Instead of brackets, use the right and left arrows: <

I taught MtnCaddy that day he taught us how to get multiple links.

[253] Kick wrote:

MtnCaddy
235

Well, dang it... that didn't work. It closed up the spaces so... Do over!

[blockquote]
Content
Content
Content
[/blockquote]

I've provided a visual above.

Do that, except where you see left and right brackets, replace them with left and right these type .

So how are you getting three links?

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/07/17/ftp582/#comment-164282

*
Except you don't use the brackets, you use the arrows:

[ =

It's hard to demonstrate because the platform knows it's a code. You can try to demonstrate with spaces, but the platform collapses them and creates the code. :)

Yea, you do... And if you use Bold you have to make sure you put the Blockquote BEFORE the Bold attribute or else everything gets all wanky...

That's not factually accurate..

Yes, you're a liar.

Kick taught me the blockquote..

Not factually accurate.

I definitely taught the blockquote to MtnCaddy, and you keep lying repeatedly and claiming it was you. While you may have learned it from reading that post from me to MC, I definitely did NOT teach you the blockquote. :)

Yea, you do... And if you use Bold you have to make sure you put the Blockquote BEFORE the Bold attribute or else everything gets all wanky...

Kick taught me that.. :D

Not factually accurate... another outright lie coming from the right-wing regurgitating rube side of Weigantia.

And it's a fact that the Hunter Biden laptop issue alone, had it been reported factually and truthfully, would have been enough to swing the election to President Trump...

That's some pretty magical thinking there ... where's your proof?

I think the same people who care about that now would have cared about it before the election. Maybe even fewer! Ahem.

that laptop must have been some heck of a technological marvel to accomplish all that.

Heh.

Word will get around....

So the death penalty for those who took part in the failed insurrection on Jan.6? Assault doesn't deserve death, in my opinion; but they are also traitors... so maybe it would be deserved. Surprised you'd take such a strong stance against the failed insurrectionists, but so be it.

Blame Rudy for that. They refused to turn over copies of the hard drives for the media to review for themselves until well after the election.

Rudy hoped that the media would just run the story he was pitching without doing their due diligence. No such luck. Not even the right-wing news agencies were willing to run the story.

Main problem is that they could not prove the providence for the laptop. Even those with no law enforcement experience should be able to grasp that unless the chain of evidence can connect Hunter Biden directly to those laptops, then anyone could have dropped them off claiming that they were his. The legally blind shop owner where the laptops ended up said that he could not say under oath that it was Hunter Biden who dropped off the laptops as he could not see his face.

That alone would have been enough to give President Trump the election...

Thank you for finally admitting that Trump did in fact LOSE the election.

Nope.. I am on record as stating that exceptions for gross abnormalities is permissible...

But an inconvenient baby (ala Casey Anthony) is not a gross abnormality....

Once again.. yer wrong Russ..

My new diabetes medication is making me feel like crap..

I'm going to bed...

Enjoy ya'all's Michale Free evening.. :D

I'll be back bright and early in the morning...

An fetus can still have a heart beat even if it is missing most of it's brain. It takes longer than 6 weeks before doctors can see that only the brain stem is present in a fetus. According to you, the mother will be forced to carry the brainless baby to full term. The baby doesn't have a brain, and your kind doesn't have a heart and are cowards. Too bad this isn't the yellow brick road.

that laptop must have been some heck of a technological marvel to accomplish all that.

The facts show that, had Hunter Biden's laptop been reported on factually and truthfully, 17% of Biden voters would have voted for President Trump or stayed home...

That alone would have been enough to give President Trump the election...

And that's just Hunter Biden's laptop..

Had ZuckerBucks not happened, President Trump would have won in a landslide..

Just the facts...

The youngest shooting victim is just 10 years old
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicagos-bloody-holiday-weekend-continues-54-people-shot-7-dead-friday-evening

Democrat governance at it's finest.... :eyeroll:

THIS is what strict gun laws gets you...

One of the top murder capitals of the United States.. :eyeroll:

that laptop must have been some heck of a technological marvel to accomplish all that.

Police are reportedly patrolling the parade area with rifles
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chaos-erupts-multiple-people-are-shot-4th-july-parade

What *IS* it about Democrats that they simple CAN'T govern competently???

I think anyone who attacks an LEO should be executed on the spot...

Word will get around....

Yep.. Democrats..

Thanx Russ..

A PERFECT set-up...

And you walked right into it.. :D

[168] For 120 days in summer 2020, violent protesters destroyed some $2 billion in property and injured 1,500 police officers in riots that led to over 35 deaths.

Yeah, THIS is what happened under Trump's watch...

But facts are still facts..

And it's a fact that the Hunter Biden laptop issue alone, had it been reported factually and truthfully, would have been enough to swing the election to President Trump...

As it should have been...

Oh, Michale. You know that is nonsense.

Nope.. Hunter Biden's Laptop is well documented..

So are Zuckerbucks..

You should also know that your comments would be taken far more seriously and provoke far more serious discussion if you would leave nonsense like this out of them ..

What YOU call "nonsense" are the facts...

Anyways, Happy Fourth of July!

Thank you, Liz.. :D

Not factually accurate..

Oh, Michale. You know that is nonsense.

You should also know that your comments would be taken far more seriously and provoke far more serious discussion if you would leave nonsense like this out of them ...

Anyways, Happy Fourth of July!

As far as rejecting the outcomes of federal and state elections, for leftist insurrectionists the validity of an election hinges on whether the Left is a declared winner or loser. Once Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016, her opponent became “illegitimate.” She joined the “Resistance” and later advised Joe Biden to reject the ballot tally if he lost the popular vote. No one claimed she was endangering hallowed institutions or sounding insurrectionary.

For Time journalist Molly Ball, the billionaire effort to undermine the 2020 election by infusing hundreds of millions of dollars of dark money to usurp the work of selected county registrars was a giddy “conspiracy.” For former Obama Pentagon lawyer Rosa Brooks in 2017, the 11-day tenure of newly inaugurated President Donald Trump was already an occasion to weigh the relative advantages of either impeachment, invocation of the 25th Amendment—or a military coup to remove him.

Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams became a left-wing cult figure by touring the country claiming she was the real governor of her state who somehow, nonetheless and illegitimately, had lost her campaign by 50,000 votes.

Yep yep yep..

ALL the elections that Democrats lose are, according to Democrats, a big lie...

2000, 2004, 2016.... THOSE elections are all "BIG LIE"s...

But then we have an actual fraudulent election with WELL DOCUMENTED cheating..

And then Democrats complain that REAL patriotic Americans fight those results..

Again, I ask... How is this NOT hypocrisy???

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanagh by name at the doors of the Court, issuing biblical warnings of violence to both: “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

What sort of “force” did a U.S. senator refer to by screaming to a mob about what might “hit” the justices or when he further threatened, that the two “have released the whirlwind and [they] will pay the price”? What price? What whirlwind?

Did such physical threats incite would-be nuts to seek out a court justice—as in the recent case of 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske arrested armed near the home of Justice Kavanaugh and who currently faces a charge of attempting to murder an associate justice of the Supreme Court?

Did anyone here condemn Chucky's words and threats??

Of course not..

Political violence is PERFECTLY acceptable to Democrats.. As long as it's committed against the RIGHT people...

But, of course that didn't stop SENATOR Barack Hussein Odumbo from using it to further the Democrat Party agenda and declaring it essential to the democratic process..

How is this NOT hypocrisy???

Condemnations from Weigantians???

{{ccchhhiiiiirrrrrppppppppp}}

Democrats LOVE political violence.. As long as it's DEMOCRATS committing the violence against the RIGHT people...

Speak2, you think I use the term HYPOCRISY inaccurately??

The FACTS say otherwise...

For 120 days in summer 2020, violent protesters destroyed some $2 billion in property and injured 1,500 police officers in riots that led to over 35 deaths.

Because blue-state mayors and governors saw BLM and Antifa instigators as useful street soldiers, most of those arrested were never tried in court. Street thugs paid no price for declaring themselves de facto owners of downtown areas of Seattle, which police themselves conceded were no-go zones. Why did public officials in blue states ignore the violence? They were certain that it enjoyed majority support among their leftwing constituencies.

Indeed, some leftist icons cheered on the violence. Well after the failed attempt to storm the White House grounds, in June 2020, the Democratic candidate for vice president Kamala Harris warned us that protestors were “not going to let up, and they should not.” What did Harris mean by “should not?”—when she knew numerous protests that summer had ended in terrible violence? Was she reckless in the manner Trump was said to be by encouraging a demonstration on January 6?

The architect of the “1619 Project” Nikole Hannah-Jones assured the nation that vast destruction of (someone else’s property) was not a real crime. CNN’s Chris Cuomo gushed that violent demonstrations and riots were American traditions. Were these national voices urging calm during weeks of violent rioting and looting?

Who can forget the "largely peaceful protests" chyron with massive burning buildings in the background caused by arson...

:eyeroll:

And the response from Weigantians???

{{ccchhhiiirrrrrrrpppppp}}

TWENTY TWO+ years (collectively) of BLM and AntiFa riots.. Attacking HUNDREDS of government buildings all over the country??

MANY killed, including at least 8 cops.. Hundreds of thousands injured.. BILLIONS of dollars in damages..

And ya'all were completely silent...

Then, we have a SINGLE Right Wing riot in a SINGLE government building at a SINGLE location over the span of a couple hours..

And ya'all lost yer frakin' minds...

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

Damn skippy!!! :D

Tlaib, Squad introduce resolution recognizing 'catastrophe' of Israel's creation

Resolution comes days after Israeli Independence Day
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tlaib-squad-resolution-israel-catastrophe

I give you your Democrat Party.. :eyeroll:

From all available facts.... It was a good shoot...

Laws are made by people. They are not sacrosanct because we are not perfect.

And yet, YA'ALL wanted Roe V Wade and Democrat Eugenics V Casey laws to be "sacrosanct"...

Untouchable...

In essence you are saying that the laws YOU like are sacrosanct.. The laws you DON'T like (like the laws against baby killing that are and are going to crop up in CIVILIZED states) THOSE laws are NOT sacrosanct...

You see how one can use the word "HYPCORISY" so often to describe Democrats??? :D

I'm just sayin'....

So, can we agree right here and now that Roe V Wade and Democrat Eugenics V Casey was NOT sacrosanct??

Can we at least agree on that???

And, since we're talking about agreeing on things...

Can we agree that, all things being equal, allowing mothers to be able to kill their babies right up until birth is wrong and bad and should not be allowed..

In other words, JL, Liz, Bashi and I ALL agree that there SHOULD be restrictions on baby killing AKA abortion...

Do you agree with that as well??

I promise... You won't die if you agree with me..

JL has done it and he's fine..

Liz did it and she's good too..

Bashi did it and he....??? Well, he is still Bashi, so...

It's not a perfect system.. :D

Kick taught me that.. :D

That's not factually accurate..

Kick taught me the blockquote.. I figured out the BQ before B on my own.. :D

You throw around the word hypocrisy a bit too easily. My complaint was the dozen-plus comments you drop all at once. That's the hijacking we're talking about.

There is absolutely NOTHING stopping YOU from dropping a dozen-plus comments yourself...

NO ONE here can hijack ANYTHING without the tacit approval and permission of the community....

That's why I always have to laugh at the accusations of DOMINATION and HI-JACKING... :D It cracks me up that ya'all think that I have so much power over ya'all..

That lil ole me can actually PREVENT ya'all from commenting.. :D

"You do me great honor.."
-Ael t'Rllaillieu, STAR TREK, My Enemy My Ally

As far as the personal stuff, we're all human. That's something we all screw up once in a while.

"I will consider that an apology.. And I will consider that apology"
-Scotty, STAR TREK 90210

Apology accepted... :D

I'm not going to compromise my OPINION.

Really???

I am ALWAYS ready to change my opinion if the facts warrant it..

Yea, you do... And if you use Bold you have to make sure you put the Blockquote BEFORE the Bold attribute or else everything gets all wanky...

Kick taught me that.. :D

Akron police said Jayland Walker suffered more than 60 gunshot wounds but was unarmed at the time of the shooting
https://www.foxnews.com/us/jayland-walker-shooting-akron-protests

Another perfectly justified police shooting and another protest from BLM con-artists.. :eyeroll:

Biden urged gas companies on Saturday to realize 'this is a time of war and global peril'
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/u-s-energy-roast-biden-demanding-companies-running-gas-stations-lower-pump-prices

BBBWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Biden's Handlers = White House Intern :D

First WaPo's owner biatch-slaps Biden's Handlers down and then the Oil Companies get their licks in!!

Hilarious!!!! :D

It's definitely going to be an improvement to see a GOP Congress neuter Biden's Handlers... :D

Does everyone here agree with Speak2??

That Democrats should "bring down" 1/3rd of the United States government??

Yunno.. Insurrection??

Everyone here agree with that??

Oh how the mediocre have fallen, eh?? :D

Jeff Bezos calls out Joe Biden's latest inflation claim: 'Straight misdirection or a deep misunderstanding'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jeff-bezos-calls-out-joe-biden-s-latest-inflation-claim-straight-misdirection-or-a-deep-misunderstanding/ar-AAZ8m8L?ocid=&cvid=15ca4f845a4442969abdac9b8359a5a1

Gov. Hochul Short on Answers, Thin on Data

When a local reporter in Albany, New York, asked Gov. Kathy Hochul if she had “the numbers to show it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes,” Hochul dismissed the question outright. “I don’t need to have numbers,” Hochul said. “I don’t need to have a data point to say this.”

The reporter, Anne McCloy, persisted and noted: “Somebody who is going to go do a mass shooting or something like that may not go and get a permit.” But Hochul said that was irrelevant to the issue of people carrying concealed handguns for protection.

The exchange must have caught Hochul off guard, since reporters don’t normally challenge support for gun control. But if Hochul wants to claim that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down New York’s restrictive concealed handgun law “could place millions of New Yorkers in harm’s way,” she has to explain how exactly permits make people a danger to others. After all, permit holders must pass a criminal background check, obtain the required training, and be at least 21 years old.

Democrats and gun control proponents are now predicting disaster in New York and the six other heavily Democratic states with restrictive “may-issue” concealed handgun laws. These states required applicants to demonstrate “proper cause” – a good reason that would convince a government bureaucrat of one’s need for a permit.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/07/03/gov_hochul_short_on_answers_thin_on_data_147835.html

But ALWAYS seems to be short on facts...

Why is that???

Afghanistan 2.0...

Another gross military failure for Biden's Handlers..

:eyeroll:

In California, hospital admissions for cannabis-related complications have shot up – from 1,400 in 2005 to 16,000 by 2019. In California, and the other 18 states that have legalised cannabis, rates of addiction are nearly 40 per cent higher than states without legal cannabis, according to research by Columbia University.

A study published on Thursday suggested recreational marijuana users were 25 per cent more likely to end up needing emergency hospital treatment. And, according to data from the US Fatality Analysis Reporting System, the risk of being involved in a cannabis-related accident is significantly higher in states where the drug is legal.

Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that if you legalize drugs it would lead to more overdoses, more ER visits and more addictions..

Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that!!???

Oh wait.. Only those who have more than 2 brain cells to rub together!! :eyeroll:

Part of my journey followed in the footsteps of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who recently visited a number of LA's dispensaries on a 'fact finding mission'. He announced that a new group would be set up to look at the benefits of legalising cannabis in the UK, although Home Secretary Priti Patel dismissed the suggestion, saying he had 'no powers' to make any such changes.

Perhaps Khan would benefit from a chat with Dr Roneet Lev, an emergency doctor at Scripps Mercy Hospital in San Diego, who tells me: 'We've been seeing the problems for a while now: depressive breakdowns, psychosis, suicidal thoughts, all related to cannabis. The patients are regular people, not down-and-outs.

'I want people to know the truth about this drug. We've been sold a lie, that cannabis use is harmless and even has a multitude of health benefits. It is exactly the same as what happened with tobacco. The industry told the public it was good for their health at first, before it was proven to be deadly.'

Yep... Yep... Yep.....

Yea!! Let's legalize pot!!

What could POSSIBLY go wrong!?? :eyeroll:

The stoopidity of Democrats NEVER ceases to amaze me..

One Arizona Republican candidate for governor said that the Democratic Party's tweet is an example of the 'modern Democratic Party'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/arizona-democrats-plan-4th-event-mourn-supreme-court-abortion-decision

This is ya'all's Democrat Party...

Ya'all must be SOOOOO proud. :eyeroll:

Can't argue if words don't have definitions.

Do you mean like Democrats always changing definitions to suit their agenda??

Or maybe you mean like how Democrats can't even define "woman"...

Is THAT what you mean???

I first thought he was a Russian troll and I called himMikhail and inquired what currency he was paid in. At length, I felt the he was so authentic. A genuine angry redneck down in the land of #FloridaMan. I decided this troll was too effective and undoubtedly top Ruble/Euro and it's unlikely the Rooskies would devote such an asset to CW.

First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.
-Union Leader Nicholas Klein, 1914

:D

I'll try not to bitch, but this place could be so much more and discussion so much better without this endless repetitive spew

I have TOLD you how to defeat me...

But you're a Democrat and Democrats always want the easy way, the way where they don't have to do any actual work... :D

You can't defeat me because you simply lack the will to actually fight for what you believe in..

Democrats are lazy and afraid of hard work...

Do you HONESTLY compare THAT to terrorizing families and CHILDREN in their homes???

SERIOUSLY!!???? :eyeroll:

My military and LEO and FSO and Security bona fides have been well established.. Long before you polluted Weigantian with your Trump/America hate and your PTDS...

Unlike you who has yet to show a shred of proof of ANY of your claims..

You didn't even know what constitutes assault... :eyeroll:

Defying an unconstitutional law is perfectly fine with me.

Here's the thing... YOU don't get to decide what is unconstitutional...

The SCOTUS does...

I'm even fine with defying constitutionally accepted laws in some cases.

That's funny... Because THAT is what the SCOTUS (according to ya'all) is doing...

Defying constitutionally accepted law..

And yet, you definitely aren't "fine" with it..

You are so pissed about it, that you are talking insurrection.. Civil War...

Third, YES, I am talking about outright defiance of the courts. That's the whole point of Checks and Balances. When one branch of gets out of hand, the other two have the means to bring them down. That is, defy the run amok branch!

Outright defiance IS insurrection.. "Bringing down" (your words) the government IS insurrection..

And it's funny that you only claim the court has "run amok" when they rule AGAINST the Democrat agenda..

Would you say the court "ran amok" when they ruled in Biden's Handlers favor over President Trump's REMAIN IN MEXICO policy??

Did the court "run amok" then??

You see how hypocritical yer position is??

I can name a DOZEN rulings of THIS SCOTUS that you absolutely LOVE and totally and completely support..

It's only when the SCOTUS rules in a manner that you don't like, that the court has "run amok"...

Do you see the complete and utter fallacy of your position??

But let's get back to your wanting to "bring down" a branch of the US Government...

You DO realize that the SCOTUS has the force of law behind it, right??

The "force of law" being every law enforcement agency in the country....

So, ANY "outright defiance" will face the force of law of every law enforcement entity in the United States Of America..

Tell me.. Exactly how is that going to work out for you Democrats??

On this we agree.

Then I am at a loss as to how you can compare the Kansas bleeding incident due to slavery to the abortion issue we have in the here and now...

It sounds like you are saying that abortion today is as important to Democrats as slavery was to Democrats back in the time of the Kansas bleeding incident.

That we shouldn't push the anti-abortion issue as much as we pushed the anti-slavery issue in the past because it might result in another civil war..

Maybe I read your responses wrong.. It's been known to happen..

Where we v disagree is on the questions of what constitutes a person, and which people (or other human-like entities) have the right to own themselves.

Not so much to the "right to own themselves" but the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. and the right NOT to be deprived of those rights without due process...

Yes, we disagree at which point conception becomes life...

I say when a heartbeat is detected, you say when viability occurs.. With the understanding that the viability line is nebulous and can change with technology...

So, we agree that abortion restrictions SHOULD be in place...

We simply disagree as to WHEN those restrictions should kick in..

That's a disagreement I can live with..

I know you're quoting but "an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh..."
You've got to be kidding. Let's not blow this out of proportion.

It's a fact.. That's EXACTLY what it was..

The Democrat scumbag was charged with attempted murder..

A murder of a public official is an assassination...

Ergo, the Democrat scumbag attempted to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh...

These are the facts..

And we don't hear a PEEP of condemnation from Weigantians...

Why is that??

Because ya'all are PERFECTLY OK with it..

In any case, discussing the case in terms of protesting in front of a judge's home is not an issue here. He can do that whether or not there's a protest (it'd probably be harder to succeed with a protest, in fact).

That's factually accurate...

The assassination attempt and the fact that SCOTUS wannabe AG Garland allowing federal law to be broken with impunity are two distinct and separate issues..

We completely agree on that point..

I first thought he was a Russian troll and I called himMikhail and inquired what currency he was paid in. At length, I felt the he was so authentic. A genuine angry redneck down in the land of #FloridaMan. I decided this troll was too effective and undoubtedly top Ruble/Euro and it's unlikely the Rooskies would devote such an asset to CW.

Unless they're afraid of him.

Then I though perhaps CW was ghostwriting him to stir the pot. But that's a lot of effort just to drive potential Weigantians away, reducing all that potential financial support.

So I figure that @m is making it worthwhile to put up with him. Whatever...his playground, his rules.

I'll try not to bitch, but this place could be so much more and discussion so much better without this endless repetitive spew and consistent "yanking away the football" ala Don.

Crossing guard wisdom at best. But even if you could get that job, you didn’t do it for 30+ yrs. Please, share with us what you learned from your make believe career!

Defying an unconstitutional law is perfectly fine with me.
I'm even fine with defying constitutionally accepted laws in some cases.

I don't know if you'll get your panties in a twist over that last line, but I'll give you an example.

I remember helping a friend make pot brownies for his mother. She really had trouble with her chemo treatments. We were in a state that didn't allow for medical marijuana.
Doing that today, even in a state that allows it, is a violation of Federal Law.

I'd make the same decision today, without any doubt. I'd look in the mirror afterwards, and smile that I had done a good thing.

Laws are made by people. They are not sacrosanct because we are not perfect.

Second, defiance of the courts.
The three branches of gov't have pushed and pulled wrt power and decision-making authority throughout the entirety of our nation's history (consider the quote re Lincoln and Dred Scott (S2 [106])).

Heck, Congress hasn't declared war since 1942 (three declarations on 6/4/42: Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania (correct spelling)).

Third, YES, I am talking about outright defiance of the courts. That's the whole point of Checks and Balances. When one branch of gets out of hand, the other two have the means to bring them down. That is, defy the run amok branch!

These abilities are on purpose! They're intended to ensure that no branch would become sole ruler of the nation (obviously, they were most concerned with an out-of-control president, but they generalized the concept). Any two branches have the Constitutional authority and ability to defy a third branch if it tries to be more than co-equal (a subjective concept).

A guy was on his way to Kavanaugh's with a weapon and intent. Prior to getting there, he called the cops (on himself).

We're not talking about a professional hitman (gets paid) or even an amateur. We're talking about a whack job or, more politely, someone who needs the assistance of a mental health care professional.

In any case, discussing the case in terms of protesting in front of a judge's home is not an issue here. He can do that whether or not there's a protest (it'd probably be harder to succeed with a protest, in fact).

On this we agree. Where we v disagree is on the questions of what constitutes a person, and which people (or other human-like entities) have the right to own themselves.

Just as Democrats started a civil war to keep the right to keep slaves???

And again, this begs the question..

Are you absolutely CERTAIN you are batting for the right team???

The team that started a CIVIL WAR to be able to have the right to own other human beings???

And that, to avoid another Kansas Bleeding, the US should continue to let Democrats kill babies...

Is that what you are saying???

That's an opinion I disagree with...

Slavery doesn't compare to abortion, Constitutionally or otherwise..

In bleeding Kansas we have a model for what happens when one does that.

If Democrats want to fight for their right to kill babies as they fought for their right to keep slaves.....

I am MORE than willing to have that.... conversation...

As I recall, the "conversation" didn't work out to well for Democrats the LAST time....

I'm just sayin'.....

Again you're mangling history. Slavery was codified in the constitution by the federalists, over thirty years before the Democratic party existed.

The difference between then and now, of course, is that THEN, thanx to Democrats, SLAVERY WAS part of the US Constitution...

Abortion has been nor ever will be part of the US Constitution...

So, once again, you are comparing apples and alligators... Or is it eskimos???

Since they are the Party that gave this country the KKK and Jim Crow...

Where's Cancel Culture when ya need it, eh?? :^/

Not at all.. I EXACTLY get the point.. Well, maybe it's not YOUR point but it's the only relevant point..

Democrats fought for slavery and the right to keep slaves..

The GOP was created to FIGHT the Democrats and free the slaves...

So, again I have got to ask..

Do ya'all ever get the feeling yer batting for the wrong team??

As is frequently the case, you've completely missed the point. In the 1850s the GOP didn't exist yet, so the Democrats were the only game in town. Much like today's SCOTUS, Congress decided to let the people of each state decide the issue with their votes. The result was chaos, violence, sedition and ultimately civil war, not to mention a permanent fracture in the party and the creation of the GOP.

WOW...

So the GOP formed to PROTECT slaves from the evil Democrats..

WOW... Who knew, eh?? :eyeroll:

Ahhh So, Democrats fighting and killing to protect their rights to keep slaves..

Are you SURE you want to go with that example???

I'm just sayin'....

Perhaps.. But the legal precedent HAS been established.

Now it's up to the citizens of states.....

Again, it is called DEMOCRACY....

Democrats can live as THEY wish and kill all the babies they want..

Patriotic Americans can live they way THEY want and actually protect life...

Everybody wins...

Well, except for the babies in Democrat states...

But if there is one thing I have learned in 30+ years in Public Safety...

You can't save everyone...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/19th-century/bleeding-kansas

To be technically accurate, abortion was NEVER part of the US Constitution....

And now, thanx to the wisdom of the current SCOTUS, neither is abortion..

So, common law is what we got..

"Is this any good??"
"It's what we got..."
-DEMOLITION MAN

And common law, not to mention common decency and common sense, says that an unborn baby after a certain gestational period is a PERSON..

With RIGHTS...

This is fact...

Precedent is common law, not part of the constitution.

Looking forward to it.. :D

In Madsen v Women's Health Center, Inc (1994), SCOTUS ruled that prohibiting forced birthers from protesting outside the private residences of abortion providers was a violation of their first amendment rights.

Which has nothing to do with the Federal Law that prohibits protesting outside of judges homes..

No matter how you want to dress it up, it's simply ILLEGAL, FEDERALLY, to protest outside a judge's residence.....

And yet, ample legal precedent exists whereas an unborn baby is legally considered a person in areas of murder and child abuse...

So, legally, factually, your claim is not accurate...

Last comment for now (I'll come back later, this is my 4th this AM).

In Madsen v Women's Health Center, Inc (1994), SCOTUS ruled that prohibiting forced birthers from protesting outside the private residences of abortion providers was a violation of their first amendment rights.

Good for thee means it must be good for them, too.

I recall a December where you linked your comments to your donations to this site. It was an interesting concept.

My bringing it up wasn't an insult. It was a clear statement that you have every right to be here and that you do your part to keep the site up and running.

Ahhh OK.. I thought you were toe'ing MC's line that I am somehow bribing the moderator...

Since CW passed, such an idea is laughable...

My apologies...

I agree that viability is a standard that is subject to change.

Why didn't you say so!??

So, we agree again..

#1 We agree that there SHOULD be restrictions on abortion..

#2 We agree that, if it's the viability line that is the determining factor, it should change with the technology...

So what exactly are we arguing about??

The 2 relevant and main points of the issue, we are completely on the same page on...

But we're not talking about using checks and balances.. You were talking outright defiance of the courts..

Put it another way..

When the GOP takes over Congress next year, how would YOU feel if they simply ignored Biden's Handlers' Executive Orders..

That would be the EXACT same thing as what you are proposing...

As long as there are Casey Anthonys in the world, baby killing AKA abortion SHOULD be a legal issue..

I recall a December where you linked your comments to your donations to this site. It was an interesting concept.

My bringing it up wasn't an insult. It was a clear statement that you have every right to be here and that you do your part to keep the site up and running.

I think I responded to the rest of [63] above.

WRT the quote: I just typed what my wife's response was, whether it's an accurate quote or not.

I agree that viability is a standard that is subject to change. But it's still the best we've got. The hard and cold fact is that no fetus has any constitutional rights until it breathes the outside air and becomes a baby. Therefore, any other rights must remain subjective.

You throw around the word hypocrisy a bit too easily. My complaint was the dozen-plus comments you drop all at once. That's the hijacking we're talking about.

As far as the personal stuff, we're all human. That's something we all screw up once in a while.

WRT Dred Scot in particular, SCOTUS quite literally had no choice.

https://jacobin.com/2020/09/abraham-lincoln-supreme-court-slavery

Once in power, Lincoln and congressional Republicans “reorganized” the federal judiciary and “packed” the court, adding an additional justice in 1863. More fundamentally, though, they simply ignored the proslavery precedents established in the 1850s. In June 1862, for instance, Congress passed and Lincoln signed a bill banning slavery from the federal territories — a direct violation of the majority ruling in Dred Scott. The court meekly acquiesced, recognizing that its political power was long since broken.

I agree, it shouldn't be a legal issue. But as long as somebody in the government wants to exert control over the question, the law will be put in that position.

It's too nebulous geographically, technologically and temporally...