Comments posted organically
Homepage

Top Contributors Articles by: Curt_Anderson Donna HatetheSwamp Indy! islander meagain Navy2711 oldedude Ponderer ROB3RT tuk22

Recent Article Activity Most Commented Articles Highest Rated Articles All Articles Most Viewed Articles Articles Without Comments

pb designates June as WOKE HEGEMONY IS DEAD month... 2.0
Media by HatetheSwamp     June 12, 2025 8:40 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (66 comments) [730 views]

Immigrants describe worms in food, fecal flooding at Alligator Alcatraz
News by Donna     July 12, 2025 6:01 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (12 comments) [95 views]

200 immigrants taken into custody along with unaccompied minors
Economy by oldedude     July 12, 2025 12:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments) [142 views]

Judge bars Trump administration from making indiscriminate arrests in California immigration raids
Law by Curt_Anderson     July 12, 2025 3:24 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (30 comments) [272 views]

Private investigations may expose Epstein's social circle
Movies by Indy!     July 13, 2025 12:41 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (1 comments) [19 views]

The very definition of "overcompensation"...
Politics by Indy!     July 13, 2025 11:21 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (17 comments) [120 views]

Flash flooding in Texas right now
Travel by Indy!     July 13, 2025 12:03 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [42 views]

Jeffrey Epstein and the Biden Crime Family
Crime by HatetheSwamp     July 13, 2025 10:56 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [64 views]

DOJ drops charges against Utah surgeon accused of injecting fake COVID-19 shots and destroying $28K of real vaccines
Crime by Curt_Anderson     July 13, 2025 12:29 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [40 views]

Speaking of Jeffrey Epstein and "lawfare"
Fact Check by Indy!     July 13, 2025 10:54 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments) [23 views]

We are at a pivotal moment in history By islander October 11, 2022 6:37 am Category: History (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post & Tips. Write & edit articles How To Post Here

What we are now witnessing is the battle between authoritarianism and democracy around the world, and we here at home are also fighting the same battle. This comment by Jan Thompson regarding Heather's letter said it perfectly :

"My hope is that this is what it took to unite Europe and the West to defend Ukraine democracy and sovereignty. We must vote Blue to keep our own Democracy."

Comments Start Below

by islander on October 11, 2022 6:39 am Link to Heather's letter: heathercoxrichardson.substack.com by HatetheSwamp on October 11, 2022 6:56 am Ironic, eh. You post this moments after Tulsi Gabbard announced she's leaving the Dem Party because she believes in a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people" and that ain't the Dem party. isle, during the pandemic, you never met a mandate or a lock down you didn't love... ...while tens of millions of us were screaming that we are a free people, protected by the Bill of Rights! Now, YOU of all people, are warning of the dangers of authoritarianism, and praising the glories of democracy. A bit hypocritical, eh!!!!!? by islander on October 11, 2022 8:24 am What Heather writes is all way over your head, Hate. I don't post her letters here for you. You called the SCOTUS ruling to overturn RVW, the ruling that took away a woman's constitutional right to choose and handed that choice, to use your words, "back the people" (women aren't people?) meaning the state authorities...However--- when those same state authorities that you called "the people" authorize (in their own state) an emergency requirement to wear a mask in certain public places during a deadly pandemic...You call that "authoritarianism" and claim "big brother" is violating your freedom...But when SCOTUS takes the right to choose away from the people and gives it to the same state authorities you applaud! Talk about dyslexia LoL !! You really have no idea what "big brother" means or what"authoritarianism" is except that those are terms you apply to whatever it happens to be that you don't like. You ARE an authoritarian, Hate...I saw that right away when we had the debate over what Christianity was all about, love or obedience...For you Christianity's primary message is all about accepting dogma, rules and obeying those rules. That's the mindset of many Christians and many other religious authoritarians as well...but that's not the only interpretation of what Christianity is about. Your's is the authoritarian interpretation so it's not surprising that your authoritarianism manifests itself in your politics as well. Democracy has little appeal to authoritarians hence their insistence that we refrain from calling our country ia democracy or even a representative democracy . They prefer to call it simply a republic. by HatetheSwamp on October 11, 2022 8:40 am You claim to support democracy by objecting to the Supreme Court decision returning regulation of abortion "to the people." Ironic. My understanding of Christianity has nothing to do with dogma and everything about life lived according to the Sermon on the Mount. by Donna on October 11, 2022 9:36 am "You claim to support democracy by objecting to the Supreme Court decision returning regulation of abortion "to the people." Ironic." That's because overturning Roe allowed state governments to impose tyranny on women by denying them the right to control their own bodies. Ironically you also believe that women should have access to abortion services up until about 12 to 14 weeks, which isn't allowed anymore in some states as a result of overturning Roe. How do you resolve that conflict with yourself? by HatetheSwamp on October 11, 2022 9:50 am Donna, Democracy is government by the people. The Supreme Court got as close to democracy as the Constitution allows. by Donna on October 11, 2022 9:55 am The primary issue that's causing people around the world to vote for right-wing authoritarians is immigration. That's as true in Italy as it is in the US. Even in the social democracy of Sweden, the right-wing party has gained popularity because of that issue. With climate change, out-of-control crime and corruption and wars increasingly driving hoards of people to safer places in Europe and the US, anti-immigrant political parties are going to become increasingly popular. Most people are okay with limited numbers of immigrants and refugees seeking asylum, but when you have hoards of people doing that, and most of them speak different languages and adhere to different religions and customs, there's going to be a backlash, which is what we've been seeing. I fear there's a time coming when social democrats around the world are going to have to make the difficult choice of throwing migrants under the bus or at least curtailing the numbers of them entering to ensure that they win elections. by Donna on October 11, 2022 10:00 am "Democracy is government by the people." That's as true in federal elections as it is in state and local elections. Big Brother doesn't only pertain to the federal government. Do you or do you not think that reasonable abortion laws -- like the ones YOU support -- should be guaranteed in every state in the union? by HatetheSwamp on October 11, 2022 10:01 am In America, apart from wacko extremist,...a very small percentage of the population...everyone I know favors immigration. It's bad, ineffective immigration policy that cause people to react... ...and, in the end, it's the immigrants, ultimately, who suffer. by Donna on October 11, 2022 10:16 am "In America, apart from wacko extremist,...a very small percentage of the population...everyone I know favors immigration." Right. But I'm not talking about normal, legal immigration. I'm talking about thousands of migrants daily seeking asylum. Many people who support normal, legal immigration and a limited number of asylum seekers don't like large influxes of outsiders coming into their country, illegally or even legally. by Curt_Anderson on October 11, 2022 10:24 am Donna, You know my view on immigration---there should be practically no limits. In the 19th century anybody could walk across a border or land in a harbor and enter America. We became a world power in that century. It was through immigration that we produced iconic Americans like Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie, Nikola Tesla and Joseph Pulitzer. They all came to America with little to no rigmarole. The recent Ken Burns documentary on the Holocaust explored America's disgraceful nativist governmental policy which started in earnest near the end of the 1800s. The Ellis Island Immigration Station opened in 1892. Our anti-immigration sentiments led to the deaths of millions of Jews. by Donna on October 11, 2022 10:27 am No doubt, Curt. But your view isn't shared by most Americans, not even most Democrats. by Curt_Anderson on October 11, 2022 10:40 am Donna, There needs to be concerted effort to inform and educate the public that our anti-immigration policies and hurdles are counter-productive to the well-being of native-born Americans and their pocket books. Food prices are up because there is a shortage of produce pickers, slaughterhouse workers, restaurant workers, etc. These are jobs that the immigrants like those that DeSantis tricks onto airplanes would be happy to do. businessinsider.com bloomberg.com by Donna on October 11, 2022 11:10 am Well, that could be tried, but I doubt if using reason will sway many voters. The general populace doesn't understand complex issues and will be apt to respond to such reasoning as bullshit. by Curt_Anderson on October 11, 2022 11:17 am Donna, There was a TV commercial in which Larry David portrayed a series of characters on the wrong side of history. In one vignette he is among America's Founders in which they advocate the right for all citizens to vote (historically inaccurate, btw). Larry's bewigged character protests, "even the stupid ones!?" I sided with Larry on that one. by Curt_Anderson on October 11, 2022 11:20 am by Donna on October 11, 2022 12:00 pm I laugh every time I watch that ad. Sheri and I are huge Larry David fans. by islander on October 11, 2022 1:13 pm The abortion issue is just one of the dyslexic positions that Trump voters like Hate seem to see backwatds. This issue clearly demonstrates their hypocrisy, while screaming that we are a free people, protected by the Bill of Rights...Yet, at the very same time, wholeheartedly supporting and defendeding the SCOTUS decision to take away women’s Constitutional right to choose. They took that right away from real people, a woman and her healthcare providers, and told them that their decision was no longer going to be theirs to make, such choices would now be made by “State legislators”...The very same ones Hate childishly called “Big Brother” when he had to wear a mask in certain public places during the pandemic. Hate now calls the ones who required him to wear a mask “The People”. The real “We The People” ( the American people themselves) support RVW and disapproved of the court’s decision to revoke it. Yet Hate and his ilk continue to flail away trying to convince the American people and probably himself as well, that the court gave “the people” the right to choose. {b}"Majority of Public Disapproves of Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade" * pewresearch.org by HatetheSwamp on October 12, 2022 5:01 am isle, Even RBG believed that Roe got it wrong. The white men who finagled a right to abortion abused the Constitution and its Amendments. What I think you need to do is take a deep breath and remember that there will be Blue MAGA attacks on state laws built on Dobbs...and, in time, Dobbs will be tweaked, or reversed. But, pb will continue to praise this Court because it seems determined to make us a republic again, a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," in which "the people and their representatives" rule. Your ilk has depended on Big Brother Executive Orders and Supreme Court decisions to foist on the innocent people of the nation what you could never pass as law. Tough tuna! This is a republic! by islander on October 12, 2022 5:57 am Hate writes: Your ilk has depended on Big Brother Executive Orders and Supreme Court decisions to foist on the innocent people of the nation what you could never pass as law." You're putting your Trump voter's dyslexia on display again !!! LOL !!! by HatetheSwamp on October 12, 2022 6:06 am Maybe you're right, there, isle. I thought the Supreme Court made abortion a right...and same sex marriage. Name the legislation passed by Congress, signed by, which Presidents?, and I'll agree. Bahahahahahahahahahaha! by oldedude on October 12, 2022 6:45 am There's a couple of things interesting here. Sheeple believe that murdering a baby is okay but oppose the death penalty of serial murderers (et.al.) Conservatives oppose murdering a baby but support the death penalty of serial murderers (et.al.) The sheep say we should look to "our Bibles" and forgive the person that rapes and murders. The difference is the point of view. Conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims view it from the child's perspective. The sheep look at it from the mother's perspective. Sheep want a "Federal Law" that defines abortion, but don't accept a state law as our constitution dictates so they can craft their own law, the way they deem necessary. Isle, please show me where abortion is in the constitution. I can very well show you that buying and carrying a gun "shall not be infringed." This is why the liberals have been appropriately called the "Anti-constitution" party. We don't have to re-write the constitution, you need to read it. by islander on October 12, 2022 7:08 am Hate wrote: ”Name the legislation passed by Congress, signed by, which Presidents?” The Supreme Court defends our rights even those that are not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. If, based on the advice of your healthcare providers, you choose to have your foot amputated, it is your right to make that choice or to choose not to have it amputated. No law giving you that right was passed by Congress and signed by the President. That right is not part of Big Brother’s domaine. Of course those authoritarian Trump voters might wish to see Big Brother step in and tell people that Big Brother needs to control a person’s right to choose amputation because people shouldn’t have a right to choose to have their foot amputated, since it means people could choose to have a perfectly healthy foot amputated if they wanted. The rest of us can only roll our eyes when we hear stuff like that and the Trump voters will look totally bewildered by the fact that we cannot see the need to use Big Brother to stop healthy people from having their healthy foot amputated ! 🙄 by HatetheSwamp on October 12, 2022 7:24 am The Supreme Court defends our rights even those that are not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Bullfernerner. Show me that in the Constitution. Bahahahahahahahahahaha. You Blue MAGA Swampcultists and your progressive myths! by oldedude on October 12, 2022 7:51 am "You really have no idea what "big brother" means or what "authoritarianism" is except that those are terms you apply to whatever it happens to be that you don't like." Actually, I do. I've lived in it a few times. Thusly, I can compare. And I actually have faces I can remember of "Big Brother." Please don't be so condescending. by oldedude on October 12, 2022 8:41 am "Of course those authoritarian Trump voters might wish to see Big Brother step in and tell people that Big Brother needs to control a person’s right to choose amputation because people shouldn’t have a right to choose to have their foot amputated, since it means people could choose to have a perfectly healthy foot amputated if they wanted." WTFO? If you want to do that to yourself, knock yourself out (well, hopefully before you cut off the foot. But maybe not.) What we're talking about is the simple FACT you refuse to see. What is not an enumerated power, goes to the states. In the thoughts of the (mostly northern states which were less powerful at the time) founders, it meant that New York, Deleware, Vermont, etc had the same rights as the "rich" states of the south in making their own decisions. The GOP wants smaller government. You want a strong dictatorial central government much like Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. As far as your Analogy (sorry Lead, I didn't ask for permission), it's not a comparison. You're not taking a human life. If you want to be like racist Margaret Sanger, you can. But state by state has different reads on her and her thoughts. She gave parents 2 years where they could kill a child if they weren't developing correctly. "In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, had initiated a covert ideology called the Negro Project, a pernicious activity which would allow the elite to eliminate what she previously called “the feeble-minded,” the “insane,” the “mentally defective,” the “criminal,” and “the delinquent and the dependent.”[1]Sanger declared: “The mass of Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly.”" "Margaret Sanger’s worldview is very much alive in this situation. Obstetricians have bought into the notion that “quality of life” trumps “right to life.” They are not encouraged to wait and see what happens at birth, to give the baby a chance to fight, or — most disappointing of all — to see what the baby actually has to offer the world himself by being given the chance to exist. Yes, maybe he will die in his mother’s arms after he is born. Yes, maybe he will suffer. But suffering should not determine a person’s inherent value. Unfortunately, in Belgium, suffering has become a measure of value. Like the babies who are killed in utero to prevent low “quality of life” after birth, suffering children in Belgium — where child euthanasia was legalized this year — are now evaluated on a scale that equates quality of life with right to life. Children who are suffering from illness can request to be euthanized — a sad fact that testifies to Belgium’s failure to hold up all life as a valuable gift. Viewing only certain, select lives as valuable represents a miserable failure to the suffering, or “unfit” of the world. These can become the direct victims — of Margaret Sanger’s eugenics, abortionists’ brutality, or “progressive” countries’ euthanasia. But the direct victims of these actions are not the only ones victimized by this worldview. Indeed, every human to whom it is suggested that his value is measurable by another person suffers a grave injustice." veteranstoday.com liveaction.org by HatetheSwamp on October 12, 2022 9:19 am Right on, OD. The history of the pro-choice movement is UGLY! by oldedude on October 12, 2022 6:35 pm In the 19th century anybody could walk across a border or land in a harbor and enter America. We became a world power in that century. It was through immigration that we produced iconic Americans like Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie, Nikola Tesla and Joseph Pulitzer. They all came to America with little to no rigmarole. I think times have changed since the last century. it took 19 people to murder over 3,000, most of whom have not been found because they are ashes now. Your view is that we invite an invading army to take us over if that allows ONE person that wants "sanctuary" thinking they'll never get to me. I will tell you that Portland, Las Vegas are both targets. They are high profile, welcome more terrorists into their midst's, and create chaos with no effort. I find your view extremely naive and pretty much have your head up your butt. The world isn't unicorns and rainbows hippiedude. "The real “We The People” (the American people themselves) support RVW and disapproved of the court’s decision to revoke it. Yet Hate and his ilk continue to flail away trying to convince the American people and probably himself as well, that the court gave “the people” the right to choose" First and foremost: Because of the changes, CT has been allowed to expand the rights for abortion legally and without interference from Big Brother. I'd say that's a win for the murderers. You actually need to read the Constitution and understand it. Go to a Junior/ Community college. They will have free classes. It's very apparent you don't know a twentieth of what you think you do. We've actually been nice and generous about this, because most people haven't read the constitution nor do they know much about it, although they believe they do. by Curt_Anderson on October 12, 2022 7:09 pm I think times have changed since the last century. it took 19 people to murder over 3,000, most of whom have not been found because they are ashes now. -- OD The 9/11 terrorists/killers were here as tourists/visitors. They didn't apply for immigration status. I don't believe we limit international tourists as long as they have passports. A foreigner intent on murdering Americans doesn't need to move to America. I will tell you that Portland, Las Vegas are both targets. -OD The worst American mass murder was five years ago in Las Vegas. The shooter was born and bred in the US. The worst, most violent offenders in Portland have been native-born Americans. by oldedude on October 12, 2022 7:15 pm "The 9/11 terrorists/killers were here as tourists/visitors. They didn't apply for immigration status. I don't believe we limit international tourists as long as they have passports. A foreigner intent on murdering Americans doesn't need to move to America." and since then, we have triple the number FOUND on the terrorist watch list and you don't care. I hope your son is working on the strip when it blows up. The worst American mass murder was five years ago in Las Vegas. The shooter was born and bred in the US. The worst, most violent offenders in Portland have been native-born Americans. Interesting. They are looking at killing THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE (and themselves). Don't you get that? You're worse than the nay sayers prior to 9/11. You're nothing but an ugly "american" with white privilege. Everything you look at you can't imagine someone may think differently than you. Because you're always right in your mind. by oldedude on October 12, 2022 7:19 pm Oh, and BTW, they were all expired student visas, and therefore illegal. Just imagine what would happen if we didn't know they were in country. FYSA, Chapo Guzman's kids are "American Citizens" and enjoy the same rights you do while they murder thousands every year. by Donna on October 13, 2022 8:18 am "I hope your son is working on the strip when it blows up" - olde dude Wow, you really said that. by oldedude on October 13, 2022 11:41 am I actually think I care more about his son than he does. North Vegas is exploding with cartel activity directly from the border. The rate of catching terrorists has grown exponentially since pedojoe has taken his power, and no one in the administration cares enough to fix it. He/you are completely naive of what is happening with the terror cells in the world. Not only did they beat us and make us look stupid on the world stage, they now have a place to recruit and train from. They have complete support of China, DPRK, Iran, Russia, Chechnya, et al. "Border Patrol agents nabbed 15 people listed on the FBI’s terror watch list trying to sneak across the US-Mexico border in May — bringing the alarming total since October to 50 amid a record of migrants, according to official figures. The possible terrorists were among the staggering 239,416 migrants encountered at the southern border last month, according to a breakdown of Customs and Border Protection figures first reported by the Washington Times and obtained by The Post. The total number of May crossings marks the highest number of migrant encounters recorded in one month ever and brings the total migrant encounters in FY 2022 to more than 1.5 million, according to the latest data released by CBP Wednesday. Meanwhile, the number of potential terrorists busted crossing the southern border during fiscal 2002, which runs from October 2021 through September, rose to 50. That’s more than the total of 30 caught crossing both the southern and northern borders during fiscal 2017 through 2021." by Curt_Anderson on October 13, 2022 12:14 pm I am glad my son isn't a wimp or a bigot. He has many Hispanic friends including immigrants. He speaks Spanish. He is/was quite aware of the crimes committed in Las Vegas. He took the job because he wants to combat crime where it is happening. He pursues and arrests criminals because of their actions not their ethnicity. by Donna on October 13, 2022 12:37 pm "I actually think I care more about his son than he does." - olde dude R-i-i-ight. Which is why you said you hope his son is in Vegas when it blows up. IOW you wished death on Curt's son. You owed Curt and his son an apology. Instead, you posted one of the most ridiculous and insincere attempts at a backpeddle I've ever seen on this forum. by Curt_Anderson on October 13, 2022 12:51 pm A Las Vegas police officer was killed today. It is very likely that Officer Truong Thai was an immigrant or was the son of immigrants. "Police Officer Truong Thai was shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance call in the 800 block of East Flamingo Road at about 1:00 am. The subject opened fire on the officers with a handgun as they attempted to make contact with him at the intersection of East Flamingo Road and South University Center Drive." Donna, OD's wish that my son meet a violent end signals his flailing and failing effort to support his anti-immigrant views. It must be awful to be a conservative. They live in a state of fear and victimhood. They are afraid of immigrants and exaggerate their chances of being victims of crime. They are snowflakes who cling to their guns and yearn for the protection of authoritarians like Trump. Pathetic. odmp.org by islander on October 13, 2022 1:01 pm od wrote: ”What is not an enumerated power, goes to the states.” That’s the part where you and Hate’s understanding is incomplete. Those with an authoritarian mindset will want to limit our rights to only those that they think are explicitly enumerated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The reason we have the ninth Amendment is protect to our non-enumerated rights. Ninth Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. With regard to what you call “a human life”. Each living cell is animated by life. We can call it a “human” life if it is animating a human cell or organ. A “person” is more than the biological cells and organs that make up a human body. What makes a person more than simply a living human organism is a mind with the capacity for thought. The essence of a human person is the mind. A fertilized human egg is a living human cell but it is not a person. Under the right conditions there exists the possibility that this cell might develop into a unique human person but until that happens there is no person in the form of that cell. At conception, there exists only one person, the woman. The rest of us, neither you nor I, have the right to take away from a woman who is an actual existing person whether she be 10 years old or 40 years old, the right to her own bodily autonomy in favor of a human cell. by Ponderer on October 13, 2022 1:42 pm "I hope your son is working on the strip when it blows up" - olde dude "I actually think I care more about his son than he does." -olde dude Funny how years of exposure to olde dude's bizarre and hallucinatory concept of logic has allowed me to make sense of it. After a fashion. Let's ignore for the moment od's insurmountable assholery and blinkered narcissism in telling any parent that he, a complete and total stranger to the child of that parent, that he cares more about their child than they do. This merely stems from the biological fact of od being a gigantic asshole. Considering that, along with what else he has said in this thread, what he likely meant in particular with his copyrighted brand of asinine, verbal diarrhea, is that yes, he's enough of a disgusting asshole to wish that Curt's son meets with a heinously violent murder someday, but that conversely, his pig-ignorant racism and demented bigotry yet allows for him to care enough about Curt's son to not want it to be an illegal immigrant who kills him. by HatetheSwamp on October 13, 2022 1:50 pm Let's ignore for the moment od's insurmountable assholery and blinkered narcissism... po, you may be smothering under a heap of subjectivity, but you can put a sentence together! by oldedude on October 13, 2022 9:25 pm First. The murder of Officer Truong Thai is not only a legal crime, but a moral crime. About every week or so, I actually look up names of those murdered officers. I don't want stats, I look at the names. The pictures. Curt. I apologize for what I said. It was wrong. That said, I'm tired about the sheep on this site LYING ABOUT ME. I want each of you to pull up when I said I didn't like legal immigration. TALK ABOUT BALD FACED LIES. What I have a problem with is none of you can separate the two. Legal vs illegal entry into the US. I also know the cartels are being bought to bring terrorists across the border. "The U.S. government is covering up the growing threat created by Middle Eastern terrorists entering the country through the porous Mexican border, according to a veteran federal agent who assures the area has never been secure. The U.S. Border Patrol has captured thousands of people who have been classified as OTM (Other Than Mexican) along the 2,000-mile southern border and many are from terrorist nations like Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan. The feds call them SIAs (Special Interest Aliens) and the government doesn’t want Americans to know about them." We know terrorists are coming into the US via Mexico. Above, you can see a video of a reporter of OTM immigrants. Four or so from China, a couple from Georgia (the country between Russia and Turkey known as a playground for Chechnyan Terrorists). I am flabergasted that Curt wants them in country because who is going to die will be his son. And he sides on the Terrorists' side. judicialwatch.org nypost.com by Curt_Anderson on October 13, 2022 9:32 pm Thank you OD. I didn't really believe you wished my son any harm. Well, I refused to believe it. I know your son(s?) has been in dangerous situations and places. by oldedude on October 13, 2022 9:45 pm Again. Sorry. Unfortunately, we were on a road trip all day today and I didn't get a chance to send that earlier. Maybe it's my kharma getting back at me. I'm just going to have to suck this one up and take the repercussions. I was wrong. by Curt_Anderson on October 13, 2022 10:28 pm Don't give it another thought, OD. I find at least some good in everybody I deal with. I am like Will Rodgers in that I never met a man I didn't like. More precisely, I have always been able to find at least some point of commonality in every person I've met. That was especially an asset when I used to work in sales at trade shows here and abroad. Maybe that's why I am more open to immigration than most people. by Donna on October 14, 2022 7:58 am od: *Thumbs up* for your apology. by oldedude on October 14, 2022 8:12 am "With regard to what you call “a human life”. Each living cell is animated by life. We can call it a “human” life if it is animating a human cell or organ. A “person” is more than the biological cells and organs that make up a human body. What makes a person more than simply a living human organism is a mind with the capacity for thought. The essence of a human person is the mind. A fertilized human egg is a living human cell but it is not a person. Under the right conditions there exists the possibility that this cell might develop into a unique human person but until that happens there is no person in the form of that cell. At conception, there exists only one person, the woman. The rest of us, neither you nor I, have the right to take away from a woman who is an actual existing person whether she be 10 years old or 40 years old, the right to her own bodily autonomy in favor of a human cell." What Lead and I have been saying is THAT's exactly what the differences are. You hit the nail on the head. You stated what you believe. Lead an I believe life begins at the miracle of conception. We understand we have differences. We don't hate you for having a different view. All we ask in return is one iota of respect for ours. Or maybe just not hate us. My compromise is that I am actually willing to go to the 14th or 15th week. That is huge (and I've taken the wrath of many) that many don't want to give. What you see is that you're not getting everything you want, and therefore we are the enemy. You can keep playing this game and continue to help split this country into your civil war. Or you can learn to compromise for the good of the nation and the republic (yes, it's a REPUBLIC. You should have learned that in your 6th grade social studies class). by oldedude on October 14, 2022 8:41 am The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. That means "the people" get to choose their way of life in their own states as I've pointed out numerous times. Please go the community college and take a course in the constitution. There's another book, it sounds like I'm being condescending but I'm not. It's "Our Constitution Rocks," by Juliette Turner. It's appropriate for High School students. I originally got it for grandkids, but it's too old for them. I really found it excellent for my daughter-in-law to study for her citizenship test. She knew more about the Constitution than the person asking the questions in her test. She now corrects her husband which is pretty funny. Just another add... My children are 1/2 Hispanic who came here in the 1600's. My daughter-in-law was born in Moscow and got her citizenship. I've helped several people get their citizenship while in the military. I don't just sit back and "cheerlead" immigration. I actively participate getting people their citizenship. Flip side, like Curt's son, I get bad people arrested and sent to prison for long stretches (federal life+ sometimes, which is pretty cool) regardless of race, color, nationality, ethnicity, or religion). by islander on October 14, 2022 9:10 am We had an excellent compromise od, in the form of RVW until the the Republicans, after years of using abortion as a political football, got what they claimed they were after and had RVW reversed. Now that they are beginning to see the disastrous results of what they were able to accomplish ‘some’ are now claiming that all they really want is a compromise. A compromise however that insures that no woman or her doctor has any “right” or say regarding this matter, the “right” to make such decisions belongs only to the state. My position on this has nothing to do with “hating” you or anyone else no matter what your position is on this. I have family members whom I love very much who will, if they can, make sure abortion is banned under any circumstances and if at all possible make contraceptives illegal once again. Their position is justified in their own minds by claiming that life begins at conception...”Life” in this case meaning a human person . They use terms Life, Human Life, etc. “as if” those words mean the same thing as a “Human Person”. And for them, contraception is a violation of what they call natural law. For me they are free to believe that and live their lives accordingly, but what I don’t accept is their attempts to use our government to force everyone to live according to their philosophical/religious beliefs and this is what these kinds of debates are all about. Text from RVW: ”(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165. 4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165. 5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue, since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling” by HatetheSwamp on October 14, 2022 9:11 am Lead an I believe life begins at the miracle of conception. We understand we have differences. We don't hate you for having a different view. All we ask in return is one iota of respect for ours. Or maybe just not hate us. So far, that's a big ask, I'm afraid. I've made the point that the GOP is the party of acceptance, tolerance and inclusion. More generally, our side is. The was a time when to be progressive/liberal implied, without saying, open mindedness. But, no more. As we see on SS nearly every day. Sad. My compromise is that I am actually willing to go to the 14th or 15th week. That is huge (and I've taken the wrath of many) that many don't want to give. I'm with you on this, too. The Dodds law, upon which the Supreme Court decision was based, set the limit at 13 weeks...which is where many Americans begin to fall in line. I'm with that, even though my own belief is that life begins at conception. by HatetheSwamp on October 14, 2022 9:18 am For me they are free to believe that and live their lives accordingly, but what I don’t accept is their attempts to use our government to force everyone to live according to their philosophical/religious beliefs... You'll always deny it. Probably honestly and sincerely. But, this is theophobic hate speech. It defies The Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Citizens are guaranteed the absolute RIGHT to bring their religious beliefs to their participation in the Republic. by islander on October 14, 2022 11:08 am Hate wrote: “You'll always deny it. Probably honestly and sincerely. But, this is theophobic hate speech. It defies The Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Citizens are guaranteed the absolute RIGHT to bring their religious beliefs to their participation in the Republic.” Here’s what I said and there is no “theophobic hate speech” in it. This what I said, read it again. For me they are free to believe that and live their lives accordingly, but what I don’t accept is their attempts to use our government to force everyone to live according to their philosophical/religious beliefs and this is what these kinds of debates are all about.” You apparently don’t believe in or grasp the importance of separation of church and state. When JFK was running for president there was a fear that he wouldn’t be able to separate them, but he WAS able to practice his faith (religious freedom) but not try to use the government to force “You” or anyone else to practice or live your life according to his religious beliefs. The fact that he could not use the government to make abortion, contraceptives, divorce. etc, illegal, or make you subject to the authority of the Pope is something I think you’ll find most Americans understand and agree with. by oldedude on October 14, 2022 11:36 am "You apparently don’t believe in or grasp the importance of separation of church and state..., or make you subject to the authority of the Pope is something I think you’ll find most Americans understand and agree with." What's interesting is that WE do. WE are willing to compromise one of our core beliefs is that human life starts at conception. If you have an issue with a state's laws, move there and vote because that's how the framers intended it to work. I disagree with the JFK point, but it's not worth arguing about. And you just proved our point. The fact that he could not use the government to make abortion, contraceptives, divorce. etc, illegal... Meaning he could not use the federal government to make laws to abolish pieces the constitution says is an obligation of the states. AND he was powerless to use Executive Orders without violating the constitution. by HatetheSwamp on October 14, 2022 11:46 am The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution or Bil of Rights. Ironically...tragically...for your argument, it comes from a Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. Individual states had their own state established churches early in the history of our republic. The Bill of Rights only prohibits the federal government from having an established religion. Connecticut was one of the states to have a state supported church...until 1818. Jefferson was expressing a personal opinion that Baptist are free to live according to their religious conscience. loc.gov opencommons.uconn.edu by oldedude on October 14, 2022 11:48 am good point. by islander on October 15, 2022 5:30 am Olddude wrote: ”What's interesting is that WE do. WE are willing to compromise one of our core beliefs is that human life starts at conception.” I’m pretty sure you read the transcript from RVW that I posted. Are you saying you couldn’t see any compromise from both sides? I find that hard to believe. Notice the part I emphasized with italics: “In its 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized that the right to liberty in the Constitution, which protects personal privacy, includes the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. For the first time, Roe placed reproductive decision-making alongside other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, by conferring it the highest degree of constitutional protection, known as “strict scrutiny.”  The Supreme Court required the state to justify any interference with the right to access abortion by showing that it had a “compelling interest,” and held that no interest was compelling enough to ban abortion before viability.  After the point of viability, the state could ban abortion or take other steps to promote its interest in protecting the fetus. Even after that point, however, abortion must be permitted to protect a patient’s life and health. “ by HatetheSwamp on October 15, 2022 7:34 am isle, Perhaps you're shooting over my head but I see no compromise from the pro-abortion side. Please splain how your side is compromising. by oldedude on October 15, 2022 7:49 am “In its 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized that the right to liberty in the Constitution, which protects personal privacy, includes the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. For the first time, Roe placed reproductive decision-making alongside other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, by conferring it the highest degree of constitutional protection, known as “strict scrutiny.” For the umpteenth time, they just said it wasn't up to the federal government to make that decision and conferred it to the states. period. end of story. It's so "Big Brother" doesn't have the constitutional authority to make that decision. Your argument is strange at best. You're saying that since we agree of the constitutionality of the decision, and taking Big Brother OUT of the equation, we want Big Brother to make that decision. You don't want "government" involved in the decision but want big brother to make that decision for you. Your argument doesn't make any sense at all. You're contradicting yourself at every turn. again, I think you are an intelligent person, but our constitution is not your strong suite. by islander on October 15, 2022 8:00 am There is no such thing as a pro abortion side, If you mean pro choice read the part I put in italics in my previous post. A woman's right to choose can be qualified by the state after viability. That's the compromise. What do you find objectionable about RVW? Are you pro marriage and pro family? Do you also believe that under certain circumstances a couple should be able to exercise their right to divorce. If so, would this, in your mind, make you pro divorce? by HatetheSwamp on October 15, 2022 8:05 am A woman's right to choose can be qualified by the state after viability. That's the compromise. What do you find objectionable about RVW? My understanding is that the Roe decision demands that states be permitted to regulate abortion upon viability. Are you suggesting that I'm wrong about that? by islander on October 15, 2022 11:55 am Hate wrote: ”My understanding is that the Roe decision demands that states be permitted to regulate abortion upon viability. Are you suggesting that I'm wrong about that?” Yes, I’m suggesting that you are indeed wrong about that. I don't know how you came to that understanding. RVW doesn’t demand that states regulate abortion, it says that after viability a state MAY if it chooses regulate abortion. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. In 1992′s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court affirmed that right but opted for a framework based on fetal viability rather than trimesters. Check VT’s regulations. VT has no such regulations. by oldedude on October 15, 2022 1:18 pm RVW doesn’t demand that states regulate abortion, it says that after viability a state MAY if it chooses regulate abortion. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. In 1992′s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court affirmed that right but opted for a framework based on fetal viability rather than trimesters. You just countered your own argument. In VT, that's the state's decision to have the guidance it does. That's a regulation. That said, it the VT law, and it's good for them apparently. Many other states it would not be even considered. The people speak; therefore, VT is maintaining the spirit of the SCOTUS decision on Dobbs. Like Donna and I were discussing, I think that's somewhat dangerous because one doctor may say the person has viability, where another will not. I don't live there and they're not violating the constitution, so my say in their law is extremely limited. by islander on October 15, 2022 4:04 pm od, I think you are misunderstanding the point that we are discussing here. From my post on the 14th. ”We had an excellent compromise od, in the form of RVW until the Republicans, after years of using abortion as a political football, got what they claimed they were after and they had RVW reversed. ‘Now’ that they are beginning to see the disastrous results of what they were able to accomplish ‘some’ are now claiming that all they really want is a compromise” * od wrote: “My compromise is that I am actually willing to go to the 14th or 15th week. That is huge (and I've taken the wrath of many) that many don't want to give. What you see is that you're not getting everything you want, and therefore we are the enemy.” My argument is, and has been, that RVW was an excellent compromise that already included what you say you now want. VT, which has no laws regulating abortion, has no laws because the state made that the case (permissible under RVW). “The state” (VT) making such a decision is exactly what you want (leave it up to each state). Most other states do indeed have restrictions (also permissible under RVW). What you ‘might’ not like (?) is that under RVW a state could not prevent a woman from getting an abortion to save the mother’s life. I agree with that limit on state regulations. As an aside...If I truly believed that a fertilized egg was a person, I would fight tooth and nail to make sure no abortions would be legal from the moment of conception. It would not be ‘ok’ up to 14 weeks since it would be murder. The only exceptions I’d make would be to save the mothers life or due to a chromosomal abnormality that would result in the infant being born alive but would suffer for the few hours or few days that it might survive. by HatetheSwamp on October 15, 2022 4:44 pm I’m suggesting that you are indeed wrong about that. I don't know how you came to that understanding. RVW doesn’t demand that states regulate abortion, it says that after viability a state MAY if it chooses regulate abortion. Not what I said. by oldedude on October 15, 2022 7:25 pm Isle. All well and good. EXCEPT for the part where it's not Big Brother's job in the federal government to do that. It's the states. You're fighting a moot point. It will be a moot point until the constitution is either amended or rewritten. It really is that easy. by islander on October 16, 2022 7:26 am Here is exactly what you said Hate: ”My understanding is that the Roe decision demands that states be permitted to regulate abortion upon viability. Are you suggesting that I'm wrong about that?” The RVW decision says that after viability the states CAN regulate abortion. They are permitted to enact regulations, it doesn’t demand that they do. Your use of the word, “demand”, hints at your authoritarian personality. Authoritarians do not find words like freedom, democracy, etc. particularly useful in conversations like this. These concepts make them uncomfortable since they suggest a lack of control. Such people are suspicious that people who have the freedom to choose to do what they want will not do what the authoritarian demands of them. Without a strong leader who must be obeyed demanding that they do this or that. How else can people be controlled? RVW guaranteed that a woman, not the government, owns her own body. The Republicans, by reversing RVW took that right away. RVW made sure that ownership of one’s own body (bodily autonomy) is a Constitutional right just like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. It also recognizes but limits the need for government to qualify that right just like all of our other rights are qualified. by HatetheSwamp on October 16, 2022 7:51 am Your use of the word, “demand”, hints at your authoritarian personality. No. You didn't UNDERSTAND me. Baha RVW guaranteed that a woman, not the government, owns her own body. The Republicans, by reversing RVW took that right away. REPUBLICANS did no such thing. And, isle. Drink 10 vodkas in an hour, hop in your car. Have an accident, killing a pregnant teenager on her way to Planned Parenthood to have her abortion. Then, ask ANY Dem anywhere to affirm that you own your body and that you have the right to choose what you do with it. Understand!!!!!? by oldedude on October 16, 2022 9:53 am "RVW guaranteed that a woman, not the government, owns her own body." Again, You don't have a "right" to murder another human being. AND you need to show me the enumerated power where that comes from. To put it in a "law" does not make it in the constitution. It makes it a law. Two entirely different things. What they said, was the law needed to go back to the states, where "the people can decide" "The Republicans, by reversing RVW took that right away. RVW made sure that ownership of one’s own body (bodily autonomy) is a Constitutional right just like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc." 1. Show me where in the US Constitution, it states that right. 1a. Again, it was a "law" not a constitutional right. Two different things. 2. Since you can't find it, The question becomes a power the states hold. 2a. In order for it to become a "Constitutional Right", There has to be an amendment to the constitution to state that. If not, the power goes to the states, just like the constitution says. "It also recognizes but limits the need for government to qualify that right just like all of our other rights are qualified." Well, your mostly right IF it were an enumerated power, which it isn't. The US Constitution recognizes the LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. There is one enumerated right that wasn't originally qualified. The second amendment when it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Please don't get your legal knowledge off of MSN. It hurts every time I have to go through this. And you're being insistent the lefts talking points are absolutely correct. There's a lot they're not telling you in order for you to be a useful idiot. by islander on October 17, 2022 7:06 am Hate wrote: ”And, isle. Drink 10 vodkas in an hour, hop in your car. Have an accident, killing a pregnant teenager on her way to Planned Parenthood to have her abortion. Then, ask ANY Dem anywhere to affirm that you own your body and that you have the right to choose what you do with it.” Unlike you, most Democrats will affirm that we own our own bodies (bodily autonomy). They also understand that this ownership doesn’t give them the right use their body to harm others. You can own a knife but you can’t use it to murder another person. While you have the right to drink 1, 2, or even 10 vodkas in your own home if that’s what you want to do, you don’t have the right to then hop in your car and drive on a public highway and kill someone as per your silly example. You, it appears, believe that Big Brother owns your body and you are perfectly accepting of this. Those of us you designate as the swamp or blue MAGAs (we liberal/progressive/Democrats) differ with you. Although you might be unhappy about the prospect of owning your own body (especially if others own their bodies as well), this is what owning your own body means. Even though you have two kidneys, Big Brother doesn’t own them...you do. Therefore Big Brother cannot force you to give one of your kidneys to someone else who needs a kidney, even to save that person’s life. Not granting the government permission to remove one of your kidneys under those circumstances, while many might see it as a selfish choice, it is nonetheless still ‘your’ decision not Big Brother’s. by HatetheSwamp on October 17, 2022 7:14 am Unlike you, most Democrats will affirm that we own our own bodies (bodily autonomy). They also understand that this ownership doesn’t give them the right use their body to harm others. Like the human life every pregnant woman carries? Yeah. Right. We believe that!!!!! by islander on October 17, 2022 7:17 am od, I think you are still a bit mixed up on your “enumerated rights”. The Constitution does not explicitly enumerate all our Constitutional rights. If you don’t think you have a Constitutional right to bodily autonomy because you don’t see it explicitly stated in the Constitution, show me where the Constitution explicitly states that you have a right to marry someone of a different race or that separate but equal schools for different races is unconstitutional. The “state’s rights” crowd has, throughout our history often tried to use “state’s rights” to control and ‘deny’ people their rights. The fact that our Constitution doesn’t explicitly enumerate all our rights is the main reason we have need of SCOTUS. The Constitution not only is imperfect, which is why we need to periodically amend it, but it also needs to be interpreted. That’s the job of SCOTUS. What the Constitution says and means is not as plainly written as some seem to think it is. Last year, whether you like it or not, a woman, according to SCOTUS, had a constitutional right to abortion. This year, whether I like it or not that decision was reversed, so right now a woman no longer has that Constitutional right. This year’s ruling could be reversed in the future but probably won’t be during our lifetime. I think it goes without saying that you are happy that right was taken from away from women and naturally my hope is that women will be able to regain their right to bodily autonomy. If women don’t have the right to bodily autonomy neither do you or I. by HatetheSwamp on October 17, 2022 7:45 am The Constitution does not explicitly enumerate all our Constitutional rights. Bullfernerner. You are so full of it! Have you progressive Blue MAGA Swampcultists even heard of the Bill of Rights? Freedom of religion? Assembly? Speech? All enumerated. Right there. Duh! by oldedude on October 17, 2022 9:02 am In 1954, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation of schools was unconstitutional. In Brown v. Board of Education, which was litigated by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a unanimous Court declared segregated education systems unconstitutional. So it isn't that is was now "constitutional, it's the "Separate but Equal piece was found "UNCONSTITUTIONAL." Last year, whether you like it or not, a woman, according to SCOTUS, had a constitutional right to abortion. I've never argued against that. This year, whether I like it or not that decision was reversed, so right now a woman no longer has that Constitutional right. It didn't change. It went from a "constitutional" to a LEGAL RIGHT. A woman still has that right. It just isn't a FEDERAL right. It's a state's right. I really don't understand how you can't understand this? It's tiring to repeat so many times, and actually bring in facts. At the least, and you need to quit looking at the cartoon channel for legal answers. You're arguing that women are left without that right, when in fact, it's out of big brother's hands, and down to the states. That way, each state has more power to hone the laws according to it's PEOPLE'S wishes. I'm getting it, you're not paying attention to facts someone that actually understand the process. by islander on October 17, 2022 12:17 pm od ~ I asked you to show me where the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically states that you have a right to marry someone of a different race or that separate but equal schools for different races is unconstitutional. I’m going to give you an example demonstrating why your answers are so fractured and incomplete. This is was your answer: ”In 1954, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation of schools was unconstitutional. In Brown v. Board of Education, which was litigated by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a unanimous Court declared segregated education systems unconstitutional.” That's correct but you didn't answer the question. You then follow that with a nonsensical claim; ”So it isn't that is was now constitutional [what is now constitutional?], it's the "Separate but Equal piece was found "UNCONSTITUTIONAL.” Again, show me where it is specifically stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that segregated education systems are unconstitutional. According to you...if it’s not specifically stated in the Constitution, it’s up to the states to decide whether or not Separate but Equal is legal. by islander on October 17, 2022 12:27 pm Also, od~ You say: ”It didn't change. It (a woman's right to choose) went from a "constitutional" to a LEGAL RIGHT. A woman still has that right. It just isn't a FEDERAL right. It's a state's right.” ---od Constitutional rights are legal rights and states can't deny American people those rights so it certainly did change. by islander on October 17, 2022 12:38 pm Hate wrote: ”Like the human life every pregnant woman carries?” Human life does not = human person. Even you know that which is why you are never foolish enough to assert that a fertilized egg is a human person...Or are you? At conception there is only one human person, the woman. And that human person’s basic right to bodily autonomy supersedes any imagined or wished for 'rights' of an abstract concept of a person who does not exist. I know this requires the ability to hold a complex thought but answer me this, if you actually do think a fertilized egg is a person at conception, how many people is the woman carrying at that time? One? Two? Three or more?... If the fertilized egg were intentionally prevented from being implanted in the woman’s womb, how many people would the woman have killed? Or if the egg were spontaneously aborted right after implantation, how many people will have died? by HatetheSwamp on October 17, 2022 1:05 pm Human life does not = human person. I didn't say human PERSON. It's a human life and that more than enough. by islander on October 17, 2022 1:33 pm "I didn't say human PERSON. It's a human life and that more than enough."~Hate Ahhh...now we are getting somewhere. Do you feel that Big Brother should have the power to usurp your right to your bodily autonomy and forcibly, against your will, take one of your kidneys in order to save the life of someone else who needs a kidney? Or do you think that choice should belong to you? by HatetheSwamp on October 17, 2022 1:55 pm Ahhh...now we are getting somewhere. I just love it when you sanctimones say that. Like you're a detective questioning a suspect, you think I'm guilty and you're about to bust me. Do you feel that Big Brother should have the power to usurp your right to your bodily autonomy and forcibly, against your will, take one of your kidneys in order to save the life of someone else who needs a kidney? Or do you think that choice should belong to you? No by Curt_Anderson on October 17, 2022 2:34 pm HtS, I presume your "no" was in response to islander's question, "do you feel that Big Brother should have the power to usurp your right to your bodily autonomy and forcibly, against your will, take one of your kidneys in order to save the life of someone else who needs a kidney?" Why not? For the sake of argument, let's say the intended recipient was your sibling. Is your right to avoid invasive surgery more important than your siblings right to life? Shouldn't the government be able to require medical procedures to save lives? If not, how do you square that with your belief that government should make laws to protect a fetus? by HatetheSwamp on October 17, 2022 2:46 pm For the sake of argument, let's say the intended recipient was your sibling. Is your right to avoid invasive surgery more important than your siblings right to life? Shouldn't the government be able to require medical procedures to save lives? If not, how do you square that with your belief that government should make laws to protect a fetus? Interesting question...but a bizarre, irrelevant hypothetical. I would give my life for my brother. Easily. Instantly. Without question. I take it that you wouldn't...and that's your concern. And, perfectly honestly. Your issue is, at this moment, being regulated by the people and their representatives. by islander on October 17, 2022 2:49 pm No? What question are you answering? Are you saying no that you don't think that choice belongs to Big Brother? Or are you saying no, it should not be your choice? It Big Brother should have the power to make that choice? What if the majority of the people who live in your neighborhood think they should have the power to make that choice, not you. Would that be acceptable to you? by Curt_Anderson on October 17, 2022 3:01 pm HtS, FYI, I never had a brother and my sister died. Not everybody loves their siblings. They might need a new kidney because of alcohol abuse. Some siblings are terrible people. In keeping with your response to islander's analogy, some women would have no problem deciding to go full term with their pregnancy: Easily. Instantly. Without question. But no American politician is telling women not have babies. Some are demanding that some women must have babies. It's fine that you'd give up your kidney if asked. But why don't you believe that the government should be able establish parameters that would require it to save a life? Maybe there should be familial obligatory donor requirement including cousins. by HatetheSwamp on October 17, 2022 3:03 pm What if the majority of the people who live in your neighborhood think they should have the power to make that choice, not you. Would that be acceptable to you? As I said to Curt, this is a bizarre, irrelevant hypothetical. This issue is already being regulated by the people and their representatives...as is life in a representative republic. by islander on October 18, 2022 12:12 pm ”As I said to Curt, this is a bizarre, irrelevant hypothetical.” ~Hate Why do you think that? What this analogy does is show the hypocrisy of someone who is unwilling to hand over his own bodily autonomy and right to choose to big brother, even to save the life of another person, while demanding that a woman relinquish the ownership of her body and her right to choose and hand it over to Big Brother. by oldedude on October 18, 2022 12:34 pm "Why do you think that? What this analogy does is show the hypocrisy of someone who is unwilling to hand over his own bodily autonomy and right to choose to big brother, even to save the life of another person, while demanding that a woman relinquish the ownership of her body and her right to choose and hand it over to Big Brother." So being under control of the federal government isn't "big brother?" That's an inane argument. You're taking from the choice of Big Brother or a state Big Brother. So what's the difference? They are BOTH stating what can and cannot be done. They are both restrictions to what you can do (even if it says there are no restrictions, then restrictions = NULL). You're doing nothing but demanding the real "Big Brother, be able to tell you what you can and cannot do. Same thing Hitler and Margaret Sanger did or wanted to do. And what our founders chose what not to do. Regardless of your "feelings" (which are of no consequence when talking about the law). by Curt_Anderson on October 18, 2022 12:41 pm ”As I said to Curt, this is a bizarre, irrelevant hypothetical.” ~Hate Why do you think that? What this analogy does is show the hypocrisy of someone who is unwilling to hand over his own bodily autonomy and right to choose to big brother, even to save the life of another person, while demanding that a woman relinquish the ownership of her body and her right to choose and hand it over to Big Brother." --islander Islander, Maybe that question is too hypothetical for HtS. May be can answer this question: Imagine the height of a pandemic in which some people are particularly susceptible and have pre-existing conditions so exposure puts their health at grave risk. To protect these vulnerable lives of the post-born, should the government require that other people be vaccinated? Or is it "keep your government hypodermic hands off my upper arm!" by HatetheSwamp on October 18, 2022 12:54 pm ...should the government require that other people be vaccinated? Do you mean, Does the government have the authority to require other people to be vaxxed? by Curt_Anderson on October 18, 2022 1:08 pm HtS, We already know that government has the authority. It was decided in 1905 with Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. The United States Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state. So answer my "hypothetical" question about vaccinations, please. by HatetheSwamp on October 18, 2022 1:30 pm I'm pretty sure that, during the recent pandemic, "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" lost several challenges to mandates he decreed. by Curt_Anderson on October 18, 2022 1:49 pm So given the choice, HtS, between these you choose #2. 1. To protect the vulnerable lives of the post-born, the government should require that other people be vaccinated. 2. "Keep your government hypodermic hands off my upper arm!" by HatetheSwamp on October 18, 2022 2:02 pm Curt, I think I understand the Dobbs decision fairly well. What I don't understand is how what isle and you has to with it. Please splain. by islander on October 18, 2022 2:02 pm od, I don’t know how you came to your a conclusion like that. Unless you were somehow able to read what I posted and mistakenly thought that I’m in favor of, or arguing that Big Brother (Federal or State) should be able to usurp an individual’s (man or woman’s) right to bodily autonomy. If that’s not the case then your post makes no sense. by islander on October 18, 2022 2:09 pm ”Maybe that question is too hypothetical for HtS” ~ Curt I doubt that Hate doesn’t understand it. I think he understands it perfectly well and that’s why he won’t respond with a straightforward reply. With regard to our bodily autonomy, I think Hate is smart enough to see the hypocrisy of someone being in favor of Big Brother usurping the right of bodily autonomy for woman but in favor of Big Brother keeping its hands off the right of bodily autonomy for men. Naturally, he’d rather dance around the analogy or change the subject and talk about something else if he can. by Curt_Anderson on October 18, 2022 2:26 pm islander, We know where he stands. He stands with all the other Republican hypocrites. HtS is a big believer in his own bodily autonomy, even if vulnerable, innocent lives are at risk. He is not pro-life when it comes to the post-born. by islander on October 18, 2022 2:55 pm We know where he stands" ~ Curt That we do Curt !! 👍 by oldedude on October 18, 2022 2:56 pm "od, I don’t know how you came to your a conclusion like that. Unless you were somehow able to read what I posted and mistakenly thought that I’m in favor of, or arguing that Big Brother (Federal or State) should be able to usurp an individual’s (man or woman’s) right to bodily autonomy. If that’s not the case then your post makes no sense." Actually, it's been about your incessant whining about it "now being illegal" which it isn't. ANY law about it is a restriction. You have been saying all along that "now" it's somehow "illegal" and that violates a woman's rights. THAT makes no sense. by islander on October 18, 2022 3:55 pm od, your reply is completely divorced from what I’ve been discussing in this thread and it makes no sense whatsoever. by oldedude on October 18, 2022 4:26 pm Actually, you move the target every time you're caught in something that can't be supported. Like now. So my question is: "how are you going to change the subject, and what are you going to say about it." by oldedude on October 18, 2022 4:29 pm "No? What question are you answering? Are you saying no that you don't think that choice belongs to Big Brother? Or are you saying no, it should not be your choice? It Big Brother should have the power to make that choice? What if the majority of the people who live in your neighborhood think they should have the power to make that choice, not you. Would that be acceptable to you?" I'm actually going to go with "you're an anarchist, and you hate the US Government." Is that closer? Because it makes it clearer. by islander on October 18, 2022 6:42 pm old dude, have you ever read the book or seen the movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"...For some reason that keeps popping up in my head whenever I read your posts. by oldedude on October 18, 2022 7:26 pm Well, I've asked several times for you to clarify, but you never will. I've tried to be civil about it because I know you have to be treated with little girl gloves. So actually, it's on you. Obviously, you're not clear to people and you post in circles that are meaningless to anything but your little head. You keep telling us we "don't understand what you meant, okay. ONE more time, what the fuk do you mean? by islander on October 19, 2022 12:56 pm olddude, if you have actually been reading my posts all this time and you are honestly unable to understand what I’ve been saying, to the point that you don’t even know whether I’m pro-choice or not, I doubt there is anything I can do for you. It’s not really important or necessary that you comprehend what I write so just skip my posts and don’t worry about it. by oldedude on October 19, 2022 6:55 pm So you skirt the question again. It isn't about if your pro murder or life. That's pretty well settled in the first post I saw you make. You're making a lot of noise other than that which is indecipherable. You hate big brother but want him to run your life. RvW was good because the feds said it, but now that it's out of the feds hands, that's blasphemy. But you hate big brother. We love big brother because we, like SCOTUS, sees this is not a federally constitutional issue. And we like it going to the states because it takes big brother out of the picture. So if you don't think any government has the right to have a say in abortion, and you want to keep all government out of health care, that's a pretty good indicator of anarchist tendencies. Heeaars your sign. So. That's what I gleaned out of your rants so far. You are playing a passive-aggressive power game that pre-adolescent girls play. It's called "I know and I'm going to make sure you don't." If I misunderstand what you say, please help me to understand what I don't. Or misread. It's called communication. If you don't. It's on you. Take some accountability for yourself. by oldedude on October 19, 2022 7:46 pm Let's try another angle here... So. If the government doesn't have a "right" to regulate abortion. (am I closer?) Most civilized countries have abortion laws. Some more, some less. This goes under the basic premise that civilized people don't murder their children Most of Europe has a 15-week law for the most part. Japan has a 22-week limit. So. To half the country, you are murdering a human being. To the other half, you are violating the woman's rights. Core values are by definition, like those of Christians, closely held beliefs of anyone. They are very hard for people to shake. Racism is another. I understand you believe differently than Lead and me. I understand your core value is looking out for the woman. So again. We are disagreeing. And the agreed upon compromise in the nation for reasonable persons at this time is to have a limit. Each state will be guided by their own compasses. That's the reality of the situation. by Curt_Anderson on October 19, 2022 8:13 pm OD, Some of the not-so civilized countries have abortion laws; some of most restrictive are in Egypt, Iraq, the Philippines, Laos, Senegal, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Nevertheless, we are concerned with American laws and rights, not what the rest of the world does. Many other countries don't have constitutions that limit their governments and assumes the rights of individuals. In Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS weighed the states' interest, the right of women to terminate their pregnancies and fetal viability. The court split the baby (pardon the expression) by allowing states to regulate abortion after 24 weeks. That seems a reasonable decision to me. britannica.com by oldedude on October 20, 2022 8:09 am I agree with you regarding other countries. But that's the first time I've ever heard that "we are concerned about US laws only." Generally, it's exactly the opposite with sheep, stating that "so and so has this and so and so does that" when in FACT, "they" are not a part of the issue, but sheep want to bring it up all the time. So I guess I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. And you're usually the one that would pick a minor part then say because of that the whole post is null. "In Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS weighed the states' interest, the right of women to terminate their pregnancies and fetal viability. The court split the baby (pardon the expression) by allowing states to regulate abortion after 24 weeks. That seems a reasonable decision to me." So I'm back to my original FACT. RvW was not a federal issue under our constitution. It really is that easy and simple. I don't know what all the whining is about. You're just wasting energy that's only creating a chasm in people (one of the many in this case). I moved on under RvW. Why? Because that was the legal ruling of SCOTUS at the time. Don't like it? Move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. by HatetheSwamp on October 20, 2022 8:27 am So I'm back to my original FACT. RvW was not a federal issue under our constitution. It really is that easy and simple. I don't know what all the whining is about. OD, I'm not sure that they even realize it but it makes sense to me that this Court’s exposure of Roe is the overturning of an important part of the Blue MAGA Swampcult agenda that had been foisted on an innocent and passive American populace. Most of what was foisted in the past will remain unchallenged... ...but, with people who actually respect the Constitution holding 2/3 of the seats on the Supreme Court, the days of progressive foisting are on pause for a looooooooong time. That EPA decision and the high school football prayer decision come from the same basket. Congress is being given its constitutional power again. Judges and bureaucrats have just been deballed. In the last 60ish years the progressive Swampcult has achieved virtually nuthin that wasn't foisted. There's no joy tonight in progressive foist-ville. Thier own Mighty Casey has struck out. Bahahahahahaha. Thanks be to OrangeMan. Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh! by oldedude on October 20, 2022 10:07 am I was thinking about isle's and curt's hatred of (at least the SCOTUS decision, if not SCOTUS itself). I thought back to watch the obomination of the constitution when the messiah over and over again demanded obomination care wasn't a "tax." That's all we heard. Then the first day of the SCOTUS hearing. Defense led with "it's a tax." Of course, SCOTUS was taken aback because the opposite was all we heard from dims. But they had to let it go, because he has a "constitutional right" to do that. It enraged me because all this time they knowingly LIED to the country, and this fell away quietly with the sheep not knowing the difference. I'm waiting for results of the mid terms. I'm mixed about filing charges against pedojoe. He needs to be at least looked at for collusion with a known enemy of the state, and of course, his attempt to have the Sauds to hold the reduction of oil until after the midterms (can we say attempting to bribe a foreign entity to alter the outcome of an election?). by Donna on October 20, 2022 10:18 am Mohammed bin Sultan cut oil production to drive up energy prices in order to help Republican candidates in the midterm elections. Look for him to do the same thing before the next presidential election. by oldedude on October 20, 2022 12:47 pm I don't think it was to help the GOP, the realm distinctly hates pedojoe because pedojoe hates them and has said so on numerous occasions. Then he comes to grovel and suck their arses. Apparently, he wasn't any good at that either. Welcome to international diplomacy. They'll do anything to make him look bad. And this was the perfect way to make him look like the international idiot he really is. by HatetheSwamp on October 20, 2022 12:54 pm My sense is that you are correct, OD. I can't see that the Saudi action is pro GOP. That "feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" has been a disaster in foreign affairs. I can see the action being anti Flatulent Fool without being pro GOP. by Donna on October 20, 2022 5:30 pm MBS’s rule has seen this power wielded in an acutely partisan way. MBS complied with Donald Trump’s oil production requests in two election years: once in 2018, by increasing oil production to bring down prices, and again in 2020 by lowering production, which Trump wanted to protect the domestic American shale industry battered by low demand brought on by the pandemic downturn. “MBS enjoyed a sweetheart relationship with Trump,” Riedel said. “Trump stood by MBS when he murdered Khashoggi and his war in Yemen which has starved tens of thousands of children; there was never any criticism of the Saudi’s human rights abuses from the Trump administration.” Trump jettisoned longstanding presidential tradition by paying his first foreign visit as president to Riyadh, where he was showered in gifts and inked a record-breaking $350 billion weapons sale to the kingdom. He also vetoed three separate congressional bills that would have blocked arms sales to Riyadh and reportedly bragged about shielding MBS from consequences for the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, saying, “I saved his ass.” “You don’t need to look hard to understand that MBS is deliberately and persistently acting against U.S. interests and the Biden administration in particular. His actions are not just ‘snubs’ but punches in the face,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy in the Arab World Now. “He’s very nakedly using oil as a lever to try to influence the midterm elections with the aim of bringing in more compliant Republicans, trying to show us all who’s boss even in our own democracy.” The notion that Saudi Arabia could intervene in domestic American politics, verboten in Washington, has been publicly acknowledged by top Saudi officials themselves. In an Arabic language interview for the Saudi state-funded talk show, “Spotlights,” in May 2004, Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. from 1983 to 2006, said the quiet part out loud: “The kingdom’s oil decisions can influence the election or non-election of the president of the United States, the largest and strongest country in the world. For that to be taken into consideration, regardless of what the kingdom decides to do, is in itself evidence of the strategic weight for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” theintercept.com by HatetheSwamp on October 20, 2022 6:08 pm In foreign affairs, Trump was slick. Clever. Joe is a demented, tactless buffoon. If anything, the Saudis are punishing us for electing him. by Curt_Anderson on October 20, 2022 6:34 pm "If anything, the Saudis are punishing us for electing him [Biden]." --HtS Well, duh! That's what Donna has been saying. Of course they were disappointed their guy wasn't re-elected. by oldedude on October 20, 2022 7:05 pm Curt & Donna, You're thinking like ugly American sheep that have never traveled. Short attention span (matter of seconds, then SQUIRREL!) and "assume" everyone thinks like you do. It's the same "assumption" pedojoe has. I wondered what would happen when pedojoe took on the Sauds in the debates. Joe can't keep his mouth shut about them and has called them out every time he gets a chance, including just prior to going to Saudi Arabia to see them. He insulted them right before he got on the helicopter. Unfortunately, they have an extremely long memory. Like for generations. Are they evil? They're about a 6 on a scale of 10. Many, many countries are far worse. I don't think they hate the US. They hate pedojoe. Because he has zero international tact and is in the minus column for diplomacy. They see us as an ally, and we should see them as they are. not perfect by any stretch of the "american" sense of decency, but they do have several things they can work with us on. One is oil, so it didn't make them happy when Trump became energy independent and were more than a little pissed when he approved the Keystone and the two other pipelines. But they understood the move. It's the same move they would have taken had it been reversed. Two. They are our only handholds in the Middle East that can get the Israeli/ Palestinian issue worked and have been active in that up until now. With pedojoe there, they have no reason at all to have that conflict scaled down. Three. They also hate the Iranians. Another plus for us. Which means they are trading intelligence with us relating to the rockets, and Iranian guided missiles flung in from Yemen they are taking fairly far into their country (as big as it is). by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2022 2:14 am Well, duh! That's what Donna has been saying. Of course they were disappointed their guy wasn't re-elected. No. There's a nuance here. And, you're missing it, IMO. Other than to be Trump obsessed...to suffer from TDS. There's no evidence that this has anything to do with Trump. Joe Biden is an inept dolt. The Saudis hate him. He's their enemy. And, the Dems who ballot harvested to elect "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap"...and you who voted for him...and still support him...are their enemy. by Ponderer on October 21, 2022 2:10 pm And they love Trump. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2022 2:40 pm I'm not seeing it. by Donna on October 21, 2022 2:41 pm You don't want to see it. by Donna on October 21, 2022 2:43 pm Trump signed a record breaking $350 billion arms deal with MBS. Why wouldn't they want him back as president? by Donna on October 21, 2022 2:46 pm Trump also vetoed three separate congressional bills that would have blocked arms sales to Riyadh and reportedly bragged about shielding MBS from consequences for the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, saying, “I saved his ass.” It's all in the Intercept article I posted yesterday. Again, why wouldn't Saudi Arabia want Trump back as president? by oldedude on October 21, 2022 2:47 pm Obviously you didn't read either of my posts. They don't "love" Trump. We don't know how much Trump didn't like them and what they've done or do. He doesn't say any of that in public. What he says to other leaders in private isn't let out. They HATE pedojoe. The two, in this case, are not intertwined. pedojoe's a imbecile that has no way to shut his fukking mouth about things that shouldn't be the public's knowledge. That's why they hate him so much. LESSON: If it's true or not doesn't matter. You simply shut your mouth and carry on. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2022 2:47 pm I think they appreciate his pragmatism. But, that's a far cry from affection. by oldedude on October 21, 2022 2:50 pm And they know that he can work with countries/ companies he doesn't like. And keep negotiations quiet. That is HUGE. by Donna on October 21, 2022 3:05 pm "Obviously you didn't read either of my posts." I did. I don't agree with your analysis. Clearly you can't stand that Mohammed bin Sultan totally digs Trump. Why wouldn't he? When did Trump every do or say anything against MBS? Trump gave MLB everything he wanted. And you guys can't stand that. by Donna on October 21, 2022 3:07 pm Actually Trump didn't do anything with regards to Major League Baseball. Of course I meant MBS. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2022 4:11 pm I think that Trump understands the strategic importance of a positive relationship with the Saudis. by oldedude on October 21, 2022 7:55 pm I find your "expertise" interesting. The Saud family (meaning their cousins in the rest of the OPEC nations except for Oman) has always been extremely pragmatic regarding their international relationships. Did they do everything Trump wanted them to do? No. Did we do everything they wanted us to do? No. But Trump didn't shoot his mouth off about the Sauds, or their royal family. That's what they honored. Do I think they talked about Khashoggi? I would think. But Trump never talked about the art of the deal. That positive relationship is something they respect. Remember, they "shouldn't" like us. We are the great Satan, and they are the holder of the two great cities of Islam and therefore responsible for keeping the faith alive. So them helping us in both Gulf wars was only allowed because none of the "cousins" dissented. No one really wanted Sadaam removed, other than he invaded Kuwait (one of the cousins). Long story short, Trump knew how to actually negotiate, which is much different than "Americans" have always been. by Donna on October 22, 2022 9:41 am Do you think that Biden should have capitulated to Putin too? by oldedude on October 22, 2022 9:59 am No. I don't group any country with any other. There are alliances to be sure, but the one between Russia and the rest of the world right now is tenuis at best. They're now getting help from Iran since the Sauds hate Biden and wouldn't let him clean their toilets, the Iranians are free to move around as they wish. And you already know my feelings on Ukraine, so it was stupid to ask. by HatetheSwamp on October 22, 2022 10:41 am OD, The US has lost ground in every part of the world in diplomacy and through the hapless use of our military by "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap." And, I'm sure you could see that coming as well as I. You'd either have to be blind,...or blinded by hate Those TDSers, obsessed by hate, have damaged the nation to a degree that we may never recover. I, again, personally want to thank Curt and Donna and po and isle. pb's just glad he's old. He'll not going to see their treason...and freely choosing to vote, for President, for a guy who falsely remembers being a truck driver...is treasonous. We successfully overcame James Buchanan and Jimmy Carter... ...but, I'm not sure we can overcome this. by Donna on October 22, 2022 11:32 am Iran would be helping Putin in Ukraine regardless of the US's relationship with the Saudi government. There are many people left and right and increasingly in Europe who think that the US should never have given Ukraine material support for the war. Inflation is 11% in the UK, 24% in Estonia, 22% in Latvia and Lithuania, is high throughout the rest of Europe, Europeans are concerned about the availability and price of gas and oil for heating with winter approaching , and most of it is fallout from the war in Ukraine. Part of the inflation we're experiencing is a result of our government's response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine also. So Americans are literally paying the price for standing up to Putin as well as MBS, yet you support the former and not the latter. That's why I asked you that stupid question, od. Your answer to it was nebulous. by HatetheSwamp on October 22, 2022 12:13 pm Iran would be helping Putin in Ukraine regardless of the US's relationship with the Saudi government. I disagree 100%. Certainly, they'd be allied with Russia. But, it's Joe's feckless and impotent weakness that is empowering Iran to be this bold in going so far as actually assisting Russia in Ukraine. And, c'mon man. Gimme a break. Joe was slow and weak in coming to the aid of Ukraine. If he'd been assertive, Putin may never have moved into Ukraine. by oldedude on October 22, 2022 4:52 pm Agreed. The point is that the Sauds are not going to stop the Iranians as they transport the suicide drones that are killing civilians. Although they hate the Iranians, it's not their war (it's not Yeman) so who they kill is none of their concern. by oldedude on October 22, 2022 5:19 pm "So Americans are literally paying the price for standing up to Putin as well as MBS, yet you support the former and not the latter. That's why I asked you that stupid question, od. Your answer to it was nebulous." First, they are two completely different questions (like I said, so please read that again). I like Panama, but not Honduras. Do I have to like or dislike both? That's just stupid. Russia has never been an ally. The Kingdoms have been. There is a history with both countries. One is one of hatred, and the other is an uneasy detente. So why would we have the same relationship with both? That's what I don't understand. You and your wife have a relationship. I treat each of you differently. You actually make it sound like if a country doesn't agree with "your" rules, you should hate them. That's like a group of the tweenage girls thinking. If you like one, you have to like them all. If you hate one, you hate all of them. It's way too simplistic. Life in the US would have been a whole lot easier with the LP that we DID have and being taken out of the ground here. That's the first thing. But your hero chose to fire (Mostly indigenous) people off of good paying jobs right in the middle of January in the Northern Tier of the US. So much for wanting to help the red people. Putin is a small part of the problem. "Market analysts and strategists cite several factors behind global price hikes. Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco, references two textbook examples why inflation is currently high: demand-pull inflation and cost-push inflation. Demand-pull inflation occurs when prices increase due to increased demand, she explains. Demand-pull inflation can be driven by increased government spending (for instance, providing stimulus checks). If consumers expect higher prices in the future, they’re more likely to buy today—and that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to inflation expectation, according to Hooper. The other type of inflation we’re seeing, cost-push inflation, leads to price increases when the supply of goods and services is disrupted. High prices for oil and natural gas are good examples here. The global pandemic had a great deal to do with rising inflation, Hooper explains. “We turned off [the] economy, and then we turned it back on,” she says. When the economy started growing again, many countries faced similar challenges with labor sourcing and supply chain disruptions. “That contributed to scarcity of supply just as demand increased,” Hooper notes. Oh. Countries that have LESS of an inflation rate are listed below. 1- Hong Kong 1.2% 2- Bolivia 1.41% 3- Seychelles 2.1% 4- China 2.1% 5- Saudi Arabia 2.2% 6- Oman 2.4% 7- Vietnam 2.86% 8- Switzerland 2.9% 9- Ecuador 3.38% 10- Taiwan 3.39% forbes.com albawaba.com by Donna on October 24, 2022 10:47 am Iran would be helping Putin in Ukraine regardless of the US's relationship with the Saudi government. - Donna *** I disagree 100%. Certainly, they'd be allied with Russia. But, it's Joe's feckless and impotent weakness that is empowering Iran to be this bold in going so far as actually assisting Russia in Ukraine. And, c'mon man. Gimme a break. Joe was slow and weak in coming to the aid of Ukraine. If he'd been assertive, Putin may never have moved into Ukraine. - Hts *** "Agreed. The point is that the Sauds are not going to stop the Iranians as they transport the suicide drones that are killing civilians. Although they hate the Iranians, it's not their war (it's not Yeman) so who they kill is none of their concern." - od *** Obama certainly wasn't assertive with Putin when he annexed Crimea. If you want to blame a president for Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, blame Obama, not Biden. od, do you think that Biden should have imposed a no fly zone on Ukraine after Putin sent the Russian military to the border? Also, are you saying that if Biden had played nice with MBS, he would have prevented Iran from lending material support to Russia in Ukraine? by oldedude on October 24, 2022 12:05 pm I'm not sure about a no fly zone. First issue is about the drone situation. Honestly, fighter jets are too fast for most of them, their engines are too cool, and their signatures are really light on radar. So they're a really hard target to acquire. Maybe a WartHog? or if Poland has some Frogfoot's hanging around? They're slow enough, and very maneuverable. The second issue is more about who is going to enforce it. You don't want to battle test the Russians. You want them to lose. Period. They send an aircraft up, the pilot dies. No one comes back to teach the other pilots how to fly against us. That is key. So. Good Aircraft, better pilots. The heir apparent would be the US, UK, Israelis. We all have better aircraft, and combat pilots that can beat most Russians. The issue with that. If it's a NATO country, Russia will call foul and start throwing gas. The Ukrainians can't do it, because a "no fly zone" is to keep them from flying also. The Poles maybe? My bet is that France wouldn't. I know that's not really an answer. To counter that would be to have Poland paint some of their MiGs and have the Ukrainians pick them up. They're pretty good pilots and could stand their own Air-to-Air battles. We support that with SAMs for the aircraft, and up our game on anti-tank and anti-personnel rockets and armor, maybe some air-to-ground aircraft and tank killers. I guess that's my answer. I see a no fly zone as a horrible political battle. The drones need specialized hunters. by Donna on October 24, 2022 12:21 pm "I'm not sure about a no fly zone." - od The reason I asked you because that's been the only "impotent weakness" regarding Biden's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine that Hts mentioned. Since you're "not sure" if that would have been a good idea, then I don't understand what you were agreeing with Hts about. To recap: HTS: I disagree 100%. Certainly, they'd be allied with Russia. But, it's Joe's feckless and impotent weakness that is empowering Iran to be this bold in going so far as actually assisting Russia in Ukraine. And, c'mon man. Gimme a break. Joe was slow and weak in coming to the aid of Ukraine. If he'd been assertive, Putin may never have moved into Ukraine. od: Agreed. The point is that the Sauds are not going to stop the Iranians as they transport the suicide drones that are killing civilians. Although they hate the Iranians, it's not their war (it's not Yeman) so who they kill is none of their concern. by HatetheSwamp on October 24, 2022 12:40 pm Obama certainly wasn't assertive with Putin when he annexed Crimea. If you want to blame a president for Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, blame Obama, not Biden. Bang on! Obama may very well have been the biggest pu$$y among all American presidents. Putin must have been stunned, after "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" Afghanistan debacle, that Joe didn't just hand him a Golden Ticket. pb suspects that the Flatulent Fool may have wanted to do just that. Remember. Joe's initial response was to guarantee Zelensky free passage out of Ukraine. What changed? Perhaps NATO objected. Perhaps congressional Dems pushed back. Who knows. pb's certain that Joe's not benefiting from the rejuvenation of his withered stones. by oldedude on October 24, 2022 1:06 pm Because you're "assuming" that international politics are each in a vacuum. Puten didn't see the opportunity to take Crimea a second time during Trump. He would have lost that game. And Xi Jinping would not be making the moves now. They're doing it because they can. Both of these issues have been on their "to-do" list for decades. pedojoe is tossing out SEALs because they didn't get an unproven drug. Many of them like me, are retired now because of the Sarin gas "immunization" that not only didn't work but are killing many of those who received it. Then they are being forced to be woke now, when Xi Jinping is hardening his troops to the point they take battle causalities every time they have a war "game." Why is everyone doing this? Because they know nothing will happen to them if they do. They understand pedojoe is a figurehead of the wokesters and far left that will be easy to take the US over. Pedojoe is helping them. Just like he said he would. by HatetheSwamp on October 24, 2022 1:17 pm Exactly, OD. The WORLD is abusing Joe because he's so obviously weak...and brainless. As you say, they "can." As I've said many times, I only voted for Trump reluctantly and then only to prevent Hillary, a world-class crook, from being President. I didn't expect much from Trump but he turned out to he an absolute wizard in diplomacy. by Donna on October 24, 2022 2:01 pm od: Why couldn't Putin have invaded Donbas during Trump? Why do you say "he would have lost that game"? by HatetheSwamp on October 24, 2022 2:14 pm Donna, I'm curious to see OD's reply. I watch those Trump rallies. Trump says that warned Putin that he would regret it if he invaded Ukraine. I believe that Trump did that. I also believe that Putin believed Trump. What we know in the chronology is that Putin kept his powder dry until "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" proved himself to be a brainless buffoon in Afghanistan. Joe virtually invited the invasion of Ukraine. That's why I say, so often, that you Blue MAGAs foisted Joe on the effin WORLD! by islander on October 24, 2022 2:55 pm ”Joe was slow and weak in coming to the aid of Ukraine. If he'd been assertive, Putin may never have moved into Ukraine”~Hate LoL !!! You sound like a first class comedian! Your TDS is on full display! You just can’t help seeing everything backwards! Putin undoubtably invaded Ukraine due to his erroneous belief (or hope) that Biden’s foreign policy would be little different from Trump’s. After Putin's dealings with Trump I have little doubt that he underestimated Biden and he thought that what came out of Washington was going to be the same, nothing but hot air, bluster, and major stupidity and incompetence (like it was with Trump). ”Russian President Vladimir "Putin likely can't believe his luck" at US President Donald Trump's withdrawal of US troops from the Kurdish region on the border of Syria and Turkey, a Western military official from the anti-ISIS coalition told Insider. Syrian troops entering Kurdish-held Rojava represents a massive victory for not only Syrian President Bashar Assad but Putin and the Iranians, who had long demanded that the Americans withdraw from the corridor that links northern Iraq with eastern Syria. "Putin continues to get whatever he wants and generally doesn't even have to do much," a NATO official told Insider. "He got to sit back and watch the Turks and the Americans unravel five years of success, and not only did it not cost him anything, he didn't even have to try to make it happen. Small wonder he'd interfere on Trump's side in an election." ~ Business insider “And” you gotta know Putin didn’t object one bit when Trump ordered all our troops out of Afghanistan by May of 2021 ! He, just like you guys, made a big mistake. “Now” we are watching Putin being humiliated before the whole world as Biden and our Nato Allies intelligently aid our Ukrainian friends in defeating the Russian army without getting our military troops involved...Great job Joe !! by Donna on October 24, 2022 3:01 pm "Trump says that warned Putin that he would regret it if he invaded Ukraine." - Hts LOL! Why would you believe anything Trump says? by HatetheSwamp on October 24, 2022 3:06 pm Donna, I believe Trump because reality aligns with his claim. Putin attacked Crimea with The ONE in the White House. Then, after the Wizard of Washington was foisted out of office, he took his best shot at Ukraine. by HatetheSwamp on October 24, 2022 3:22 pm After Putin's dealings with Trump I have little doubt that he underestimated Biden... Underestimating the Former Truck Driver is a mathematical impossibility. BTW, occasionally I suffer from vertigo. I've been okay lately but after you suggested yesterday that only the rare person still believes Trump was a better President than Clouseau...I looked for my medication bottle. Bahahahahahahahahahaha. Did you check out that 538 link? Where do you get your information!!!!!? by Donna on October 24, 2022 3:35 pm Putin was already getting what he wanted out of Trump when he was president, primary because of Trump's efforts to weaken NATO. In fact Trump hinted that if he were re-elected, he'd pull us out of NATO, which would be tantamount to destroying NATO. Invading Ukraine then would have thrown a wrench in one of Putin's most important goals. by HatetheSwamp on October 24, 2022 3:48 pm Bullfernerner. Putin was lusting slobberingly to add Ukraine back to Mother Russia but knew that we'd crush him if he moved when Trump was in place. by islander on October 24, 2022 4:11 pm ”BTW, occasionally I suffer from vertigo”~Hate Huh? What’s that got to do with anything unless you think it is related to your TDS. It’s probably not though. ”Putin was lusting slobberingly to add Ukraine back to Mother Russia but knew that we'd crush him if he moved when Trump was in place.” No. He knew that Trump would respond just like he did with Syria, and Biden is crushing Puten without even getting any of our troops involved !!! 🤣 by HatetheSwamp on October 24, 2022 4:29 pm Your suggestion that only a few wackos still think Trump was a better President than "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" made pb's head spin. That's so disconnected from reality. by islander on October 24, 2022 4:51 pm "Your suggestion that only a few wackos still think Trump was a better President than "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" made pb's head spin." I admit to the possibility that I might have been wrong, like you suggested there might be a lot more than just a few whackos out there. by HatetheSwamp on October 24, 2022 5:07 pm We are, indeed, many in number. by oldedude on October 24, 2022 9:05 pm If you actually look at real numbers, the "we" are actually over half the population. I know you don't think that, because you believe that anyone who doesn't believe in "teri" or whatever she goes by, exists. There is just another flaw in your thinking. Some of us have actually read the Constitution. Some of us have actually read and understand the bill of "rights." These are not "suggestions" as you think they are. This is the layout of OUR constitution. This is very different than euro-law. The two are very different and built this way because of how we see the world vs. the monarchs of Europe see the world. Please explain this to teri, or terry, or whatever the fuk her name is. because she doesn't actually understand our constitution. The one's that actually do, are the Irish (IRL) and the Panamanians. They took OUR documents and pretty much plagiarized them. Which is good for us. The rest of europe? Notsomuch. and fveys try as much as they want to be us, but they can't. by Donna on October 25, 2022 9:30 am The Constitutional opinions you hear on Fox News aren't the Word of God. Of course there are differing interpretations on many parts of the Constitution, even among Constitutional scholars. by HatetheSwamp on October 25, 2022 9:41 am Does OD even watch Fox? by Donna on October 25, 2022 9:48 am Or whatever his favorite sources are. by HatetheSwamp on October 25, 2022 10:04 am Fair enough. I'll say this about Teri (and Heather, too): They both come across as very bright but they're both paralyzed by hate that any benefit that might accrue to them, or from them, is lost. There certainly are people like that on the right and pb avoids them. From what I can tell, OD does too. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page