leh-nerd skin-erd

Gotcha. I was under the impression that when counting abortions, your theory was 3 or 4 is ok, but by 5 or 6, you gotta pick up the tab yourself. I am just trying to keep it real. You seem like you're waffling, this whole not being on one side or the other. You're on a side---the side that favors the government establishing rules about access to abortion, when that option should be available, and when that option transitions from a person's right to choose to a child's right to be born. Yes! John supports reasonable restrictions--restrictions on onerous government regulations, restrictions on the time frame when a person can have an abortion. This is easy when people stop dancing around the truth.

Ah, the tried and trued "Sure, everybody does it but this is double-bad". I'll give you a different perspective--his wife is one of the most polarizing figures in the nation, involved in politics at the highest levels of our government, and people speculate. The fact pattern that a vagabond would be able to break into the home of a person wealthy enough to afford a monthly subscription to ADP, engage the owner and have all this play out the way it did added fuel to the speculative fire. People love to see powerful people fall, love to speculate and love a good whodunnit. There's nothing remotely new here. It would be odd if people didn't speculate.

Initially, I offered "lack of focus" to be kind during this season of goodwill. Now that you've doubled-down on the subject, I have to say, respectfully of course, that you may be dumb as a pumpkin.

John, you were talking about multiple abortions like it represents a "Buy 10 Pizzas, Get One Free" card. That's troubling and has nothing at all to do with my perspective on women's rights. I agree with you that abortion needs to be an option for people to pursue. It certainly should be an option for people victimized as you've laid out. Yes, there are people who believe life begins at conception and abortion is always wrong. There are people who believe abortion to the point of delivery should be an option. My point is always the same--for people not on the extreme, there are millions of people debating where the right to abort ends, and the law steps in. There are millions debating what funding should look like, who should pay for what and how. I'll say offer one last thought, whether intended or not, your statement "To someone that doesn’t believe in women’s rights, it would be troubling" reflects the arrogance and dismissiveness of the stereotypical modern liberal.

That might be your question, but it would reveal a significant lack of focus on your part. I asked you for your thoughts, Tibs, on what had you so riled up. I wasn’t arguing, debating, or suggesting you were wrong. I just asked you, and you’re the only place on the www to get the answer. Out of respect for our friendship and in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I’ll skip past the fact that we were discussing a guy named Floyd and you linky-dinked to multiple stories about Donald Trump. Congrats though on finding the material quickly though, we can call you 10 Second Tibsy moving forward?

No, I have no idea what the indictment was all about. I was referring to the link you sent where it suggests the defendant was intimidating witnesses via social media sites like X (formerly known as Twitter). I was wondering what he said. This is interesting to me as an observer, because it seems at times the prosecution in some of these cases wants to silence defendants under the guise of protecting the process. It’s entirely possible that the defendants tweets in this case crossed those lines, but it seems at times the lines are blurry when (or if) you consider free speech standards. There are times where intimidation is a real problem, I was simply asking what you saw as so egregious as to include it in your link.

Why would you be shocked? Speculating, discussing, jumping to conclusions is pretty much a human beings thing. I’m actually surprised you’re surprised. Where’s your farm? I thought you were a big city lawyer.

Ah, you believe in the right to choose, but with sensible restrictions based on your moral or societal standards. I don’t know what this means, but it’s sounds troubling.

I get the knee jerk response, this is still fresh in the collective mindset of the country. Your call for expulsion in 2057 probably isn’t far off, 30+ years out. That follows the path of another guy with obvious mental issues, John Hinckley. He goes on a shooting rampage, seriously injured James Brady, Thomas Delhanty, Timothy McCarthy and of course RR. On the other hand, it seems the govt was willing to accept a plea of insanity then, but no such deal here. As for a return to Canada, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume anything with respect to the 2nd A. I decided to take my wife on a romantritic (romantic and patriotic) whirlwind to Montreal one July, and planned champagne and fireworks on Independence Day. Turns out it was all a big fat goose egg.

What's interesting to me is that while this guy is absolutely off his rocker, it looks like the push here is life in prison. Is there a path to redemption for him out there? Will he get the help he needs to realize the error in his ways? He's 43 years old and certainly sounds apologetic--is life in a prison over the next 40 years the answer?

"Tin horn dictator" 😂. Are you watching Bonanza reruns again?

I don't know anything about that, Irish. I'm thinking purely on an emotional level. I had the same thoughts regarding COVID lockdowns, when people in leadership positions decreed that people infected with COVID would be barred from visits/comfort from family and loved ones, left to die alone. My young son was choking many years ago, and the emotions were running very high as the ***** 911 team dispatched the ambulance to the wrong address. Thankfully, we cleared it, but I have to tell you---in a scenario where with someone lying in my way, and it's us v them, I have to think I vote us.

What did he say that has you wanting him to be locked up for a long time?

There's this part of me that wonders what happens when you're on your way to see a sick child or parent, facing the end of life, or someone you love needs emergency medical care. Is it any more morally repugnant to push forward with horn blasting--obviously hoping and praying the moron on the road moves, than to block someone needing care, or rushing to be a with a loved one?

Holy cow John, you're an abortion purist? Abortion to just prior to delivery, no questions asked?

What a crazy world---a 76 year old would infuse some young blood into the party of Joe Biden (who it's been said went to school with and beat George S Patton in a fistfight over a gal--I'm serious!) and the old Soviet Bernie Sanders himself. It would be good to have a leftish moderate in the race. WV in da house!

That article was painful to read. The guy is alternately aggressive, thoughtful, combative, self-reflective, angry, proud with enough self-loathing mixed in to be dangerous. Of course, in the byline and bio, it does mention he overcame a crystal meth addiction and you have to wonder what he was like before he was an addict.

Everybody's talkin' at me I don't hear a word they're sayin' Only the echoes of my mind People stoppin', starin' I can't see their faces Only the shadows of their eyes

BIDEN: "It is my hope and expectation that there will be less intrusive action relative to the hospital". I think he’s on to something, relative to the hospital. Relative to a Planet Fitness, Old Navy or public swimming pool, no, that would be crazy talk. You go full intrusive there.

Great, another fish n’ chips loving boozer with a fiery temper who wants to rule the world.

Nor, albino.

I really have come to detest the smarmy late night tv host shtick and their hot takes.

I have to admit you got range on this one, Fergie. From liberal fishing buddy to medical terminology to magisterium and all the way back to @B-Man and his performance in ethics/morality as a freshman in 19hundred-ought six-two. I don’t have anything to offer. As a youngster raised in/around the church, I’ve not quite figured out how to reconcile conflicting emotions over scandals and the like.

How close are they to the action, these civil society groups? How many of their people are hostages, or were slaughtered? Feel free to round up as needed.

You stop that, ya hooligan.