Today's election results

[wbtravis007]

I sorta agree, wb. It's all sound and fury. Is this a guy thing? Seems to be quien es mas macho.

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.

[Beebs52]

I sorta agree, wb. It's all sound and fury. Is this a guy thing? Seems to be quien es mas macho.

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.

Well, Teddy Jack Eddy. Did I hurt y'all's feelings?

[wbtravis007]

I sorta agree, wb. It's all sound and fury. Is this a guy thing? Seems to be quien es mas macho.

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.

Well, Teddy Jack Eddy. Did I hurt y'all's feelings?

Point of order! Point of order!

Citizen’s ara-est! Citizen’s ara-est!

This has nothing to do with this thread!

But, I’ll answer anyway. This one time.

My feelings are starting to twitch a little here. If they start hurting, I’ll let you know.

[kroxquo]

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Weyoun]

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.

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.

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.

Didn’t you also promise to leave at one point, when it was proven that there was no evidence that the election was stolen?

[silverscreenselect]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Didn’t you also promise to leave at one point, when it was proven that there was no evidence that the election was stolen?

Um, when was that PROVEN, exactly? If it was, show me the proof.

[silverscreenselect]

Um, when was that PROVEN, exactly? If it was, show me the proof.

Sixty court cases should be proof of that.

[flockofseagulls104]

Um, when was that PROVEN, exactly? If it was, show me the proof.

Sixty court cases should be proof of that.

I have personally verified some of the evidence those courts have not bothered to look at.

[silverscreenselect]

Um, when was that PROVEN, exactly? If it was, show me the proof.

Sixty court cases should be proof of that.

I have personally verified some of the evidence those courts have not bothered to look at.

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]

Sixty court cases should be proof of that.

I have personally verified some of the evidence those courts have not bothered to look at.

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.

As usual, all your assumptions are wrong. Try again.

[silverscreenselect]

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.

As usual, all your assumptions are wrong. Try again.

You'll get no argument from me on that point.

[wbtravis007]

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?

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.

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.

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?

[Bob78164]

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.

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.

Didn’t you also promise to leave at one point, when it was proven that there was no evidence that the election was stolen?

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. --Bob

[kroxquo]

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.

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.

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?

I think you are addressing me. I would definitely vote against.

[flockofseagulls104]

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.

Didn’t you also promise to leave at one point, when it was proven that there was no evidence that the election was stolen?

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. --Bob

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.

[flockofseagulls104]

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.

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?

I think you are addressing me. I would definitely vote against.

That's not what I proposed, though.

[wbtravis007]

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.

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?

I think you are addressing me. I would definitely vote against.

I was really trying to ask both of you.

Thanks.

[flockofseagulls104]

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?

I think you are addressing me. I would definitely vote against.

I was really trying to ask both of you.

Thanks.

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]

I think you are addressing me. I would definitely vote against.

I was really trying to ask both of you.

Thanks.

To answer your civilly phrased question, and I think I already did. I wouldn't vote for it either. And I gave my reasons.

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?

[flockofseagulls104]

I was really trying to ask both of you.

Thanks.

To answer your civilly phrased question, and I think I already did. I wouldn't vote for it either. And I gave my reasons.

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?

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]

To answer your civilly phrased question, and I think I already did. I wouldn't vote for it either. And I gave my reasons.

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?

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.

Wow. So, you’d effectively condone the killing of babies (your characterization) by voting against a bill that would prohibit that.

That does surprise me.

[flockofseagulls104]

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?

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.

Wow. So, you’d effectively condone the killing of babies (your characterization) by voting against a bill that would prohibit that.

That does surprise me.

I will try and accommodate you here.
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.

[wbtravis007]

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.

Wow. So, you’d effectively condone the killing of babies (your characterization) by voting against a bill that would prohibit that.

That does surprise me.

I will try and accommodate you here.
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.

This could be a Trump tweet. He knows all the best words, you know.

He just doesn't know what they mean, or how to use them in sentences.