Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that he is able to reach a multitude of people at their level of understanding. He is very much like Trump in that regard.

I love the way he talks about all of the countries that have joined NATO since the fall of the Soviet Union as being the same.

And, he is quite right, as far as he goes, when he talks about the process for NATO membership. In fact, he is so right about it that Ukraine really, at this point in time, has little chance of ever becoming accepted into the NATO fold.

Let me be clear about one thing ... there is really only one person and one country to blame for the invasion of Ukraine and we both agree who that is and what country they lead.

Do you have a video to share where he explains how this war is progressing and how it will end. I'm sure he has a view on it ...

Good Lord! What has gotten into you, my Dear Elizabeth?

How in the world do you derive …angry and controlling?…would enforce his will on a woman? from his five minute summary of Putin’s motivation for starting eight/nine wars in this century? How do you think you can discern his personality and politics from this short video? There is no reason to believe that this guy is a forced birther type…because he has a brain.

This is pretty whacko stuff, respectfully, and you give me that Trumpanzie vibe of someone with limited knowledge of a situation but nevertheless passionately argues everything. One who sees a Godless Commie baby killer in every Democrat behind every bush.

Honey, the simplistic terms are precisely why this guy lectures all over the world to industry groups and financial entities. He is able to reach people on their level of understanding instead of being a boring technocrat.

For the record, you have again failed to reply to his summary, which definitely contradicts your view of the cause of Putin’s full scale escalation. You have once again ducked the material.

Watch the fucking video and tell Weigantia how he’s wrong and you’re right. Please.

Oh, Chris ... CHRIS!

How's that new edit function coming along?

Caddy, I can see now where you're coming from with your new commenting spirit! Ahem.

It's always been an unwritten rule. I thought you understood this. :)

That Peter Zeihan guy comes across as a very angry and controlling man who talks in simplistic terms. In fact, he sounds like the type of person who would want to impose his will on a woman and her reproductive rights because he is pro-life and then force her to have an abortion when he doesn't wish to take responsibility for his own desires.

I can see, though, where you're commenting spirit of late comes from. :)

Yo, Kick I’m pleased to find that I’m not the only one I’ve ever met that has an interest/fascination with Latin. Thanks!

Where do I begin besides agreeing with you that our Elizabeth “ain’t quite riiight…in her head” — gratuitous Braveheart quote. Ahem.

I'll take a look at it Caddy but, don't expect me to comment on it unless Chris writes something about the Ukraine war.

WTF? Why the fuck do you decline to realize that there aren’t any rules down here in Weigantia. I have read and reread “Comments Tips” and I missed the part where that was some “rule”. The only rule is “don’t be a dick” but [he, who shall not be named] stirred up endless comments by, er, pushing THAT edge. I hated his poison! This is why we rightfully give you shit for trying to be some Board Mother. Ain’t yer place, Gurl.

So don’t be a wuss, spend 311 seconds on this geopolitical assessment of “WHO caused the Russo-Ukrainian Escalation — NATO in general since the 90s? Biden in particular? Maybe even Putin? — and let’s discuss.

Elizabeth, are you okay? Respectfully, something appears different about you going back, what, half a year? I/we love you and I’m just a tetch** concerned aboutcha, that’s all.

***tetch is halfway between a “tad” and a “touch.” I like to coin new words e.g. boldify verb, to highlight critical words in bold

One more word(s) of advice for you ... as long as you obsess over "the sexual health of men and women" - and I think you are even missing the point here - to the exclusion of the rest of what I said, you will continue to miss the important point of what I am saying.

I'm not missing any of your point(s), Elizabeth, and I don't/won't take it personal that you just cannot seem to shake the idea that anyone who posts a comment on the forum that disagrees with one of yours simply cannot understand you. Trust me; we understand you.

If you aren't comfortable discussing sexuality, in general, then maybe the discussion I would like to have here around the abortion and reproductive rights debate isn't for you, anyway.

*laughs* Incorrect. I'm perfectly comfortable discussing sexuality, in general, in English, and also in Latin. So where should we start: Colei, landica, culus, mentula, cunnus and/or culus? You choose. :)

You just can't stop yourself, can you? Sigh.

Nice try, Canada, but you posted in two (2) comment boxes asking for a response: "Go!" in comment box [12] and "prove me wrong" in comment box [13], and now you deign to feign "outrage" that you received one.

Well, isn't that special!?

Let me know when you are able to act in a civil manner and until you can do so, please stop responding to comments that I make that are not directed your way.

I can't stop laughing. Civil manner!? I think you have a very thin skin when other posters disagree with your comments. Let me know when you're ready for some actual "muscular debate" like you keep claiming to want.

In the meantime, I'll respond to whatever comments I so desire... particularly and especially when I am practically begged by the poster in multiple comment boxes to provide it.

Hope that's crystal clear. ;)

As I have reiterated many times, there hasn't been a single comment you've made on this forum that's been the least bit complicated. :)

If you aren't comfortable discussing sexuality, in general, then maybe the discussion I would like to have here around the abortion and reproductive rights debate isn't for you, anyway.

Let me know when you are able to act in a civil manner and until you can do so, please stop responding to comments that I make that are not directed your way.

Hope that's crystal clear. ;)

Okay, I'm beginning to accept the tedious nature of this place, so let me re-phrase my [10] and see what you can do with it.

I knew exactly what you meant and obviously in what reference as relates to your previous rant from another commentary. But November isn't "soon," and my point was that you cannot possibly know between now and then what future ads or debates/discussions will or will not contain, and that this 30-second commercial is but a single shot fired in a hail of metaphorical bullets on the way.

In other words: You're still on a rant about making the abortion issue about your aforementioned "sexual health of men and women in general" (your words) as if a 30-second commercial is going to actually be able to do that "on its own"... and we're about 7 months away from the election.

It's a targeted ad to Arizona voters, Elizabeth. It (obviously) isn't designed to carry the election on its own. I would think this is obvious and needed no explanation, but here we are.

By the time we are watching the counting of the actual votes beginning on the evening of the 2024 presidential election this November we will see just how effective this message and countless others just like it or very similar to it, sticking to the usual line of messaging around abortion rights, will have been.

Go!

Heh.

We shall soon see how effective this message can be on its own and how many elections will be won on the force of it.

"Soon" and "on its own"? Oh, I wish the election were soon, but the election is about seven (7) months away, and that's a long time in politics where all manner of things can happen, we both know. The Biden campaign has already put out other ads regarding the issue and are likely to put out a whole lot more so it's not exactly going to be running "on its own."

How many U.S. presidents have been able to honestly use the phrase: "I will fight like hell to get your freedom back" and have a genuine discussion about the other freedoms he won't allow to be taken away as long as he is your president? Rhetorical question. Because how many rights in America have been taken away from millions and millions of Americans in one fell swoop?

*thinking*

Prohibition: 1920 to 1933. A bunch of Protestant Christians et alia called the "temperance movement" decided alcohol was the devil's tool, and Congress eventually passed the Volstead Act (National Prohibition Act) despite it being vetoed by Woodrow Wilson (D). Medicinal alcohol that physicians deemed necessary, however, remained legal, with an allowable "prescription" being one pint of alcohol every 10 days. Religious leaders could obtain a permit to use alcohol for "sacramental" purposes, oh irony.

Anyway, fast forward (really fast), and Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) campaigned on ending that, and then won the presidency... four times . :)

Biden's "I will fight like hell to get your freedom back" is the perfect message..."

We shall soon see how effective this message can be on its own and how many elections will be won on the force of it.

Because of Donald Trump, millions of women lost the fundamental freedom to control their own bodies. And now, women's lives are in danger because of that.

The question is: If Donald Trump gets back in power, what freedom will you lose next? Your body and your decisions belong to you, not the government, not Donald Trump.

I will fight like hell to get your freedom back. .

I'm Joe Biden and I approve this message.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZIdq7ZJyc

[emphasis mine]

*
"I will fight like hell to get your freedom back" is the perfect message, in my opinion. :)

I'll take a look at it Caddy but, don't expect me to comment on it unless Chris writes something about the Ukraine war.

Probably because he exhibits "consciousness of guilt" and knows convicted felons cannot vote in Florida until they've met all the following criteria:

* Completed all prison or jail time.

* Completed all parole, probation, or other forms of supervision.

* Paid the total amount owed for all fines, fees, costs, and restitution ordered as part of the conviction.

Next time ask him if he could vote how he would vote. Heh. ;)

https://youtu.be/Rh4QU7hxKVg?

So let me get this straight. Around the time of Sherman's "March to the Sea" (after he burns down dang near half of Atlanta) this Howell Code frontier justice became Arizona Territory law and the Arizona Supreme Court is just fine with that 160 years later in 2024!? In Section 47 of this garbage, what we would today commonly refer to as "statutory rape" is defined: “carnal knowledge of any female child under the age of ten years, either with or without her consent.” So a 9-year-old child is off limits, but a 10-year-old can give you consent in Arizona in 1864... around 17 years before the gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone and about 48 years before the Arizona Supreme Court even came into existence.

Absolute nuts.