leh-nerd skin-erd

What happened in Arizona? Someone committed suicide and blamed President Trump???

Or, they recognize that the most complaint among us are the easiest to dupe, easiest to manipulate, least likely to question. To a person, every climate televangelist has his flock staring out the window of their home in central Michigan, waiting waiting waiting for the angry tides of Lake Ponchatrain to breach their front porch. I do tend to think that at times, those at the top of the ladder have an ulterior motive. We can debate the science, the speculative nature of the gloom/doom data, and that if the numbers are manipulated on the way in, the data is garbage on the way out. Be that as it may, I generally watch behavior first. It always seems to me that the people we trust with predictions of calamity should, at a minimum p, model the behavior necessary to pull us back from the edge. It seems to me that across the board, 100% of the time, those shouting loudest that we must change behave as if we do not. I really don’t understand why you and others accept things the way they are, when things are purported to be the way they are, and in anticipation of the way they will be. Plus, the carbon tax is basically the Ticketmaster of envirocauses, and I say pass.

It's China for Gods sake. I know in one of the posts on OTW where they are discussing "facts" it's been established that alternative suggestions to the official cause are not to be tolerated. Still, with the threat of bioterrorism, and the ability of these labs to "grow" all manner of nasty $#@!, seems not all that far of a stretch to me. What would bioterrorism look like, a lot of sick people and a discarded syringe with "made in China" on the side?

Let's begin to set the table for alternative voting procedures for the senators in quarantine..if millions of Americans can be forced to work from home, the public will be agreeable to this sort of thing.

I dont know the guy in the scrubs, could be Tibs in his Oompa's rec room for all I know, but it would be criminal malfeasance for those charged with keeping our country safe to not consider this scenario and explain the fondongs to the American people one way or the other.

That is brutal(ly funny).

I choose hope and optimism.

Putting aside the occult angle for just a moment, what the heck was that? Creepy music in the background, hanging onto the faucet handle like it’s Sean Penn’s $#@*, and I found myself wanting to throw myself out a window just to get that voice out of my head. And I wish I was more creative because I’d be adding delicate little bubbles with a couple chunky b’s coming to the surface while she spoke.

As I said, I understand that school of thought, I simply wanted to clarify Mnuchin’s comments. I’m handling it the same way I handle everything—I try to remain calm, recognize this is roughly the 57th time the world was ending in the last 100 years, recognize that I have a safety net if necessary, and whether it goes one way or the other, I just keep stepping forward and keep my wits about me. That’s pretty much my job.

If you think the economy is going to burn, that’s certainly a school of thought. However, Mnuchin has stated that his concern was that without governmental intervention and stimulus, the consequences could include 20% unemployment. His point was that this was not a time to jerk around. Clearly, the government is in the stimulus business at this time. He further clarified that in his opinion, Q2 and Q3 would difficult, with explosive growth in Q4 for obvious reasons. I was on a conference call with members of the advisory team at Blackrock, a not-inconsequential player in finance and their protection was very similar.

You didn't approach the question from a perspective of the choice of family v unborn child, you approached it boasting of your willingness to do the down and dirty work so long as you got paid. Were you bluffing then, or now?

Look, we're getting nowhere fast here Perry Mason. We've covered the same ground and you're hyper-fixated on something we already agreed on. I never asked if you would violate THE law, I never suggested that you have, I just asked a question. From there, you lost your composure and lobbed insults my way, which is fine, but it reveals a weakness in your character in my opinion. True, I already feel there is a weakness in your character given that you would boast about a willingness to end the life of a child at full term, but acknowledge you would be able to do so legally under the law.

I simply asked a question, and you lost your composure. There are people who believe that it's their role to end the life of a child born where the woman carrying that child wanted the child aborted. For all your bluster, DR's video of the gov of Virginia reveals exactly that. The story of Kermit Gosnell is another example. My only question to you, after you spoke about a willingness to perform late term abortions was if you fell into the Northam/Gosnell category or not.

Don't get yourself worked up in a lather over previous posts that may or may not deal with these issues. I agree with you that the NY Law allows for late term abortions at will, with doctor's approval. I understand that had your chosen field been medicine, you could have a nice little cottage industry thing going between the late term abortions and sale of the remains of the children you aborted.

Just another poser. It happens on these issues.

I was speaking from the perspective of the fetus. As for forced organ harvesting, again, the fetus and child aborted at 6, 7 8+ certainly is no less forced to relinquish their skull, liver, heart etc than anyone else in the world. I do agree that the abortion issue is not split down party lines. As expected. Those shouting the loudest generally crack the quickest.

Don't go getting all mushy on the issue, we both know it's a relevant topic for discussion. You may find it unsavory to discuss, but it's been part of the discourse and rightly so. As for scare tactics...what's with all the labels? Who exactly would be 'scared'? You've indicated that you've taken refuge in the crowd of the majority of Americans who believe in abortion/murder until the first breath of a child, who's left to be scared? The pro-life crowd? They hate it all, no need for propaganda or made up stories. I wonder about these things. I struggle with how someone like you could terminate the life of a child at that stage of the child's life, with total regard for how much money you would make, and no regard for the life of a baby where the only difference between abortion and murder is a cervix and a few minutes of pushing. It seems to me there is a certain class of citizen who simply needs the crowd to give it's approval, for the compensation to make it worth their while, and next thing you know the moral line in the sand gets pushed back to perhaps birth +24 hours.

@Crayola64 just following up on this question from yesterday. Any thoughts on this?

My point is that for people who are pro-life, propaganda is unnecessary. There is little doubt that the abortion industry is just that—an industry. Many people benefit from it, and the reality is that some would cringe in horror at the thought of the Chinese harvesting organs, while calling pro-life supporters lunatics for speaking out against organ harvesting.

I think people and institutions in the financial sector need to do a better job of telling citizens how important it is to plan for a rainy day by establishing a 3-6 mos rainy day fund, to live within their means and consider apportioning a minimum of 10% of their annual income to retirement/future needs. Nobody ever says that anywhere. Just the other day I saw an advertisement where Charles Schwab was suggesting that people fight the virus by upgrading to the Apple iPhone 16.5, much much easier to order the pizza from the car on this model. We’re barely a week in and people are being encouraged to raid their retirement savings during when the market is swinging wildly. Btw, on that note, since banks et al are required to suffer along the way, why wouldn’t the govt waive all or a portion of the penalty for early withdrawal?

Agreed. Toss is a few “unceremonious” dismissals, and the implication that only these relics of administrations past can save us all is pathetic. Wondering where all these stalwarts were when Brennan was spouting his “Trump guilty of treason”hate speech for 3 years. Surely, with their finger on the pulse of the world and ability to “connect the dots”, they misread the tea leaves quite badly. Time to go.

Where did 3rd differentiate, thus making it propaganda? I’m not sure what your point is here. If a medical professional makes a substantial amount of money annually, and part of his/her income comes from the sale of the body/organs of aborted children—why would ANY pro-life whacko need anything more to consider? It seems pretty clear: 1. Abortion performed. 2. Remains dissected and sold; 3. Some parts more valuable than other (per the Veritas tapes, which admittedly may be from a soundstage in Santa Barbara); 3. People/labs/corporations benefit financially, in many cases, no doubt handsomely. What am I missing?

You believe the sale of fetal remains is a hoax?

I’m not arguing with you, I’m sure you understand that qualifications and skill set have nothing to do with the question. I’ll stipulate that you would be trained and licensed by the government to terminate the life of a child in this hypothetical scenario if that speeds us along. No, it’s not shocking to me at all. A Friday night in front of the television watching Dateline reveals all sorts of stories dealing with one individual terminating the life of another. I’m not sure why you felt the need to include the “lots of people believe what I do” as if that bolsters the point. Obviously, the counterpoint is that historically lots of people believed lots of things that are perceived unfavorably today. For example, lots of people believed in the vision of the Third Reich, and many felt what was being done was both necessary and moral. We can go through history if you like and find plenty of stories where “lots of people believed it” and end up on the wrong side, no? I’m sure it was an oversight, but indulge me a bit further. You’ve acknowledged being willing to end the life of a child just before birth assuming you earned market rate with an “on demand” approach....but did not answer the question regarding terminating the life of the child once that child had been born. Would you be willing to proceed and end the life of that child, obviously assuming you were compensated accordingly? Assuming the answer is yes, would you place limits on the timing? An hour, two, 24?