Ukraine

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

get help pete...you are in serious need

You pay no attention and then just fulfill your role of useful idiot, much like Tucker
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You pay no attention and then just fulfill your role of useful idiot, much like Tucker
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, that's it

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

angry tweets and actions that divide this county above all else.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumps tweets are unacceptable because they are divisive.

Obama said that republicans "just hate all the time".
Biden said republicans want to put blacks back in chains (my favorite)
Hilary says republicans are deplorable and irredeemable.

I agree with you that Trumps tweets are obnoxious. But why are they less acceptable than the other comments I posted? Those aren't incredibly divisive?

Or is it that it's OK to be divisive when you're demonizing republicans, but immoral to do the same thing to democrats?

How about just having a fair, consistent set of standards we judge presidents on, and use the same standards whether the president is a republican or democrat?

Either saying these things is tolerable or not. But let's not keep changing the standards every time the party of the sitting president changes.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree with you that Trumps tweets were obnoxious.

fixed it

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Trumps tweets are unacceptable because they are divisive.

Obama said that republicans "just hate all the time".
Biden said republicans want to put blacks back in chains (my favorite)
Hilary says republicans are deplorable and irredeemableShe prob. underestimated given the % that still don't accept the results of the election. .

I agree with you that Trumps tweets are obnoxious. But why are they less acceptable than the other comments I posted? Those aren't incredibly divisive?

Or is it that it's OK to be divisive when you're demonizing republicans, but immoral to do the same thing to democrats?

How about just having a fair, consistent set of standards we judge presidents on, and use the same standards whether the president is a republican or democrat?

Either saying these things is tolerable or not. But let's not keep changing the standards every time the party of the sitting president changes.

You use the same 3 comments over and over and over even though for some they apologized.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You use the same 3 comments over and over and over even though for some they apologized.

I'm not impressed by apologies made long after the fact, when the person concluded they had to apologize for damage control.

Paul, it must be very easy for you to conclude that republicans are the divisive ones, when you dismiss all divisive statements made by democrats. Very convenient for you, indeed.

I pick those, because they're unbelievable to me that anyone could say them. And you have zero criticism for the folks who said them (saying only that Hilary was too generous), the only character flaw is mine for bringing them up. But there's no reason not to endlessly bring up Trumps moral flaws. It's totally fine to endlessly obsess when Trump is a jerk. But there's a strict statute of limitations on holding democrats accountable. That's what you're saying.

Hilary said that in a prepared, planned speech. When it was obvious she was taking a beating in the polls for saying it, then she issued a self-serving apology.

If Trump apologized, you'd be as forgiving?

"She prob. underestimated given the % that still don't accept the results of the election. ."

It is pathetic, I agree. How many democrats think conservatives oppose abortion not because they consider the baby to be a person, but because they simply want to control and enslave women? Equally stupid.

[Pete F.]

Abortion opponents, some of whom are conservative, think that other people are required to conform to their beliefs.
Some of them also believe that birth control is an abortifacient - by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, that's an abortion.
The Catholic Church has had various edicts from various Popes regarding abortion so apparently there’s either not really any substance to papal infallibility or Martin Luther was correct.
Do Catholics still believe that freedom from God's punishment for sin can be purchased with money, perhaps if they got $50 per abortion they’d mind their own business
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Abortion opponents, some of whom are conservative, think that other people are required to conform to their beliefs.
Some of them also believe that birth control is an abortifacient - by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, that's an abortion.
The Catholic Church has had various edicts from various Popes regarding abortion so apparently there’s either not really any substance to papal infallibility or Martin Luther was correct.
Do Catholics still believe that freedom from God's punishment for sin can be purchased with money, perhaps if they got $50 per abortion they’d mind their own business
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm going to try and talk to you like an adult here, let's see how it goes...

"Abortion opponents, some of whom are conservative, think that other people are required to conform to their beliefs."

Wrong.

Every single criminal law on the books, is an attempt by society (not just anti abortion people) to get others to comply with rules of conduct. Abortion is not unique in this regard, in any way. Liberals just frame it this way, because that's a lot easier for them, than honestly debating what my side is saying.

Pete, are you OK with laws which saw that women can not hurt someone else?

I assume you are. And on that point, you and I agree.

The only topic on which we disagree (therefore, the only issue that actually matters here) is whether or not the unborn baby represents "someone else".

There are all kinds of laws that limit what women can do with their bodies. They can't inject heroin, female teachers cannot be involved with male students, etc...Yet you are OK with those laws. You are OK with all kinds of laws which limit the choices women can make.

Because you agree that women can make whatever choices they want, as long as they don't harm someone else.

So the debate has absolutely nothing to do with women's rights, or choice, or any of that other nonsense...it has everything to do with whether or not the baby is "someone else".

That's literally all that matters.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not impressed by apologies made long after the fact, when the person concluded they had to apologize for damage control.

Paul, it must be very easy for you to conclude that republicans are the divisive ones, when you dismiss all divisive statements made by democrats. Very convenient for you, indeed.Every day I see divisive comments from both parties but FAR MORE from the Rs who have given themselves over to Trump and his classlessness.

I pick those, because they're unbelievable to me that anyone could say them. And you have zero criticism for the folks who said them (saying only that Hilary was too generous), the only character flaw is mine for bringing them up. But there's no reason not to endlessly bring up Trumps moral flaws. It's totally fine to endlessly obsess when Trump is a jerk. But there's a strict statute of limitations on holding democrats accountable. That's what you're saying.

Hilary said that in a prepared, planned speech. When it was obvious she was taking a beating in the polls for saying it, then she issued a self-serving apology. It was the very next day and if you look who was crying for an apology it was people like Trump and K. Conway.

If Trump apologized, you'd be as forgiving?Yes, I would. if it was sincere.

"She prob. underestimated given the % that still don't accept the results of the election. ."

It is pathetic, I agree. How many democrats think conservatives oppose abortion not because they consider the baby to be a person, but because they simply want to control and enslave women? Equally stupid.1st time I've heard that.

NNM

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Abortion opponents, some of whom are conservative, think that other people are required to conform to their beliefs.

This is consistently one of your main go-to tactics--when convenient, squeeze everyone under the same umbrella, e.g. Trump says something negative about Mexican gang members or Mexico's worst, and you say he insults all Mexicans; or those who oppose illegal immigration or say disparaging things about a country like Haiti, and you say the are attacking or discriminating against people of color.

Here you say that if you oppose abortion, you are requiring other people to conform to your beliefs, regardless of all the other beliefs you have that you don't "require" others to conform to.

In essence, Democracy requires the minority to conform to the beliefs of the majority. You seem to be a big believer in democracy. Which implies to me that you're OK with people requiring others to conform to your beliefs

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

NNM

"Every day I see divisive comments from both parties but FAR MORE from the Rs who have given themselves over to Trump and his classlessness."

Because you watch news you agree with.

Foxnews will show liberals saying mean things, and never show conservatives saying divisive things. Everyone else does the opposite.

So I have no idea how to quantify who does it more, though Trump isn't helping my side in this statistic for sure.

But that's why the right went with Trump. The right had previously nominated decent men who were unfairly attacked. George Bush was a racist and a Nazi (despite doing more to help Africa than any human being who has ever lived), McCain was a senile old racist, Romney was a heartless plutocrat who hated women. When the left keeps throwing cheap elbows, I'm sorry, but don't clutch your pearls when the right nominates someone who is also comfortable fighting with brass knuckles.

Nobody other than Trump could have beaten Hilary - nobody.

If you want a return to civility, I'm all for it. But both sides have to be civil, not just the right. The right appears to be done fighting with velvet gloves while the left uses brass knuckles. The left enjoyed that advantage for many years, and it's over.

"It was the very next day and if you look who was crying for an apology it was people like Trump and K. Conway."

She got CREAMED for saying it. It may have cost her the election. And she deserved it.

"Yes, I would. if it was sincere."

None of them are sincere.

"1st time I've heard that."

You've never heard anyone describe an anti-abortion person as wanting to control women, wanting to take away their choices, being anti-choice, waging war on women? Never?

Come on.

I have never, not once, seen a liberal not do that, when discussing abortion.

Pete just did it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm going to try and talk to you like an adult here, let's see how it goes...

"Abortion opponents, some of whom are conservative, think that other people are required to conform to their beliefs."

Wrong.

Every single criminal law on the books, is an attempt by society (not just anti abortion people) to get others to comply with rules of conduct. Abortion is not unique in this regard, in any way. Liberals just frame it this way, because that's a lot easier for them, than honestly debating what my side is saying.

Pete, are you OK with laws which saw that women can not hurt someone else?

I assume you are. And on that point, you and I agree.

The only topic on which we disagree (therefore, the only issue that actually matters here) is whether or not the unborn baby represents "someone else".

There are all kinds of laws that limit what women can do with their bodies. They can't inject heroin, female teachers cannot be involved with male students, etc...Yet you are OK with those laws. You are OK with all kinds of laws which limit the choices women can make.

Because you agree that women can make whatever choices they want, as long as they don't harm someone else.

So the debate has absolutely nothing to do with women's rights, or choice, or any of that other nonsense...it has everything to do with whether or not the baby is "someone else".

That's literally all that matters.

Your belief, which you want to impose on everyone else is that life begins s at some artificial point prior to birth.
The debate has everything to do with your desire to require other people to conform to your belief and in doing so taking away their right to their own beliefs.

I'm old enough to remember discussions about JFK being a papist and concern about Catholics gaining power and imposing their beliefs on the rest of Americans. I'm beginning see their concerns come true with 7 Catholic Justices.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Your belief, which you want to impose on everyone else is that life begins s at some artificial point prior to birth.
The debate has everything to do with your desire to require other people to conform to your belief and in doing so taking away their right to their own beliefs.

I'm old enough to remember discussions about JFK being a papist and concern about Catholics gaining power and imposing their beliefs on the rest of Americans. I'm beginning see their concerns come true with 7 Catholic Justices.

again, using your logic, every single criminal law then, is imposing ones belief
into another.

saying life begins at conception isn’t arbitrary. That’s the beginning.

saying life begins at any other point is arbitrary. because the baby is no different from one moment to the next. there’s only one moment when something spectacular happens, when something gets created that wasn’t there before. after that it’s a long, slow, continuous process.

again, every single criminal
law law limits choices. nothing unique about abortion in that regard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Your belief, which you want to impose on everyone else is that life begins s at some artificial point prior to birth.

do you have children?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

again, using your logic, every single criminal law then, is imposing ones belief
into another.

saying life begins at conception isn’t arbitrary. That’s the beginning.

saying life begins at any other point is arbitrary. because the baby is no different from one moment to the next. there’s only one moment when something spectacular happens, when something gets created that wasn’t there before. after that it’s a long, slow, continuous process.

again, every single criminal
law law limits choices. nothing unique about abortion in that regard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, my belief and that of many other Americans is that life does not begin at conception.

I believe that life begins at birth.
You don’t believe that and think that everyone must believe what you do.
Most Americans don’t believe they have the right to make that decision for others, even if they would not make that choice themselves.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

do you have children?

Likely more than you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I believe that life begins at birth.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you didn't consider you children to be life, prior to their birth?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, my belief and that of many other Americans is that life does not begin at conception.

I believe that life begins at birth.
You don’t believe that and think that everyone must believe what you do.
Most Americans don’t believe they have the right to make that decision for others, even if they would not make that choice themselves.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

our laws against child rape, are an example of imposing our will, on those who are on with child rape.

if you want to say that many more people support abortion than support child rape, of course you’re right.

But every single law limits choices and imposes will. So it’s not a valid argument, it makes no legitimate point.

When do you say life begins?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

so you didn't consider you children to be life, prior to their birth?

Not yet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

our laws against child rape, are an example of imposing our will, on those who are on with child rape.

if you want to say that many more people support abortion than support child rape, of course you’re right.

But every single law limits choices and imposes will. So it’s not a valid argument, it makes no legitimate point.

When do you say life begins?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now you’re equating rape with abortion?

Reading is not your strong point
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Not yet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

have you ever seen a sonogram or felt a kick?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Tucker Carlson, amazingly, on Fox News, said that he would choose Russia over Ukraine"

Show me the quote, please.

#^&#^&#^&#^& Morris was a Bill Clinton strategist. Then Foxnews paid him good money to bash democrats, so he did that. Then Fox fired him, so now hes mad at them.

#^&#^&#^&#^& Morris will say anything that anyone is willing to pay him to say. He's what you might call "available". That doesn't mean Tucker didn't say what he claims. But I'd like to see the quote. If you don't mind.


Can I see the entire quote #^&#^&#^&#^& Morris was referring to?

"missing the point

I see the point very clearly. The point is, this is another loser of an issue for Biden. Rather than discuss what the currently president is doing, you'd rather share quotes of has-beens saying dumb things. You're all desperately trying to shift attention away from Biden, and focus on GOP has beens.

Tucker Carlson isn't a has-been. But please share that quote. Sorry, I'm not taking #^&#^&#^&#^& Morris' word for it.

I've seen Tucker say America has a lot to lose in this conflict, and that Ukraine isn't so vital to us to be worth hurting American interests. I haven't seen Tucker say he "would choose Russia over Ukraine".

#^&#^&#^&#^& Morris will say anything that anyone is willing to pay him

And there you go again making excuses

But you’ll still vote for Trump ..

That says alot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

#^&#^&#^&#^& Morris will say anything that anyone is willing to pay him

And there you go again making excuses

But you’ll still vote for Trump ..

That says alot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"#^&#^&#^&#^& Morris will say anything that anyone is willing to pay him

And there you go again making excuses "

You call the truth "an excuse", when the truth doesn't fit your agenda.

"But you’ll still vote for Trump"

Not in the republican primary. But if he wins the primary, you bet I'll vote for him , as I voted for Bill Clinton even though he's a deeply corrupt scumbag.

If character matters so much to you, who'd you vote for in 2016? You wrote someone in, I assume? Because don't tell me Hilary is all that virtuous. But you're fine with being immoral, as long as it's a democrat.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I believe that life begins at birth.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please tell us, why that belief is less arbitrary than my belief that it begins at conception?

You believe abortion is OK then, even in the 9th month. Lots of folks disagree with that.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Not yet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if you and your wife were expecting, Nursery is all painted, just had the baby shower with family and friends. And then Your wife gets taken out by a drunk driver, you lose both her and the baby.

You're telling me you would only mourn the loss of your wife, because the baby was never really here?

I'm calling on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Wow we went off the rails on this thread, but hey I'll chime into the Ukraine thread going all in on abortion rights. I'm all in for woman's choice up to a point in any pregnancy, but some of the laws are now being structured to put that point well ahead of most women even realizing they are pregnant. I also feel extremely strongly that in certain circumstances, the time line should be more flexible, especially when it comes to rape and incest.

[Pete F.]

The only time you see any empathy claimed from supposed conservatives is for the “unborn”
Once anyone’s alive it’s tough love….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The only time you see any empathy claimed from supposed conservatives is for the “unborn”
Once anyone’s alive it’s tough love….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's an extremely extreme opinion. One might say it's extremely full of $hit.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's an extremely extreme opinion. One might say it's extremely full of $hit.

Brilliant and eloquent as always
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Brilliant and eloquent as always
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Damn I'm good!!!!! I wasn't trying to be eloquent.