leh-nerd skin-erd

Ah. It's Creepy Meme Monday. I forgot.

I wasn't trying to have you engage, I saw you posted up thread (or in the other thread on this issue) last night and was surprised. I had started off asking for more feedback from you about what "Pro Choice" meant in your world. I think we might agree on what that might look like, but then scrapped it because you are the self-proclaimed PPPipsqueak and I understand it's not your favorite place on the board. Sincerely, I was not trying to draw you in, I was just acknowledging the voice you bring to the discussion.

BillSy, you're a bigger Q-style conspiracist than any true believer could ever hope to be, but in essence you made my point. You've spun wildly all over the page from Roe V Wade to compulsory vasectomies to now birth control, marriage and whatever other tabloid stories you seem able to consume, and your appetite is ravenous. You're the poster child for "demonizing the other guy" political branding. Your latest post sounds to me like it was written by a crazy haired professor locked in the basement of a liberal think-tank somewhere in middle America. I will do what I always do in these situations. I acknowledge that there may well be a tsunami of backlash from liberals and left-leaning supporters to carry the day at the mid-terms. I have never--not once here, or in person---suggested, remarked or opined that 2022 is a done deal. I wouldn't do that. Too much landscape yet to cover, too many things can happen, and the fact is that people will vote over their own long term interests in exchange for cash in hand now (see College Debt, Evaporated as if by Magic!). Your post reveals the obvious truth: Negative branding works quite well.

First, I agree with you on the band name. 100% score. I fear, however, when naming a household pet "Moloch" you open the door to potential liability when/if that dog chomps on a passerby or the Amazon guy in one of those silly tiny-package vans mocked by UPS drivers everywhere. I won't argue polls and numbers. Booooorrrr-RING. When I dig into these numbers, or any numbers, I'm struck by how freaking difficult it is to find out where people stand on this issue. Lots of folks are 'pro-choice', obviously, though to what point? 3 months. 4 months. 6 months. 9 months? Whenevs? It seems to me that regardless of how this all plays out, someone in authority always has their fingers in the abortion pie. Someone is always limiting choice (again, except for those who support unconditional no questions asked abortion until birth). The real question seems to boil down to where choice begins, and where it ends. So, on moral imperatives. I may be on a different side of the political spectrum, but I think you're correct that where the outcome of the election is concerned, education and branding is critical. If you allow the opponent to establish the messaging, you lose. I'm not convinced that abortion will be the end game here some dems have suggested it is. I believe that while it's a hot button issue, before voters start worrying about someone else's problem, they worry about their own problems first. It makes sense to me, a simple enough fellow, that people who don't care about the outcome of a pregnancy one way or the other probably don't care much about the impact on the person who is pregnant so long as it's not them. So, my thought would be the Rs should focus on disinformation on Roe V Wade generally, elevate Pro-Life Women to deliver that message, and move on. From there, it's all about Branding the Brandon and all the bad $%$# going on with the Dem party today: Inflation; Crime; Gas Prices; Supply chain issues; Crazy green energy plans and the impact on people's lives; Ineptitude on Russia and the Afghanistan withdrawal; Das Truth Commission; Market volatility and consumer confidence; The ever-present specter of the stolen election; We'll see soon enough. Shout out to my friend @muppy for wading back into the PPP fray. Good to have some strong chick* voices in the house. (*yeah, I said chick voices. My body, my fingers attached thereto, my laptop, my font, my rules)*

I’m advocating for resolution through the system we live in. You’re advocating for carving out a process that is unreasonable, unlawful and removed voices from the discussion that you don’t want to hear. You’re a presumptuous fool. “Hide behind elected officials”?? Here’s the thing—what you want is never going to happen.

You said I am “imposing my beliefs on others”. I asked for an explanation, realizing you would likely tap out and change the focus. What a surprise…you did. New subject about “kidding myself”. No, BillSy, I’m not kidding myself at all. You’re on some fantasy world tangent and you make less sense with each post. People will break the law(s) set in place by our elected officials, and some will directly impact what a person does with their body. Drug laws. Prostitution laws. Soliciting prostitution laws. Abortion laws. These laws will have been put in place by elected officials that are men and women. When you get a second tell me what beliefs I am personally imposing on others as you suggested a few minutes ago.

You’re confusing apathy for dislike. We can agree to disagree but in the end, it’s your opinion, live your life. We live in a well designed yet imperfect system based on certain rules. You can petition to change those rules, or pretend that they don’t exist, that all women think and act in lockstep with you, or that anyone in this country has an absolute right to privacy and choice. Any way you slice it, men and women, working together as elected officials decide what rules govern the system. What beliefs have I imposed on others that have your taters in a pinch? We talked. You said blah. I said blech. You said blech. I said blah. Then you sent over a picture of your “Trump-Reimagined” poster.

Some folks like Billsy are so convinced that they have no right to an opinion that they’ll scream that opinion at the top of their lungs.

You’re approaching hysteria today. I’m not forcing anyone to do anything. I am actually encouraging you to continue on your on your journey of voluntary emasculation when it comes to this and any issue involving women. Feel free to start now. In your example, the reality is that vasectomies don’t guarantee a pregnancy won’t occur, and vasectomies can be reversed. I’m actually embarrassed to have to teach you things you should have learned long before this. If you’re going to ride a slow horse in a fast race, you’ll want to advocate for mandatory castration. Of course, being squeamish about having opinions, you’ll want the vote to limited to men only. Good luck to you sir. To reiterate, I support a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. I also support every person’s right to vote, even the scaredy-cats like you. On the federal level, write the law so the law sticks. On the state level, discuss, debate, and resolve based on the will of the people.

I have no idea, but it’s Friday Funday and you could be day drinking. I’ll go with… What is Topeka, Kansas. Final answer. I know, it’s crazy right? But in the world of abortion/reproductive rights, people lose their minds, don’t they? If you don’t like to dance, don’t go to a ho-down. You’re doubling down on dumb here, BillSy. I think you get all flustered when discussing areas of the anatomy typically covered by a bathing suit. Be that as it may, you are well within your rights to abdicate your right to an opinion and to sit quietly in the back while other, better people file in to cast their vote.

Well maybe once she figures it out, instead of the passive-aggressive argument that men shouldn’t have a say on anything women-specific, she should introduce a grass roots movement to segregate the vote to concerned parties only.

This is the silliest argument on this issue. Men and women collectively vote for the rules that govern all. In states with liberal abortion laws, the laws typically do not offer unrestricted abortion access from conception to birth, though obviously some advocate for that option. Some have advocated for termination up to and beyond birth as you well know. One of the common refrains of the Pro Choice community is about pregnancy that results from sexual assault and/or *****. If the issue is ultimately about complete autonomy and a woman’s right to choose, why saddle a patient with the need to disclose such a traumatic event to anyone? For many reasonable pro choice people, it’s freedom of choice…to a point. As far as I am concerned, I won’t take a place in the corner with you if you feel you don’t have a write to speak or vote. That just makes you of weak character, and I’m not interested in that. At the same time, I recognize that decisions that impact me personally—from my own health choices to the fruits of my labor—are determined in large part by the votes of all citizens, many of whom are women. That’s not bad always, or good always, it just is. Finally, I’m a pro-choice conservative who has simply acknowledged what we all know is true. Roe v Wade is problematic and creates chaos and tension each time it comes up. Of Roe V Wade wasn’t problematic—something that could have been fixed in the last 50 years—we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Suggesting that the issue simply remains status quo deprives women (specifically) a seat at the table when it comes to abortion. A women who is pro-life may well have something to offer and may well choose to share her voice in the ballot box. Tibs has an old school male attitude and he’s trapped in a new age body.

So says you, but you’re an 0fer.

It was my understanding he shot her because he feared his life was in danger, and the video I’ve seen makes me think he did. So, no, I think he was given the benefit of the doubt and should not be arrested. I think that approach should apply outside of the Capital police but sadly it does not. If you’ve seen indication he acknowledged he shot her because she climbed on a table, or broke a chair, then he should be prosecuted. I am concerned that the government has withheld hours of footage from that day, and believe the potential for a coverup is quite high. I’m also disappointed that elected officials in harms way seem to have very little tolerance for potential for violence against them, yet an inordinate amount of patience, tolerance when law abiding citizens and law enforcement officials are targeted outside Washington.

@Tiberius has declared that he will speak for all women, especially those confused on what they think.

Assaulting…the capital? Beyond the obvious “Huh??”… It seems extreme, the death part, if that’s really your take. On the other hand, some kids were vandalizing the local Friendly’s not long ago and shooting them would probably be an effective deterrent.

But that’s what you’re advocating, Tibs, “banning women” from “exercising” the right to vote. This is an extremely patriarchal point of view. I think you just see them as the wrong type of woman. There’s a trend here.

Good for her. She’ll be maligned, disliked and scorned by just about half the population just like her predecessors.

This was interesting. To summarize your point: In the 50 years since Roe was decided, Justice Alito is the only SC Justice, legal scholar, or law professor to ever view the law as problematic, and that's because he supports witch burning; All women should subjugate their right to vote on issues of your choosing, because women should have the right to choose as you see fit; Alito is the first and only SC justice to reference precedent from days long past. You wonder why we have issues as a country.

A couple things: Characterizing it as "Alito's argument" is disingenuous. The decision has been problematic since the beginning, and debated for 50 years. I'm not an expert on any of it, and I'm not sure how I even feel about all this, but this is well-established. Correct me if I'm wrong? The suffrage movement ended in 1920. The last woman not allowed the opportunity to vote has been dead for a long, long time. Multiple generations of women have voted since the landmark ruling and here we sit Roe V Wade still a problem, and the definitive SC ruling still up in the air. Congress can act, why would you be against that? Last but not least, it's incredibly ironic that you reference a time when women "were not considered or treated as citizens..." while advocating for denying individual the right to cast their vote on this very controversial issue. In spite of the progress of the last 102 years, you're still looking at women as a collective block of voters versus tens of millions of---wait for it---"citizens"--expressing their opinions through the voting booth.

I wasn't familiar with that word, thanks. I like it. I agree with you to a point. However, we do need a thoughtful, reflective and intellectual group engaged in discourse and doing the right thing based on our laws. This can be painful at times, controversial at others. From what I can see, the foundation of Roe V Wade was crumbling from the beginning. That doesn't seem to be limited to conservative viewpoints, it seems to be a commonly agreed upon premise. It also seems to me that Congress could take up this issue and push forward with a law that addresses it in the manner you believe it should be addressed. Given the commonly held principle that 146% of Americans agree with abortion as a right, it should be wildly popular and pass with ease. Instead, we have major political leaders trashing the institution of the SC, and the targeting individual justices that are doing the hard work trying to make sense of all this stuff, unpopular though it may be. Ruth Bader Ginsburg must be rolling over in her tiny little grave.

The problem is that everyone should agree with everything always, and once something is, it should never change, except of course when it does! We wouldn’t need the SC to begin with. Thanks a lot, Framers of the Constitution!!!

I don't know about all that Westy. There are political differences among reasonable people, and I really believe we're all hypocrites at some point. I catch myself sometimes. It's not that I think Tibsy hates the country or is traitorous--that's the sort of stuff lobbed our way when even suggesting that The Whole Russia Thing didn't make much sense from the start. It's similar to the positioning that criticizing Obama was akin to racism, that criticizing Harris is anti-woman, or that pointing out Joe Biden is breaking apart before our very eyes---ah, check that one, everyone knows that. Back in the day--Rush Limbaugh suggested he wanted Obama and his policies to fail, and there were a whole bunch of leftys up in arms. We don't see that so much any more because the reality is, the opposite side seems to always cheer for failures of the incumbent. It's always been the way. The assault on all things Trump is a prime example of the attempt to destroy both agenda and politician. It can only get worse from here. I do, however, think his stance on the Obama/Biden/CIA withholding or critical facts and intelligence is pretty bad. It's the ultimate "ends justify the means" similar to L Ron's version of believing in free, but sanctioned and authorized speech as viewed by people known as "they" or "them". I think you can support Obama and Biden and still say "Yeah, once they knew Clinton's fingerprints were all over that dossier, that should have been made public for the greater good. That was sh&tty.".

No, it's you Tibs. You and yours. You're off spouting about Trump, Putin and Russia, completely comfortable with the Obama/Biden approach to managing the "mass murdering war criminal". The facts are pretty clear: Obama stated, and indeed by action was, very, very 'flexible' with Putin and the Russians; The Russian disinformation campaign happened on the Obama/Biden watch, and when viewed in the context of handwringing over involvement in the election, represented an almost unimaginable dereliction of duty; Obama's impotent stand against Russia started roughly the time Hillary Clinton was losing support in the race for the presidency. It boiled down ultimately to tossing a few diplomats out jusssssssst before he vacated the oval office; The actions of Putin and the Russians on Biden's watch are consistent with the actions of Putin and Russia on Obama's watch. That is to say, they invade countries and take them over. They recognize weakness in the leadership of a Biden or Obama at worst, or they leverage the Administration's approach to "flexibility" with a wink, nod, and tacit approval of their activity at worst. I don't know if you, personally, are just incredibly gullible or a hopeful participant in a much larger game. I generally go with gullible, but when you're actively cheering disinformation during the darkest Red Scare in our history since Joseph McCarthy, it makes me wonder.

Thanks for acknowledging that point. It was pretty obvious you felt this way, I couldn't understand why you didn't just come out and say it. You're part of the problem, Tibs. You're completely comfortable with facts being withheld, information manipulated, and allegations being made that are destructive to the ideal of national unity. The only rule you seem to apply is that the misinformation campaign has to align with your ideals. In that regard, you're like most on the political extremes.