OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Thanks? I think? Lol. I guess the part where I said "it's this kind of stuff that so frustrates me as to what is or is not actually happening" in the very first sentence was lost on blaze and the idea that no where in my post did I take a position as to the legitimacy or not of the claims. Just was pointing out that this "data" had come out for those that cared to review it. IF the temp stations are corrupt, it would be a huge problem for the models and claims.
He is right about one thing though, don't smoke. Unless, of course, you want to and knowingly accept the known consequences. But seriously, don't.
"Which is why, again, I'm more concerned about women in red states, including one in Texas who nearly died because she was forced to carry around a dead fetus for two weeks."
https://people.com/health/beauty-yo...eks-after-miscarriage-due-to-ban-on-abortion/
don't you ever learn? The woman was found by ultrasound to have suffered a miscarriage. She carried the dead fetus around because she didn't want to undergo another ultrasound, which her doctor had advised her was a requirement before a D&C could be performed. SHE CHOSE to not follow procedure.
"Stell admitted that she was "devastated" and did not want to experience a second ultrasound knowing that her baby was gone. She also feared for her own health.
"Someone shoves a wand in my sensitive area and tells me, 'Hey, you lost your baby' again. I shouldn't have to go through that twice," Stell explained in tears.
"It's gut-wrenching… cause you already know what you're going to see. It's just like, seeing it twice, being told that you're not going to be a mom," she tells CNN. "Just emotionally carrying it around and just knowing that there's nothing you could do. It just feels very ... it's like I can't grieve or move past it because I'm just walking around carrying it." "
The two weeks was the time it took her to find another doctor, and the article I'm linking doesn't say anything about whether she earnestly scrambled every day to find this doctor, or if she just casually made an appointment and gladly waited two weeks in order to avoid the ultrasound, or even if she was in fact able to avoid the second ultrasound. What it does indicate is that 1) get the facts straight and 2) get a grip.
But better yet, talk about cavalier...you don't condone late term abortions, yet you're willing to accept them as long as there isn't an epidemic of them? GTFO with that crap. Human decency demands zero late term abortions.
Last edited:
Yes, it was gut wrenching. This is where the word ‘empathy’ comes in. She lost her baby and it took quite a toll. This is where the phrase ‘common sense’ comes in. Why om earth does she need to be subjected to another ultra sound when the f**king fetus is already dead? That’s borderline cruel. At best it’s unnecessary and yet again as result of Texas right wing bullshit.
You resort to undercutting this woman’s story instead of identifying why she was required to jump through hoops for something she needed.
And please do not misconstrue my beliefs. I did not say I condoned late term abortions. In the same post you quoted I opined they should be illegal unless under very specific circumstances.
But the law on the books in Texas and other red states barely or do not allow for exceptions at all. That’s why I’m concerned.
really? I resorted to something? I posted a link to her story to clarify the water you muddied. How is that undercutting anything? What the F did you do except mislead about the woman's situation? Could you maybe at least feign some objectivity?
Whatever the reason for the second ultrasound requirement (I assume it's to ensure that the baby is without question no longer alive), SHE CHOSE to keep the dead baby inside her for her own purposes, not to satisfy any Red State Texas requirement. If anyone undercut anything, YOU undercut Texas' abortion story.
I misconstrued nothing. I acknowledged that you said you didn't condone them but I said you said that you were accepting of late term abortions unless there was an epidemic of them. Here is your exact quote....
you'll have to forgive me if you don't agree with my equating your not being frenzied with being acceptable. Same implication, don't sweat them unless there's a lot of them. UNacceptable.
That's because they don't actually want to see the majority of what they push for publicly to actually come to fruition. Because then they'd lose something they can campaign on. They purposely didn't codify Roe v Wade, because they wanted to have it in their back pocket whenever it was overturned, as a "break glass in case of emergency" newly found campaign soapbox. They got it at a very opportune time when they really needed it, but it looks like they've stepped in it too deeply already for it to save them in November.
Haley for VP? What she giggle like?
I don't know about Haley as VP. It would take a little getting used to the VP not speaking to us with hand puppets.
So Dinesh D’Souza convinced millions of stupid and gullible Republicans just like you in his film 2000 Mules that improper ballot harvesting was widespread in the 2020 election, but the only case of it the people of North Carolina are likely aware of occurred in the state's 9th congressional district.
That's where Republican Mark Harris narrowly defeated Democrat Dan McCready. Of course, following the election it was learned that there was an illegal and well-funded ballot-harvesting operation involved, headed by a political operative working for Harris’ campaign named Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr. Dowless paid local people he recruited $125 for every 50 mail-in (and usually unfinished) ballots they collected in Bladen and Robeson counties.
Dowless was hired to produce votes for Harris and Bladen County Sheriff Jim McVickers and it allowed Dowless to collect nearly $84,000 in "consulting fees" for his part in the scheme. Most importantly, the scheme was uncovered.
It’s illegal in North Carolina for anyone other than a guardian or close family member to handle a voter’s ballot. Take a look at the laws in each of the 50 states and you'll notice that the same stringent requirements are common throughout the country, indicating that both Dinesh D’Souza and you, bluetoe, are completely full of shit.
No, you relied on a logical fallacy in order to twist her circumstances to suit your narrative.
She did not choose to keep the dead baby inside her. Texas law mandated that she did unless she consented to another ultra sound to remind her of the pain of losing it. Those particular laws in conservative states exist for a reason: to give the woman in question second thoughts and decrease the chance of abortion.
I'll be objective when the morons passing these dumb laws are objective. It's not about that to them. It's about control and religious fervor over something they don't even bother to understand on a basic medical level.
You wanna argue an ultra sound should be given for a viable fetus? Fine. But for one that's not. No way. And this person nearly died because of it. That's not right.
I would object to a 7-8 month old baby being aborted under any circumstance except one: endangerment of the life of the mother. Or if the baby suddenly died.
Of course, if abortion were legal across the board and thousands of women were getting them in the late term I'd have a problem with it. But that's not the issue at stake here.
Primary elections in Arizona were held today, and election officials are only in the midst of counting the votes, but already Trump-endorsed and gubernatorial candidate Keri Lake is already making claims of a stolen election. Seems like we've been down this road before.
Win or lose, Kari Lake needs to back up her claim of 2022 election fraud
Win or lose, Kari Lake needs to back up her claim of 2022 election fraud
Last edited:
PACT act passed. Biden is having a good month.
I want someone else as the pres in 2024 but I like the recent results from Congress under his admin.
While this is great news, it is also pretty disturbing. The fact that these Republicans would hold up funding for veterans for such pathetic and partisan reasons is pretty sad.
What changed in the bill to make them change their votes? Absolutely nothing.
The Senate began voting on the PACT Act around 5 p.m., with votes on three Republican amendments before a vote on final passage of the bill, which was 86-11. None of the proposed amendments passed.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., has led the GOP group in opposition, insisting on an amendment to change language in the bill that he said could free up $400 billion in existing funds already being used for veterans by shuffling the money inside the budget to use for unrelated purposes.
Amid protests, Senate passes health care for vets exposed to toxic burn pits
Kansas votes no on a ballot measure that would strip away the state constitutional right to an abortion.
Did not see that one coming but good for Kansas.
Did not see that one coming but good for Kansas.
she chose of her own free will not to have the second ultrasound. She was not 'forced' to carry a dead baby inside her. She has no right, either granted by a State or by the federal governments previous oversight, to demand that a doctor perform an abortion on her without respect to governing regulation. Your 'logical fallacy' charge against me is just bullshit, plain and simple. YOU are the one guilty of the logical fallacy in saying she was forced to carry the dead baby inside her for two weeks. You are being dishonest in order to whine about the overturning of RvW and to BE honest, you're looking foolish in the process.
There was an avenue available to this woman to have a D&C done in a timely manner, and she rejected it. Plain and simple. You misrepresented that fact Plain and simple.
You can surmise all sorts of Machiavellian motivations for requiring the ultrasound, but that doesn't change the fact that many of us feel that the process for eliminating a human life should not be undertaken according to whim, regardless of the circumstances.
nobody said that was the main issue, but your cavalier approach to late term abortion became one.
That's exactly what this kind of shit is. It's designed to control at the expense of somebody else not due to common sense but a religious fervor which is dubious at best in its assertion of moral ethics. Bible thumpers cherry pick Christianity all the time. This is no different.
There was no life inside this woman. It was dead. In those circumstances, another ultra sound was not needed. Your problem, and has always been your problem, is that you ignore the broader implications of a law when it suits you. And then you dive straight into a semantic runaround such as this:
when something doesn't suit your bias. In no instance have I had a cavalier approach to late term abortion. And yet you'll find some other convoluted way of saying that I do.
You want to base everything off logic all the time and yet ignore it in many instances such as these. There is no logic or purpose to an ultra sound other than discouraging a woman's right to an abortion. Or in this case, right to a procedure she needs. Read in between the lines. Laws are not always consistent. And sometimes their purpose, while seemingly innocent or innocuous on paper, have far different purposes by those who design them.
You really think Southern states imposed a literacy test back in the day because they just wanted to make sure their citizens were educated enough to vote? By your own methods of debate, you would contend that the law itself does not prohibit black people from voting and it infringes on no one's rights at all since such laws did not explicitly mention blacks themselves. Same thing with poll taxes.
The Texas law is an abomination and any sane Court or government would declare it and others of a similar vein illegal. That is if we didn't have a gridlocked Congress, an ultra conservative SCOTUS, or gerrymandered as f**k state legislatures in the aforementioned Texas and far beyond.
Heels Noir is being the lying POS that he naturally is here. Stringent requirements, first of all, don't equate to strict compliance. And strict compliance is not something that can readily be determined in cases where compliance is not checked at the collection points. Secondly, I have no knowledge of anything Dinesh D'Souza or anyone else has to say on the matter; I have knowledge of the loosening of voting requirements that lend to ballot harvesting and a turnout that strongly suggests that such harvesting took place. As I have stated a number of times, no honest election process should be devised that allows ballot counts to be called into question.
Your example unwittingly shows that it is very possible for such harvesting to take place. Thank you You just used an example that happened to be revealed, and I contend that much took place that has not and will not be revealed.
It wouldn't be Heels Noir if a red herring wasn't created to distract from my actual contention, with the added slimy strawman claim that my contention is erroneously based on what someone else had to say on the matter with me having made no mention at all of any source other than my own good common sense. Now I find that I'm not the only one with common sense. Good thinking, Mr. D'Sousa. I think I'll ride with you in your intellectually superior boat and not the little dinghy that Heels Noir paddles around in desperate little circles. LMAO.
whether the amendments passed or not wasn't the issue. The repubs wanted the opportunity to have amendments passed, and as I pointed out to you in a previous post...which of course you'll deny that I made...their claim was that that opportunity was not being afforded to them.
And there's no surprise that your sleazy ass will portray the holdup as being partisan politics with no regard to the welfare of veterans, for whom the same republicans helped draft the bill to begin with. Right. Just read the entire article. One of the amendments not passed, BTW, was to allow the affected vets to go immediately into community care. Those are some uncaring republicans, I guess.
there's no need to convolute anything, your words are there and I quoted them exactly. And as I honestly acknowledged, you said you did not condone late term abortions. But then you indicated that you wouldn't share a posters 'frenzy' unless there was an epidemic of them. Do I need to repost those words again?
And yeah I somehow resort to using logic when I guess you think emotion should rule. Why don't you explain what you were using when you misrepresented the woman's plight? Was it logic or was it emotion? It was nothing BUT emotion, and it served no purpose here other than to cloud the situation in order to allow you to rant about Christian or religion or whatever the F it is you are ranting about. I'm not religious by any stretch of the imagination but as I said in my last post some of us want the destruction of human life to be a more thoughtful undertaking and not an emotional one, and it matters not to the rational what the source of the motivation is for thinking that way.
So you go ahead and cry over a woman making a choice of her own free will. I won't.
this post needs some recognition, because you said a mouthful.
Once again, you assume you can make a balderdash comment like "Noir is lying" and I'll simply leave you alone. So if indeed you have "knowledge" of looser voting laws that encouraged ballot harvesting in the past, by all means, do tell! Can you provide specific examples like the one I made regarding NC's 9th district without completely fabricating it?
I don't care what you pointed out previously because as I stated before, you're full of shit. Republicans were invited last week to introduce their amendments for a vote and they refused, opting for the easier route of simply voting against the bill instead.
lol, I want you to leave me alone? Half of my entertainment here is playing on your deep insecurities and catching you stepping in your own crap and then disappearing while you lick your wounds of embarrassment. When I say Heels Noir is lying it's because lying and deflecting is what you do. That's all, but fantasize about slaying those dragons all you want to, Walter Mitty.
For example, In the post you are responding to, I clearly acknowledged that you presented a known instance of harvesting and that what I'm talking about was not revealed. You ignore it and say 'show me your example'....because that's what you do. I said your example shows that harvesting can and did take place. You simply ignore it, because that's what you do.
Common sense tells us that there is behind the scenes play that isn't made public or is made public in a version that suits one's own purposes. We already agreed that each side had their own version of why the vote was held up, and I said I wasn't going to believe the liar Chuck Schumer but that you were welcome to. Arguing without acknowledging those actions is a tail-chasing exercise and tail-chasing is what you do.
Now it's like that exchange didn't take place. You just repeat the same crap over and over as fact and ignore any rebuttal because that's what you do.
Sorry dude, your game is too obvious but keep plugging away. So will I.
58.8% said no in that ballot measure and it was just a primary. In a full election i'm guessing the number would be even higher.
if those temp stations are corrupt, and I have no problem believing that they might very well be, that's a problem but not necessarily THE problem. It isn't the pinpoint accuracy of a station that counts as much as the progressive increases that they show.
I'm way ahead of them on the smoking front. I quit many moons ago because plain common sense says that routinely inhaling extremely fine particles of smoke from the burning of a plant that has absorbed a host of chemicals from the air and the ground that the lungs were not evolved to handle, is a really bad idea. I actually believe that those chemicals and the ones they add in the factory are more responsible for things like lung cancer than the tobacco plant itself is, but that doesn't matter....you can't separate them. And that's not to mention that virtually every growing green thing in the world from pole to pole carries radioactive particles from years of aboveground nuclear weapons testing.
Don't smoke. But don't punish the tobacco industry for selling a product that consumers want. If they advertise in a misleading way, then nail them. I just wish they would take the same attitude with all other products.
Several years ago I received my new credit card, I didnt sign the back. After using it many months finally a cashier pointed out that the back was not signed. I asked why that mattered. She said to verify it was my card by making sure the signature on the back matched the name on the front.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone check the signature on back.Several years ago I received my new credit card, I didnt sign the back. After using it many months finally a cashier pointed out that the back was not signed. I asked why that mattered. She said to verify it was my card by making sure the signature on the back matched the name on the front.
This isn't "data", that's your problem. This disinformation is stinky poo. Why even contemplate or share this for review until you see it from a legit source.
Your frustration probably stems from you not being able to discern garbage from legit "data".
You rail on Heartland, the author, or whoever it was because they had/have a financial interest in the smoking pr wars and that automatically undercuts even the possibility that there may be something here to at least ask a question about. On the other hand, you don't acknowledge the huge amounts of money involved on the other side of the equation for climate pushers. I am simply pointing out that it's usually good policy to be skeptical of everything and consider the motivation of those involved, on both sides.
Forgive me if I don't exactly take our government agencies (and the studies they fund) as the gospel, be all, end all authority on everything that aligns with your political beliefs. They have lied to or misled all of us too many times before. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why 6 feet is the appropriate distance for me to distance from someone to not catch an airborne virus versus 5 feet, 8 feet, or 45 feet. So much as what passes for fact or science is best guess stuff and when it gets revised down the road, those that were so adamant and indignant about those stupid fools who dared to ask questions don't want to address their smear campaign.
I am not defending the report or it's "data", but doesn't it at least deserve to be asked or is it just another "move along, nothing to see here" moment that you can't dare ask a simple question? In the meantime, let me know when they find those WMD's.
And the possibility is going lower with the advent of all the self checkout stations. Guess I'll start checking my own signature against my card so it's all good.
Makes as much sense as signature verification in mail-in ballots.
I railed on the author PARTLY because of the smoking stuff and PARTLY because his exact same theory on climate stations has been espoused by the same fool previously and debunked (more than once).
I typed "Nothing wrong with skepticism, but this guy needs to peer-reviewed AGAIN before you take his work seriously."
you might as well be posting "data" that indicates the moon landing was faked from someone who has already been debunked on that matter as well as other matters. So i'd say no, but you do you.
Science is usually slow-moving, measured and self-correcting. Science actively seeks to disprove its own theories and hypotheses. That is how it is supposed to work.
There was no mass scientific agreement regarding the 6 feet thing, just like the cloth-mask thing. The CDC adopted that stuff, and media echo'd them, but that doesn't mean the majority of the scientific community did. Early, tons of universities and health orgs theorized that the virus was airborne and that ventilation or masking was more important than physical distance, and it took awhile for them to prove it.
In contrast the majority of the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees man-made climate change is happening at a nasty rate.
Not just any ol' known instance but one committed by REPUBLICANS. So if what you're talking about has not been revealed as you say, then your claim "I have knowledge of the loosening of voting requirements that lend to ballot harvesting" is nothing more than bullshit.
Damn, blue, that is a mouthful when all you really had to say was, "I no longer smoke." Nobody cares about the fine particles now coursing inside your popcorn lungs. Quit trying to write Russian war novels with every post. You're like Tolstoy minus the talent.
Last edited:
grifting pays well.
Sandy Hook parents' lawyer is revealing that Alex Jones' lawyers sent him the contents of Jones' phone BY MISTAKE. "12 days ago, your attorneys messed up and sent me a digital copy of every text" Jones has sent for years. "You know what perjury is?" the lawyer asks.
Sandy Hook parents' lawyer is revealing that Alex Jones' lawyers sent him the contents of Jones' phone BY MISTAKE. "12 days ago, your attorneys messed up and sent me a digital copy of every text" Jones has sent for years. "You know what perjury is?" the lawyer asks.
Similar threads
