Ukraine

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

isn't he a singer from the 80's or something?

If you read all their posts, youd have no idea Biden was president.

Just find a bunch of GOP has-beens who say something stupid, and that's "the voice of the GOP".

Because nowhere, are there any liberals who say anything stupid.

[Jim in CT]

Here's what Carlson said...

"Why do I care … what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I’m serious. Why do I care? Why shouldn’t I root for Russia, which I am?”

Carlson said he was kidding, but I think it's an idiotic thing to say. WDMSO, I don't think many republicans at all, agree with that.

In the same show, Carlson followed with this...

"Before we go, earlier … I noted, I was rooting for Russia in the contest between Russia and Ukraine. Of course I’m joking, I’m only rooting for America.”

Morris left that part out. So did you.

WDMSO, you commented on Morris' criticism of Tucker Carlson. You ignored Morris' scathing criticism of Biden. Which is more significant? A TV host who speaks to 1% of the US population, or the sitting president?

[Pete F.]

Are you suggesting that military strikes should come?
The goal, though I think it’s improbable, is to avoid war if possible.

If Putin expected a West in disarray, it didn't happen. NATO has remained unified & strong & is getting stronger. The EU has been effective. Major EU states are pulling their weight. & the U.S. is not only leading but doing so deftly, showing great respect & deference to allies.

Biden is moving Troops and aircraft in Europe and much more is happening behind the scenes.

I suppose he could be tweeting like TFG.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Biden is moving Troops and aircraft in Europe and much more is happening behind the scenes.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How do you know?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are you suggesting that military strikes should come?
The goal, though I think it’s improbable, is to avoid war if possible.

If Putin expected a West in disarray, it didn't happen. NATO has remained unified & strong & is getting stronger. The EU has been effective. Major EU states are pulling their weight. & the U.S. is not only leading but doing so deftly, showing great respect & deference to allies.

Biden is moving Troops and aircraft in Europe and much more is happening behind the scenes.

I suppose he could be tweeting like TFG.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Are you suggesting that military strikes should come?"

No. I don't know what the best thing is for us to do. In my opinion, Ukraine isn't worth sending American kids to die. Reasonable people can disagree on that one I guess, but I wouldn't send one single American kid to die there.

Why did Putin choose not to do this from 2017-2020, but he's doing it now?

It's one more thing that makes Biden look very weak, that Putin obviously thought now was the time to flex his muscles.

Very reminiscent, I'd imagine, of Jimmy Carters presidency. Ridiculous inflation and gas prices, global adversaries feeling very emboldened.

And naturally Harris went over there and humiliated herself.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are you suggesting that military strikes should come?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't get this notion from anything he's written....

[Nebe]

Just watch. Trump will exit from the shadows around election time and broker a deal to end the conflict… trump will come out looking like a hero and Putin will get his puppet back, get his pipeline approved and it will be back to angry tweets and actions that divide this county above all else.

Just a hunch of course.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Just watch. Trump will exit from the shadows around election time and broker a deal to end the conflict… trump will come out looking like a hero and Putin will get his puppet back, get his pipeline approved and it will be back to angry tweets and actions that divide this county above all else.

Just a hunch of course.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

can we revisit your previous prediction

[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.

[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

[Pete F.]

These people were poisoned by the Kremlin/Putin.
There are many more we don't know about.

Anna Politkovskaya
Alexey Navalny
Nikolai Khokhlov
Georgi Markov
Viktor Yushchenko
Alexander Litvinenko
Sergey Skripal
Mikhail Khodorkovsky
Petr Verzilov

Of course you and Tucker are fine with Putin’s goal of bringing back the Soviet Union created by Stalin, the descendents of the four million Ukrainians Stalin killed don’t want that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Of course you and Tucker are fine with Putin’s goal of bringing back the Soviet Union created by Stalin, the descendents of the four million Ukrainians Stalin killed don’t want that.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

get help pete...you are in serious need

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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 scottw

do you have children?

Likely more than you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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

[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.

[Nebe]

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

https://youtu.be/fmMvsAjCkog