leh-nerd skin-erd

Solution: Maybe the abortion clinics should be built next door to the Student Loan Forgiveness Soup Kitchen?

I get that, Mup, but the issue is already considered from both the male/female perspective. Respectfully, you're not raising an issue any guy with common sense hasn't considered prior to engaging in the tango (and you must have had some interesting days at the dance studio ). Put another way, the argument that an unplanned or unwanted and significant, life-altering potential isn't something that take most men by surprise. I really struggle on this issue. All I'm really trying to do as a voter and citizen is to be true to what I feel is right. I know for me, I'm pro-choice up to the point I become pro-life.

You're riled up early today, Miss Muppyet. I disagree with you conceptually about the court having the 'audacity' to rule on Roe v Wade. It's no secret this has been a contentious issue and the question about whether or not the original ruling was appropriate has been around for 50 years. Our kind and benevolent representatives have had 50 years to clean that up. Why haven't they? As for financial responsibility of a testicular vessel for a subsequently conceived and birthed person, I am unaware of any regulation suggesting 'It's not your financial problem, Chief, but nice pull.". I think most rules and regulations suggest quite the opposite. In response to your question---I'm going to say this right now, Mup. I am completely against testicular profiling or any 'stop, pop and frisk'. I'd say "Out of my cold dead hands", but chances are it's going to end up that way regardless.

What’s a “hardliner”, Andy? It’s a descriptive word, of course, but in the abortion discussion can have multiple meetings.

It’s Biden-esque, I’ll grant you that. Still, with the new legislation recently enacted, convincing birth people to put off delivery until the 21st year seems unreasonable even if for the grater good.

There are many, many posts I don’t comment on. Some I don’t see. Some I don’t want to get involved. Some aggravate me. Some I just don’t care. Some I ignore. When you opine on every post, every time, come back and let me know. Spoiler alert, my response will be the same as above. Where did I say you were wrong? Assuming you’re referring to the 🙄 , that was about your overly dramatic post about selfish behavior, bravery, and sitting in judgement of others. I think if we were to look at the big picture, we see a mishmash of inconsistency from leaders, employers, individuals and those judgey judgers of which you speak. People are people, and do things for reasons that make sense to them. I agree with you about corporate autonomy and at-will employment. It’s all I’ve ever known career-wise.

🙄 What kind of Mickey Mouse question is that, Frenkle?

Disney has been accused of systemically underpaying employees, underpaying and undervaluing it’s female employees, and dodging property tax that would help the communities it serves. https://www.sfgate.com/disneyland/article/25-000-Disneyland-employees-are-suing-Disney-for-16355821.php https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/03/disney-company-women-pay-gap-lawsuit https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-disneys-luxembourg-tax-strategy-go-too-far/ I suppose one way to take the liberal heat off is selectively partner on watershed issues like this one. The math likely works in their favor in a big way.

I don’t set the rules on who/who doesn’t get booted, of course, but I’m not always sure what standards are followed. As for DR, I enjoyed many of his posts, he was correct on issues w/r to Trussia long before it was decided. I enjoyed communicating with him, and personally don’t think the board is improved or somehow better without him here. Be that as it may, there’s a difference between remembering and fixating on who(m) is actually DR incognito on an endless rant of crazy, and constantly rambling about the other places he may now be posting. But, I get it. Some people like to look at the old high school yearbook and remember when, or retire and then come back daily to hang around the water cooler.

I’m going to jump in here, Goat. There are a couple posters on the opposite side of the spectrum that seemed completely fixated on the long departed poster Deranged Rhino. You could not go more than a day or two without a reference, or accusation that someone was the reincarnation of that poster. It bordered on creepy, and when I say bordered, I actually mean it was well past creepy. Obsession is probably the best word. In response, @DRsGhost responded with a screen name change. That caused some initial chaos as the afore-mentioned posters struggled to figure it all out. I thought it was actually pretty well played, on par with the poster who used to pretend to agree with a conservative point, then typed “Hoax”. For whatever reason, it was as funny to me the 700th time he used it as when he did it the first time. Hoax. (But it was funny).

Sounds outrageous and deserving of mockery. https://nypost.com/2018/08/19/brennan-doubles-down-on-trump-treason-comment/ Here’s an outrageous claim by the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency that seems substantially more dangerous and accepted as a mainstream concept. It was conspiracy peddling at its worst. It seems the hubbub over a marginalized congressional candidate distracts from larger, systemic issues in our government. What say you about John Brennan’s x comments?

Tim, I don’t get this logic. The FBI has had informants or embedded agents forever. I don’t always understand why a guy like Whitey Bulger is allowed to exist as an informant, and it seems fairly obvious that decisions by law enforcement lead directly to the victimization and death of innocent people, but it’s hardly a novel concept. Right. So why didn’t you?

Why? Why not just condemn the behavior?

It find it incredibly insightful when a person with no hope of ever achieving something of this magnitude shares his thoughts on how he’d completely *&$# it up if he did. It’s a window into the human condition, Deek. Btw if owned a couple Dunkin Donuts franchises in any state, I’d immediately get rid of the blueberry munchkins. I don’t like them.

If I owned an Auntie Anne’s pretzel kiosk, I’d be fat af regardless of where it was. I love those things.

Me too, Mup. I'm moderate in many ways as well, get along with people quite nicely and really view the voting process as "Who is the candidate that will hurt me least?". As for abortion, it always struck me that somewhere between conception and birth just about every sensible person became pro-life. Again, I was wrong. A woman's right to choose is a fair concept, but I'm not uncomfortable attaching my vote to a woman's right to choose at 40 weeks is reasonable across the board. Somewhere between conception and 3...maybe 4 months seems reasonable to me, but hey, I'm just an old guy with grown children. I think the government already tells you some things you can and cannot do with your body, Mup. Drugs, suicide, alcohol and smokes, come to mind. I also think the government is a real crackerjack with the close cousin of "My body my rules" and that's telling people what they must do with the fruits of their labor, or the moral obligation one has to another in certain situations. I don't argue with people on this issue, Mup, it's a waste of time and issues can be misconstrued. I'll go back to the basics and suggest that if the ruling was problematic to begin with, why not just be honest about that and deal with the outcome? I'll tell you why---conflict drives votes.

No, as I said before, I never envisioned R v W being overturned nor the horror of late term abortions as mainstream talking point. I'm a babe in the woods here, though I'm like 420 years old in dog years. Your governor is a super hero is search of a story line. He doesn't have to fight to his next breath, let alone his last. We need less drama queens in public office seeking to divide.

Fascism usually starts with the invoking of a folk myth ("illegitimate" "coup!" "treason!" "i have proof"--check) as a justification for righteous rioting and looting and, ultimately, the use of force. As a political ethos it requires a demonized enemy of the state ("deplorable", "irredeemable", "nazis", "fascists" and every now and again "subhuman cretins"), and is characterized by the propagation of the notion of perpetual victim status (Dems -check!) and a militarized state which relies on fear and armed, often masked groups of anarchists demanding submission and capitulation. Seems like it's already here.

Why would he have to fight with his last breath, Mup? Is Cali in danger of turning red?

Is there a separate meeting place for the "Done out of Bounds" Justice(s)? Do they work out of the local DC IhoP? An Olive Garden? Watching this nudnik try to frame these justices as illegitimate without saying it is painful. On a related note, how badly did RBG's actions impact the court from a liberal perspective? She was an amazing woman to be sure, but hubris was her downfall it would seem. Or, maybe she was a purist who just decided what will be, will be?

Maybe, though if they identify otherwise it’s a push at best.

They were calling her Libs Cheney just last week. Now this.

Sure, I agree. My biggest issue with gun law(s) is that the one consistent problem is that there seems to be an inability to manage what we have currently on the books. The Tops shooter, for example, apparently should have been addressed with the law already on the books and was not. Throwing laws and regulation on the books for the purpose of throwing regulation on the books seems an awful lot like a trip to a massage parlor without the happy ending. It still feel awww'ite but something is missing. By the way--a prediction: as the anarchists set about terrorizing citizens across the country, in their homes, church, in public etc, the 2nd A and conceal carry laws look pretty damn reasonable to me.

I'm not a defender per se, but want to jump in here. First, I acknowledge there was a time I never saw this day coming. Abortion is such a minefield of emotion, money, power, sexual identity and politics I just never thought I would see the day that Roe v Wade was overturned. To take that one step further, I used to think that the concept of a full-term child being aborted was reserved for a few select crazies in the world, and I was wrong on that, too. What a fascinating world we live in where a woman isn't necessarily a woman, a man could be, and the choices offered are supposedly reduced to "kill at will" and "Nope, not never". My initial response to your question is this: It seems, as has been discussed many times by conservatives and liberals alike, that Roe v Wade was improperly decided and thus was bad law. If so, it seems to me that politicians of every stripe should be preaching, in unison, to constituents that it was bad law and that the ability to correct it rests directly with both leaders in Congress and constituents who vote. Put another way, simply because the law was overturned does not mean that our nation's today has to represent our tomorrow. The reality is that this issue is used as a hammer to divide people. It's not as if yesterday, last week, last month or last year it was not a divisive issue. It's been so for as long as I can recall, and folks--men and women---vote what's important to them. This theory that the suburbs are lost seems a but premature imo. I'm also reminded that as much as I dislike it, as a citizen I'm bound to honor and live under the leadership of Biden and the democrats at this point. The people voted, the results tallied, the arguments raged, but in the end, here we are. Suddenly though, some would have us believe that the laws and rules put in place by elected state leaders have no relevance or simply aren't good enough. Those people tend to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum than those holding power. In the end, while it's good or not, if it was bad law, the opportunity to fix it is now. It has long been screamed from the highest rooftops that the vast majority of Americans support abortion as an option to terminate a pregnancy. I guess my response now is...let's see what happens next.

Well, no, not completely serious, Kay. I thought the whimsical "I'm no brainiac..." set the table quite nicely for that which followed. It was most definitely not a deep dive into climate pre/post 1988, the somewhat contradictory history of climate science, scientific consensus, climate bullying, climate shaming, climate submission or anything much beyond what I wrote. Clean air rocks, I think. On the other hand, we can spend some time here. All I can offer is what I can offer though, so consider yourself forewarned. I'm no brainiac, after all. I reject your request, and to be clear--I reject it completely and unequivocally. I won't promise to look into it. I won't suggest that while now isn't a good time, perhaps I'll get around to it later. I won't pretend to listen, pretend to consider, nod in agreement, drop in a well-placed "Huh, I had't thought of that..." all while zoning out on this admittedly important subject while actually contemplating whether or not Josh Allen and the fellas can deliver a SB to our fair city this year, and if he did, what outfit I would wear to the Super Bowl celebration that followed. Now that you've leaned into me a bit, I swear by all that is good and holy I'll be wearing a leather jacket with real muskrat fur lining, a shirt made by union busters who broke a picket line in Detroit, pants made from endangered seals, and I'll be munching on a veal parmigiana sub and will likely discard most of it after a few bites just because I can. Promise to look for me, bring @muppy along and I'll buy you ladies a Vizzy (I am in no way implying you want/need a Vizzy from me, or are unable to purchase said Vizzy on your own accord, or that I think that I know what you should drink because of some longstanding cultural patriarchy and my admittedly stuck-in-my-ways-way. Sometimes, an offer to Vizzy is just an offer to Vizzy.). In addition, I am generally averse to bending the knee to anyone in this regard. I don't want to, and to use an overused analogy, I don't work for you. If I did, rest assured I'd be filing a complaint with HR post facto, alleging hostile work place, cyberbullying, age discrimination and objectification of self. I'm not a present to be opened at your liberal office holiday party, Kay. On a scale of 1-100, 1 being there are no problems whatsoever, and 100 being Kitchener, Ontario completely underwater in 2028, I'm probably at a 60. Part of the challenge for me can be found in your response to @T master and his link to Prager U. You know like 6000 words, and string them together nicely, but basically your response boils down to "Don't trust him, trust me. I am The One.". What I can tell you is I don't trust without considering agenda and/or the modeling of behavior by those preaching loudest. The truth is, I don't see much, if any, clean lifestyle modeling from those in leadership telling me the shyte is 'bout to hit the fan. I hear lots of talk about the end of the world, Kay, and how more money is needed to fight the good fight...but then I hear things like carbon offset tax schemes, which to me ---and I'm no brainiac, Kay, we know this---is not really about not polluting the planet. I'm told Bill Gates has a state of the art home made exclusively of regenerationable materials, but then I read it's 60,000 sf and wonder--"No gender-neutral indigenous Snapping Turtles were displaced when he sprung for the extra 40,000 sf for some elbow room?". I hear Barrack Obama talking about a legit world crisis tipping point, then read he spends time on a yacht in the South of France discussing climate with such notable scientologists as Bruce Springsteen and Oprah. The Davos bangfest. Honestly Kay, I might move to a 70 on the climate scale if one of these m&*^%#$-f7^%$s suggested a Zoom conference every now and again. Then I read about 'climate justice', the toothless tiger of the Kyoto Accord, inherent flaws in the modeling for the future, and I'm skeptical, Kay. Not about the planet warming, not about the ebbs and flows of climate, just the whole how we solve it/what we must do side of things. As for my commentary about climate religion, what I can tell you is that I listen to the messaging and it has a religious fervor to it. 3 years to save the planet. 5 years to save the planet. We're killing the planet. The planet is dying. Climate justice. It sounds spiritual to me. Oh, that I live in an area created during the Wisconsin Glaciation Episode 17,000-11,000 years ago factors into the way I look at the climate and the world, too. You never told me if you thought plants/veggies suffer in some way when harvested for consumption. I do wonder, don't you? You raise a fair point, but appear to be suggesting I hold views that I do not. I did not suggest, for example, that climate tax schemes are the only redistributive model in the country today. There are many examples of that sort of thing---income tax, capital gains tax, social security, medicaid, school/property tax, estate/inheritance tax. You pointed out two in your example, let me Delete Kay this up for you as you have---if you believe in the redistributive model associated with climate justice, does that mean you agree with every other scheme out there? For example, Kay, the Federal Reserve/Congress bailouts during the Great Recession (circa late 2008-early 2009) and COVID Era (circa March-April 2020)? Was that redistribution righteous? As for my perspective on 2008-09, I think mistakes were made with those bailouts and TARP in general. While every situation was unique, government handouts to companies that failed to watch their bottom line should not have occurred. I wasn't enamored with the Obama bailout of GM, for example, though people I know and love benefited from it. I thought TARP as it applies to a company like AIG was a mistake as well. In fact, when I consider the core business of a company like AIG---balancing risk/reward for a living---and the completely reckless investment philosophy that lead to its collapse, the organization should have been allowed to die on the vine as an example to others that might follow in the same path. COVID was a different animal altogether. When the government intervenes to shut down business operations on a timeline that continuously morphed in duration, under threat of law for non-compliance, the government has an obligation to intervene. Besides, the benefit extended beyond the employer and directly on to the worker. These are the simple thoughts of an admittedly simple man sitting in a town in Upstate NY. What we know is that government chose winners and losers, as it typically does. I'd bet if we share that Vizzy, we find some things we have in common, and on subjects like these, the only difference between you and I is we are ok with different models for different reasons. You keep ya damn vomiting emoji out ya damn mouth! Apologies for the vulgarity.