer of any court of the United States … in the discharge of his duty … or by any threatening … communication … endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede, the due administration of justice” shall be fined or subject to “imprisonment for not more than 10 years” or both.

    And then, there is 18 U.S.C. § 371 which makes it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit any offense against the United States. If such persons conspired to violate § 1503, they face imprisonment for a term up to 5 years. For conspiracy to violate § 1507, they face imprisonment up to 1 year.

    Based on what we know so far, it appears that the demonstrators, those who organized the demonstrations, the person(s) who doxed the Justices, the person(s) who provided Alito’s draft opinion to Politico, and the person(s) at Politico who published the opinion face arrest and prosecution under the foregoing statutes. All of them appear to have acted and conspired to influence, intimidate, and impede Justices of the Supreme Court as they adjudicate a case pending before them.

    In short, these conspirators appear to have made history by endeavoring to obstruct justice at the highest possible level of the judiciary.

    So, will these history-making events cause the Biden regime to task the woke warriors of the FBI with getting to the bottom of this conspiracy to obstruct justice at the Supreme Court? And, if given the job, will the FBI act in the manner of its January 6 Capitol Hill manhunts by mounting an aggressive and thorough round up of these miscreants?

    Equally important, will the FBI use the same aggressive investigative technique that it used against Project Veritas by raiding Politico’s offices to learn who leaked the draft opinion?
    https://spectator.org/obstruction-of-justice-at-the-supreme-court/

    And THERE it is.. Will Democrats pursue and condemn these scumbags as voraciously and as passionately as they have the 6 Jan protesters???

    Apparently.... Not.. :eyeroll:

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden's Disinformation Board is a Gift to Republicans

    If you worked really hard, you might be able to come up with an idea as unappealing as a government disinformation board. Voters already distrust the government and are especially concerned about its excessive intrusion and unchecked regulatory power.

    If you worked even harder, you might find as bad a person to lead it as Nina Jankowicz, a self-styled "disinformation expert" whose real specialty seems to be spreading disinformation to support her left-wing views.

    If you tried hard to justify this mess, you might come up with a defender as ineffective as Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security. The secretary, already in deep trouble because of the porous southern border, faced a hostile Senate hearing and admitted he knew nothing about Ms. Jankowicz's dismal history of ideological fulminations and partisan statements. He refused to say whose bright idea it was to hire her—only that he was clueless about her background. Still, Mayorkas refused to apologize, refused to replace her and refused to back down from creating this ill-conceived (and ill-defined) board.

    If you did all these things, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has, you would be committing political malpractice. You would be mocking the Constitution's fundamental protection of free speech, encoded in the First Amendment. Although a few ideologues might applaud you, you would hear only groans from moderate Democrats running for reelection. This ill-conceived board would lash them, at their peril, to a high-profile effort to monitor private speech, conducted by a very unpopular administration. That's dangerous constitutionally and incompetent politically.
    https://www.newsweek.com/bidens-disinformation-board-gift-republicans-opinion-1704256

    This is the LAST thing Democrats need before the mid-term elections..

    Someone in the Democrat Party or the leadership (such as it is) at DHS is a plant, secretly working for the GOP..

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:
  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    So this is what a Post-Roe Weigantia looks like..

    I don't like it.. :^(

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP lawmakers demand Garland prepare to protect churches as protesters target services

    Rep. Chip Roy and Sen. Mike Lee press for organized protection of churches from Roe v. Wade protesters
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-chip-roy-sen-mike-lee-garland-protect-churches-protesters-threaten-services

    Will Biden's DOJ protect churches and Justice's residences as voraciously and as passionately as the protected School Board meetings??

    Time will tell..

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's play WHO SAID THAT....

    “I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

    Guess no one wanted to partake..

    That was none other than Joe Biden...

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    I seem to remember that the Weigantian Administration did a commentary on the Westboro protests. The commentary condemned the protesters voraciously as I recall while acknowledging their right to protest, if I recall correctly...

    I cannot recall exactly when it was and I don't have (credit where credit is due) Kick's prowess in searching Weigantian archives...

    Wonder if we'll see that level of voracious passion in condemning the protesters at the residences of SCOTUS Justices.. :^/

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for those Democrats who claim that the GOP has no plan..

    The facts prove otherwise..

    House Conservatives Ready Law-and-Order Agenda Ahead of Midterms
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/05/09/house_conservatives_ready_law-and-order_agenda_ahead_of_midterms_147576.html#2

    This plan might even get Russ to vote GOP... :D

  245. [245] 
    Michale wrote:

    Virgin Galactic’s commercial service delay sparks downgrade

    Virgin Galactic will push back commercial service for its spaceflights from the fourth quarter of 2022 to the first quarter of 2023

    Shares of Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic tumbled Monday after the aerospace giant's stock was downgraded from a buy to a hold rating by Truist Securities analyst Michale Ciarmoli. The firm has slashed its price target on Virgin Galactic from $24 to $8 per share.
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/virgin-galactic-commercial-service-2023

    This is the first time I have seen someone spell Michale the way I spell it..

    I hope the poor guy doesn't get any hate mail on my account.. :D

  246. [246] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I have a colleague who spells it mychal. Michale is also a common English spelling of the Hebrew name, pronounced meeKHAL.

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did not know that..

    Ya caught me heading out the door..

    "Hasta lasagna, don't get any on ya.."
    -Emilio Estevez, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

  248. [248] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If one asks the poll questions factual and apolitical, the vast majority of Americans support abortion restrictions in the 3rd trimester..

    But Republicans want to ban it less than one month into the 2nd trimester. Those are very different stages of development. If they can induce labor and it survives, then you might have an argument..but you are still forcing the woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy that could kill her. You keep posting that Americans overwhelmingly support a woman’s right to an abortion within a set time period. You are the ones trying to go against what the public wants.

  249. [249] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And I love Louisiana wanting to give personhood at the moment of conception. That would make any person who has sex with a pregnant woman a child sex offender. With statutory rape, there is no defense if the act occurred — “I didn’t know she wasn’t of legal age” or “I didn’t know they even existed” will not excuse you in the eyes of the law.

    And the state law requires that the victim be removed from the mother’s care if the mother was the abuser; which means the state will have to remove the fetus and hope it lives.

    It will also require any couple that has had fertilized eggs frozen attempting IVF to become pregnant to use all of them. You may have only wanted a single child, but the Republicans want Octo-Moms to become the norm!

  250. [250] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    You complain about civility in protesting, but your side has already set the stage for years when it comes to abortion. Harassing patents heading to abortion clinics even if they are going for other purposes. Planned parenthood does a hell of a lot more than abortions. Bombing abortion clinics, killing abortion doctors. Anti abortion protesting has been quite ugly. A bit hypocritical making apples to oranges comparisons when apples to apples comparisons are well documented...

  251. [251] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Protesters protesting at Beau Biden's funeral..

    What say ya'all?? YEA or NAY??

    You mean like those good folks at Westboro Baptist Church that ya’ll love so much did?

  252. [252] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Well, that's two days in three with no comments.

  253. [253] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "I want you (I want you)
    I need you (I need you)
    But there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you
    Now don't be sad
    "Cause two outta three ain't bad."
    -Meatloaf

  254. [254] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Protests take all the FUN out of funerals!

  255. [255] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    What wouldn't Meat Loaf do for love?

  256. [256] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My completely unscientific prediction of who wins the early voting states:
    1. New Hampshire
    2. Nevada
    3. South Carolina
    4. Nebraska
    And if there's a fifth, Illinois.

  257. [257] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,
    Don't do that.

  258. [258] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  259. [259] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Turkeyloaf.

  260. [260] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    ...but maybe a warm apple pie..... :D

  261. [261] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "You put your right in
    you pull your right out
    you put your right in and you shake it all about...."

  262. [262] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oops.
    That was supposed to be hand. (that's what she said....)

  263. [263] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    (258)-
    If you look in the crowd when they sing "ten thousand people, maybe more.." way, way, way in back and then way, way, way in back of that you can see me!

  264. [264] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I would do anything for love but, I won't do that.

    Me neither. :)

  265. [265] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua wins the prize!

  266. [266] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don[258],

    Very, very nice! I enjoyed that very much ... it could be your theme song!

  267. [267] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not even one loving spoonful?

  268. [268] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, yes, definitely THAT!

  269. [269] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Don, have a listen to what I'm listening to now ...

    Slik Toxik - Doin' The Nasty (Full Album)

  270. [270] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And here is our Russ, moving the goal posts...

    Why am I not surprised..

    And here is Michale, thinking that demanding he provide evidence to prove his accusations are true is somehow me “moving the goal posts…”.

    Why is no one surprised???

    PURE... UNADULTERATED... TREK!!!!!

    And not a Democrat Party talking point in the entire episode!!!! :D

    LOVE IT!!!

    What are you talking about?!? Trek had people of all races, sexual orientation, humans and aliens working together, demonstrating that we can show each other respect and be inclusive to those we don’t think we have anything in common with and it doesn’t destroy us — it makes us better and stronger when we do? Those Democratic Party values that can be found in the DNC Party Platform.

    What values do we find in the GOP’s Party Platform??? Looks like it’s the Mission Statement that you’d expect a suicide Cult to have — We live for Donald J. Trump and we believe whatever he tells us to believe; no matter how many times he changes it or how bat-shitting-crazy it is!

  271. [271] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It's time we stopped catering to psychological/psychiatric abnormalities and disorders in children and start CURING them...

    Do people celebrate and support just living with cancer?? Or covid?? or alzheimers???

    Why, why, WHY MUST you insist on demonstrating just how uneducated they truly are by continuously spouting false bullshit as if it were true?!?! Back in the early to mid 1900’s, it was people like you that insisted on speaking on topics they couldn’t understand that led to tens of thousands of gay men being forced into having lobotomies against their will!

    Families couldn’t stand by as their loved ones lived with such a horrible mental disorder that, if left alone, could have resulted in their sons living happy, love-filled lives that their family just wasn’t comfortable with or willing to learn about.

    I cannot tell if it is sheer stupidity on your part to compare being trans to having a disease, or maybe you truly are a closet case with unchecked anger issues. Did Lincoln freeing the slaves make freedom less enjoyable for white men like you?

  272. [272] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You mean like those good folks at Westboro Baptist Church that ya’ll love so much did?

    I am on record as voraciously and as passionately opposing their actions as ya'all are about 6 Jan 21...

    It appears that by ya'all's silence (yourself included) you support those "good folks at Westboro Baptist Church" by ya'all's continued silence...

    SILENCE GIVES CONSENT
    -The Democrat Party

  273. [273] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Well, that's two days in three with no comments.

    Yea.. weird...

    Once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is an agenda..

    I might have to eat my own words...

  274. [274] 
    Michale wrote:

    LOVE IT!!!

    What are you talking about?!? Trek had people of all races, sexual orientation, humans and aliens working together, demonstrating that we can show each other respect and be inclusive to those we don’t think we have anything in common with and it doesn’t destroy us — it makes us better and stronger when we do? Those Democratic Party values that can be found in the DNC Party Platform.

    Really?? Democrat Party is all inclusive???

    REALLY?? :eyeroll:

    So, Democrats didn't just firebomb an anti-baby killing office??

    Democrats are not harassing and terrorizing the children of SCOTUS Justices AT THEIR HOMES??

    Democrats didn't support and condone with their silence 22+ years of Democrat violent riots and attacks on hundreds of government buildings all over the country?? Attacks where at least 8 cops were killing tens of thousands injured and tens of billions of dollars in damage??

    And you have the gall to sit their and claim that the Democrat Party reflects STAR TREK TOS VALUES!!!???

    Yer eyes must be brown because that statement is full of shit... :eyeroll:

  275. [275] 
    Michale wrote:

    }}}Well, that's two days in three with no comments.{{{

    Yea.. weird...

    Once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is an agenda..

    I might have to eat my own words...

    When I was a kid I loved PLANET OF THE APES TV series.. Even though I was quite young I realized that when a show starts being preempted a lot for TV Specials and such that said show is being cancelled..

    Despite my previous words it's possible that the Weigantian administration is weaning us off our Weigantia commenting addiction...

  276. [276] 
    Michale wrote:

    I might have to eat my own words...

    It's not like THAT hasn't happened before, eh? :D

    I think I still have that Odumbo shirt.. :D

  277. [277] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    But Republicans want to ban it less than one month into the 2nd trimester.

    I can see and understand their position, though I may not fully agree with it.. A baby at 4 weeks is less of a baby than a baby at 32 weeks.

    But a 4 week baby is STILL a baby..

    As far as the current situation.. Democrats only have themselves to blame. If they would have been satisfied with SAFE, LEGAL and RARE, then RvW would not be being thrown on the trash heap of history..

    But NOOOooooooo... Democrats had to get in the face of the pro-life and anti baby killing people and #CELEBRATE their infanticide and #SHOUT OUT their baby killing..

    So if yer looking for someone to blame for *80%* of Americans supporting baby killing restrictions you need to look no further than your own Democrat Party.

    "afw'ein Mnhei'sahe"
    -Romulan Proverb

    TRANSLATION: You deserve no pity, I will give you no sympathy and it serves you right!!

    If they can induce labor and it survives, then you might have an argument..but you are still forcing the woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy that could kill her.

    IF it's an unwanted pregnancy.. It's entirely possible/probable that MANY babies are killed by a woman who WANTED a baby but then changed their mind because a job opportunity came up or she got pregnant to corral the father into marriage and the father bolted..

    Irregardless of that, wanted or unwanted pregnancy does not change the fact that we are talking about a sentient human life form here..

    I'll concede that you may have a good argument about a rape or forced incest victim..

    But the argument that the baby should not endure capital punishment for the crimes of the father is a far more compelling and factual argument..

    NO ONE is forcing ANY woman to be a mother.. The woman still has that choice.

    You keep posting that Americans overwhelmingly support a woman’s right to an abortion within a set time period.

    Yes, 80% of Americans support abortion restrictions.. I am betting that most everyone here is part of that 80% but just doesn't want to admit it...

    Call my naïve but I simply cannot see ANY Weigantian being so callous and heartless that they would support a woman's right to kill her baby as she is being wheeled into the delivery room..

    I could be wrong. It's been known to happen..

    You are the ones trying to go against what the public wants.

    And WHOSE to blame for that??

    I refer you to the point made above.. I don't like to repeat myself..

    Awww who am I kidding.. I LOVE repeating myself!! :D

    Democrats had to get in the face of the pro-life and anti baby killing people and #CELEBRATE their infanticide and #SHOUT OUT their baby killing..

    So if yer looking for someone to blame for *80%* of Americans supporting baby killing restrictions you need to look no further than your own Democrat Party.

    Do I agree with the 6 week stance on baby killing?? A decent argument can be made against it, I'll concede that much.. But the other side of the argument is, based on SCIENCE, more compelling..

    If you have a heartbeat it is unequivocally and inarguably a human. SCIENCE says so..

    And we know Democrats are ALL about "science".. Right?? :^/

  278. [278] 
    Michale wrote:

    TRANSLATION: You deserve no pity, I will give you no sympathy and it serves you right!!

    'YOU' of course being the Democrat Party and not you personally..

    Just wanted to clarify that..

  279. [279] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I love Louisiana wanting to give personhood at the moment of conception.

    There are the extreme fringes on any issue..

    I believe it was YOU who pointed out that the entire group should not be painted with the brush of a fringe group..

  280. [280] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Both parties have blood on their hands. That is undeniable..

    But Democrats have the blood of 63 *MILLION* babies on THEIR hands.. Which FAR FAR outweighs the blood the GOP has on their hands.. Far enough to be on a different planet..

    But I will concede that both Parties do have blood on their hands.

    It doesn't justify harassing and terrorizing CHILDREN.

    The actions of these protesters in the here and now violate Federal Law...

    Not to mention common decency..

    HAVE {DEMOCRATS} NO DECENCY!!??

  281. [281] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did I miss anyone?? Speak now or forever hold your peace..

    As a GRAMMAR ASIDE, I turn to our esteemed professor here..

    Is it 'peace' or 'piece'?? An argument can be made for either...

  282. [282] 
    Michale wrote:

    "There is no room for mob action, intimidation, or any personal threats against a public official. Period. Whether it involves their home or otherwise it is out of line."
    -Democrat Dick Durban

  283. [283] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, at least ONE Democrat is speaking out..

  284. [284] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I regret the tone of comment #274.. Your reasonable discussions and comments made after the comment that prompted the #274 response made me regret the tone of comment #274.

    I sincerely render my sincere apologies..

  285. [285] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that the vast majority of babies killed (when one adjusts for percentage of population stats) are black American babies

    So, if black lives truly DO matter to Democrats...???

    Well, I am sure ya'all can figure out the rest...

  286. [286] 
    Michale wrote:

    We haven't discussed Titter in a while..

    Elon Musk says Twitter obviously has a 'strong' left-wing bias

    The Tesla CEO cast shade on Twitter after a verified journalist cheered on violence against pro-lifers
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/elon-musk-twitter-obviously-strong-left-wing-bias

  287. [287] 
    Michale wrote:

    I noticed the current commentary trails off at the end. Actually in mid-sentence..

    Yes, I am reading the commentaries now..

    It's possible that either the dog ate the rest of the Weigantian administration's home work or there was an error in transmission.

    That could explain the comments being closed...

  288. [288] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hawley introduces bill to strip 'woke' Disney of special copyright protections

    Hawley aims to revoke Disney's 'special privileges' with new legislation
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawley-bill-end-disneys-special-copyright-protections

    Go Woke.. Go Broke..

    Disney has no one to blame except themselves and a small, VERY small minority of Disney LGBTQABCXYZEIEIO employees...

  289. [289] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    That could explain the comments being closed...

    I could. Well, something had better explain it and soon.

  290. [290] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    IT could, I meant. And, I'm kidding about that last bit. :)

  291. [291] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Funny moment on Washington Journal.
    Cheryl Chumley was on talking about her book on the socialist agenda to exploit the pandemic and a caller asked her where she got her facts.

    Her answer was (maybe not exact quote):

    "I'm an American. As an American I know my rights come from God and not from the government."

    So she gets her facts from an imaginary being for which there are no facts to prove it's existence.

    As long as we are going with imaginary beings:

    "Truly wonderful the mind of a child is."
    -Yoda :D

  292. [292] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are apoplectic!!! :D

    Media, Elon Musk go to war as experts guess new Twitter chief won't ‘adhere blindly to left-of-center dogmas’

    'Musk is a threat to the establishment media outlets because he intends to expand the rhetorical marketplace instead of restricting it,' Jeffrey McCall said
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/media-elon-musk-experts-twitter-dogma

    I especially like this part..

    On ABC’s "The View," co-host Sunny Hostin said that Musk was planning to "unleash the trolls" and "take away the guardrails" of Twitter safety, so users can say whatever they want.

    OH THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!!!

    PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT!!!

    HOW CAN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY SURVIVE IN A WORLD WILL PEOPLE ACTUALLY SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT!!!??????

    BBBBWWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Can ya'all BELIEVE how far the Democrat Party has fallen into the abyss!!???

    It's MIND BOGGLING....

  293. [293] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL, Liz,

    What's ya'all's thoughts on this??

    Both Musk's buying Titter and the Democrats hysterical fearmongering response to that..

    Inquiring minds want to know. :D

  294. [294] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Even here in Weigantia, we see people saying by commission and omission that protesting at judges HOMES and harassing judges' FAMILY and CHILDREN is acceptable..

    Age of rage indeed...

    Funny, I remember when Alexander Vindman’s family had to go in hiding because of threats to their safety and people protesting around their home and what was your reaction at the time? Something to the effect that “traitors get what they deserve”!

    You haven’t said anything about the threats to those investigating the failed 01/06 insurrection attempt. Why not? Because you do not actually care about any of this.

  295. [295] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny, I remember when Alexander Vindman’s family had to go in hiding because of threats to their safety and people protesting around their home and what was your reaction at the time? Something to the effect that “traitors get what they deserve”!

    Nice try.. But Vindmann is not an officer of the court..

    And my not having said anything about Vindmann is not proof of support for those against Vindmann..

    Unless you want to confirm here for everyone that you DO believe that SILENCE does, indeed, give consent??

    Hmmmmm??? :D

    You haven’t said anything about the threats to those investigating the failed 01/06 insurrection attempt. Why not? Because you do not actually care about any of this

    So you DO believe that SILENCE GIVES ASSENT??

    What I believe about the 6 Jan committe is that it's a joke.. It's NOTHING but political kubuki theater.. JUST like ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion..

    And NOTHING will come of it...

    JUST like ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion..

    :D

  296. [296] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [281]

    Professor, here.

    Grammatically I think it's peace.

    But regarding the potential exercise of one's Second Amendment Rights in a Saloon the Bartender might implore you not to shoot somebody in which case I believe it would be piece.

  297. [297] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't do twitter and so I don't care a whit about it.

Comments for this article are closed.