I’m sure it is. None of y’all ladies would ever be inclined to be assertive or rude or obnoxious or anything like that.
We just don’t seem to have the little pea-pickn hearts that y’all seem to be blessed with.
I’m sure it is. None of y’all ladies would ever be inclined to be assertive or rude or obnoxious or anything like that.
Well, Teddy Jack Eddy. Did I hurt y'all's feelings?wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:53 pmI’m sure it is. None of y’all ladies would ever be inclined to be assertive or rude or obnoxious or anything like that.
We just don’t seem to have the little pea-pickn hearts that y’all seem to be blessed with.
Point of order! Point of order!Beebs52 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:20 pmWell, Teddy Jack Eddy. Did I hurt y'all's feelings?wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:53 pmI’m sure it is. None of y’all ladies would ever be inclined to be assertive or rude or obnoxious or anything like that.
We just don’t seem to have the little pea-pickn hearts that y’all seem to be blessed with.
Thank-you for the thought-driven response. I asked the question in good faith and you answered in kind. I appreciate that. I wish we could have more of that around here.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 2:52 pmI don't. I think it's another bad idea. One side imposing their will over everyone when they have the power to do so. It will only last until they lose their majority, then the other side will impose their will. In our formative days as a nation, we got our most enlightened leaders together to hash out agreements to difficult questions. That is how our Constitution came into being.One thing you said here intrigues me. When Roe was over turned, there was discussion that it was returning the question of abortion to the states where it belongs. I don't know if that was your personal position, but there many on the right saying that. Now, however, many on the right (including the new Speaker of the House) are advocating for a nation wide ban on abortion, or at least severely restricting it on a nation-wide basis. How do you reconcile the state authority argument with this?
My solution, which I know has zero chance of ever happening, is to do the same thing with this question. Put together a select group of people acceptable to all sides of the issue and have them come up with a solution, if possible. Another thing I don't know is: If a compromise is found, will this fit into a Constitutional amendment so it can't easily be undone by the next regime? It is supposed to be done in our Congress, but we keep electing a lot of unreasonable and irrational people with their own agendas to represent us, and this endless fighting, backbiting, corruption and finger-pointing is the result. Kind of like this bored. But those are the only kind of people who run. Reasonable and rational people are not attracted to the Washington circus.
You're welcome. I will try another 'weird' thing. I will post my comments when I have something to say, but I will only respond when the post is civil. I will leave the trolls dangling and exposed, however hard that will be for me.kroxquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 5:58 amThank-you for the thought-driven response. I asked the question in good faith and you answered in kind. I appreciate that. I wish we could have more of that around here.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 2:52 pmI don't. I think it's another bad idea. One side imposing their will over everyone when they have the power to do so. It will only last until they lose their majority, then the other side will impose their will. In our formative days as a nation, we got our most enlightened leaders together to hash out agreements to difficult questions. That is how our Constitution came into being.One thing you said here intrigues me. When Roe was over turned, there was discussion that it was returning the question of abortion to the states where it belongs. I don't know if that was your personal position, but there many on the right saying that. Now, however, many on the right (including the new Speaker of the House) are advocating for a nation wide ban on abortion, or at least severely restricting it on a nation-wide basis. How do you reconcile the state authority argument with this?
My solution, which I know has zero chance of ever happening, is to do the same thing with this question. Put together a select group of people acceptable to all sides of the issue and have them come up with a solution, if possible. Another thing I don't know is: If a compromise is found, will this fit into a Constitutional amendment so it can't easily be undone by the next regime? It is supposed to be done in our Congress, but we keep electing a lot of unreasonable and irrational people with their own agendas to represent us, and this endless fighting, backbiting, corruption and finger-pointing is the result. Kind of like this bored. But those are the only kind of people who run. Reasonable and rational people are not attracted to the Washington circus.
Didn’t you also promise to leave at one point, when it was proven that there was no evidence that the election was stolen?flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:59 amYou're welcome. I will try another 'weird' thing. I will post my comments when I have something to say, but I will only respond when the post is civil. I will leave the trolls dangling and exposed, however hard that will be for me.kroxquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 5:58 amThank-you for the thought-driven response. I asked the question in good faith and you answered in kind. I appreciate that. I wish we could have more of that around here.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 2:52 pm
I don't. I think it's another bad idea. One side imposing their will over everyone when they have the power to do so. It will only last until they lose their majority, then the other side will impose their will. In our formative days as a nation, we got our most enlightened leaders together to hash out agreements to difficult questions. That is how our Constitution came into being.
My solution, which I know has zero chance of ever happening, is to do the same thing with this question. Put together a select group of people acceptable to all sides of the issue and have them come up with a solution, if possible. Another thing I don't know is: If a compromise is found, will this fit into a Constitutional amendment so it can't easily be undone by the next regime? It is supposed to be done in our Congress, but we keep electing a lot of unreasonable and irrational people with their own agendas to represent us, and this endless fighting, backbiting, corruption and finger-pointing is the result. Kind of like this bored. But those are the only kind of people who run. Reasonable and rational people are not attracted to the Washington circus.
No, that actually gives you an excuse to feel good about supposedly being civilized and avoid answering a question to which you have no legitimate response, all at the same time. I'm still waiting on you to supply me with a few of those "very fine people" at Charlottesville that neither you, Trump, nor Dennis Prager have ever done. I suppose I'll continue waiting because I'm a dangling and exposed troll.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:59 amI will post my comments when I have something to say, but I will only respond when the post is civil. I will leave the trolls dangling and exposed, however hard that will be for me.
Um, when was that PROVEN, exactly? If it was, show me the proof.Weyoun wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 5:21 pmDidn’t you also promise to leave at one point, when it was proven that there was no evidence that the election was stolen?flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:59 amYou're welcome. I will try another 'weird' thing. I will post my comments when I have something to say, but I will only respond when the post is civil. I will leave the trolls dangling and exposed, however hard that will be for me.
Sixty court cases should be proof of that.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:06 pmUm, when was that PROVEN, exactly? If it was, show me the proof.
I have personally verified some of the evidence those courts have not bothered to look at.silverscreenselect wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:58 pmSixty court cases should be proof of that.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:06 pmUm, when was that PROVEN, exactly? If it was, show me the proof.
Well, either the plaintiffs in those 60 cases were represented by the most inept group of attorneys in the world, or there's something wrong with your personal verification. I assume your statement means you've reviewed all 60 of these cases to determine what evidence the courts did and did not look at.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:00 pmI have personally verified some of the evidence those courts have not bothered to look at.silverscreenselect wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:58 pmSixty court cases should be proof of that.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:06 pmUm, when was that PROVEN, exactly? If it was, show me the proof.
As usual, all your assumptions are wrong. Try again.silverscreenselect wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:18 pmWell, either the plaintiffs in those 60 cases were represented by the most inept group of attorneys in the world, or there's something wrong with your personal verification. I assume your statement means you've reviewed all 60 of these cases to determine what evidence the courts did and did not look at.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:00 pmI have personally verified some of the evidence those courts have not bothered to look at.
You'll get no argument from me on that point.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 12:31 amAs usual, all your assumptions are wrong. Try again.silverscreenselect wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:18 pmI assume your statement means you've reviewed all 60 of these cases to determine what evidence the courts did and did not look at.
So, if you were in the Congress, and a bill were to be introduced to prohibit abortions, would you vote for it or against it?kroxquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 5:58 amThank-you for the thought-driven response. I asked the question in good faith and you answered in kind. I appreciate that. I wish we could have more of that around here.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 2:52 pmI don't. I think it's another bad idea. One side imposing their will over everyone when they have the power to do so. It will only last until they lose their majority, then the other side will impose their will. In our formative days as a nation, we got our most enlightened leaders together to hash out agreements to difficult questions. That is how our Constitution came into being.One thing you said here intrigues me. When Roe was over turned, there was discussion that it was returning the question of abortion to the states where it belongs. I don't know if that was your personal position, but there many on the right saying that. Now, however, many on the right (including the new Speaker of the House) are advocating for a nation wide ban on abortion, or at least severely restricting it on a nation-wide basis. How do you reconcile the state authority argument with this?
My solution, which I know has zero chance of ever happening, is to do the same thing with this question. Put together a select group of people acceptable to all sides of the issue and have them come up with a solution, if possible. Another thing I don't know is: If a compromise is found, will this fit into a Constitutional amendment so it can't easily be undone by the next regime? It is supposed to be done in our Congress, but we keep electing a lot of unreasonable and irrational people with their own agendas to represent us, and this endless fighting, backbiting, corruption and finger-pointing is the result. Kind of like this bored. But those are the only kind of people who run. Reasonable and rational people are not attracted to the Washington circus.
To be precise, he promised to leave and not come back when Operation Dumbo Drop (or whatever it was called) failed to produce the evidence it was promising. They didn't, but he eventually rationalized the entirely predictable failure and broke his word. --BobWeyoun wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 5:21 pmDidn’t you also promise to leave at one point, when it was proven that there was no evidence that the election was stolen?flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:59 amYou're welcome. I will try another 'weird' thing. I will post my comments when I have something to say, but I will only respond when the post is civil. I will leave the trolls dangling and exposed, however hard that will be for me.
I think you are addressing me. I would definitely vote against.wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 5:56 pmSo, if you were in the Congress, and a bill were to be introduced to prohibit abortions, would you vote for it or against it?kroxquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 5:58 amThank-you for the thought-driven response. I asked the question in good faith and you answered in kind. I appreciate that. I wish we could have more of that around here.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 2:52 pm
I don't. I think it's another bad idea. One side imposing their will over everyone when they have the power to do so. It will only last until they lose their majority, then the other side will impose their will. In our formative days as a nation, we got our most enlightened leaders together to hash out agreements to difficult questions. That is how our Constitution came into being.
My solution, which I know has zero chance of ever happening, is to do the same thing with this question. Put together a select group of people acceptable to all sides of the issue and have them come up with a solution, if possible. Another thing I don't know is: If a compromise is found, will this fit into a Constitutional amendment so it can't easily be undone by the next regime? It is supposed to be done in our Congress, but we keep electing a lot of unreasonable and irrational people with their own agendas to represent us, and this endless fighting, backbiting, corruption and finger-pointing is the result. Kind of like this bored. But those are the only kind of people who run. Reasonable and rational people are not attracted to the Washington circus.
All I can say is that it is a free country, bob. BTW, if you recall, I also made a counteroffer, but none of you were brave enough to take me up on it. I also know a lot more about the subject now than I did then. I couldn't verify their geo data, but I have personally verified other areas that I will not divulge here. And I accept the reason they can't divulge that data. But they did, finally, find a way to bring up OPEN.INK, despite all the legal and hacking interference orchestrated by people on your side of the fence. You should go there. But you won't.Bob78164 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 6:07 pmTo be precise, he promised to leave and not come back when Operation Dumbo Drop (or whatever it was called) failed to produce the evidence it was promising. They didn't, but he eventually rationalized the entirely predictable failure and broke his word. --BobWeyoun wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 5:21 pmDidn’t you also promise to leave at one point, when it was proven that there was no evidence that the election was stolen?flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:59 amYou're welcome. I will try another 'weird' thing. I will post my comments when I have something to say, but I will only respond when the post is civil. I will leave the trolls dangling and exposed, however hard that will be for me.
That's not what I proposed, though.kroxquo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 6:23 pmI think you are addressing me. I would definitely vote against.wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 5:56 pmSo, if you were in the Congress, and a bill were to be introduced to prohibit abortions, would you vote for it or against it?
I was really trying to ask both of you.kroxquo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 6:23 pmI think you are addressing me. I would definitely vote against.wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 5:56 pmSo, if you were in the Congress, and a bill were to be introduced to prohibit abortions, would you vote for it or against it?
To answer your civilly phrased question, and I think I already did. I wouldn't vote for it either. And I gave my reasons.wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 8:29 pmI was really trying to ask both of you.kroxquo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 6:23 pmI think you are addressing me. I would definitely vote against.wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 5:56 pm
So, if you were in the Congress, and a bill were to be introduced to prohibit abortions, would you vote for it or against it?
Thanks.
Hmm.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 8:42 pmTo answer your civilly phrased question, and I think I already did. I wouldn't vote for it either. And I gave my reasons.
You are very vague on the bill. No. I would advocate for an amendment to the State Constitution and call for a process to define it, like I outlined above. Again, it would be a snowball in hell, but I think that's what I'd do. And all the democrats would stream to the press to say I'm deranged.wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 12:01 amHmm.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 8:42 pmTo answer your civilly phrased question, and I think I already did. I wouldn't vote for it either. And I gave my reasons.
So then that makes me wonder. If you were a legislator in a state, and that bill was put to a vote, would you vote for it or against it?
Wow. So, you’d effectively condone the killing of babies (your characterization) by voting against a bill that would prohibit that.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 8:02 amYou are very vague on the bill. No. I would advocate for an amendment to the State Constitution and call for a process to define it, like I outlined above. Again, it would be a snowball in hell, but I think that's what I'd do. And all the democrats would stream to the press to say I'm deranged.wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 12:01 amHmm.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 8:42 pm
To answer your civilly phrased question, and I think I already did. I wouldn't vote for it either. And I gave my reasons.
So then that makes me wonder. If you were a legislator in a state, and that bill was put to a vote, would you vote for it or against it?
I will try and accommodate you here.wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:29 amWow. So, you’d effectively condone the killing of babies (your characterization) by voting against a bill that would prohibit that.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 8:02 amYou are very vague on the bill. No. I would advocate for an amendment to the State Constitution and call for a process to define it, like I outlined above. Again, it would be a snowball in hell, but I think that's what I'd do. And all the democrats would stream to the press to say I'm deranged.wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 12:01 am
Hmm.
So then that makes me wonder. If you were a legislator in a state, and that bill was put to a vote, would you vote for it or against it?
That does surprise me.
This could be a Trump tweet. He knows all the best words, you know.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 3:33 pmI will try and accommodate you here.wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:29 amWow. So, you’d effectively condone the killing of babies (your characterization) by voting against a bill that would prohibit that.flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 8:02 am
You are very vague on the bill. No. I would advocate for an amendment to the State Constitution and call for a process to define it, like I outlined above. Again, it would be a snowball in hell, but I think that's what I'd do. And all the democrats would stream to the press to say I'm deranged.
That does surprise me.
This is a rhetorical situation, but if it ever happened, I would first try and put together a rhetorical coalition of rhetorical legislators who would push for a rhetorical special panel to look at permanent rhetorical solutions to this issue. Failing that, I would lobby and support whatever rhetorical amendments to the rhetorical bill to try and make it at least rhetorically acceptable to the other side.