Republicans War on Women

Posts : 3520

No, on that I don't. See: slavery.

Sent from Topic'it App

Posts : 3520

So, your argument is that we should put the rights of any group up to popular vote?

Posts : 6988

So, when I axed you this .....

happy jack wrote:: If, as you claim, that "most of America supports liberal and progressive policies", I would think that you would trust the judgment of the American people to decide whether or not women should not have "less rights" (sic).
Right?

.... and you answered thusly ....

Heretic wrote:: No, on that I don't. See: slavery.

Heretic wrote:: So, your argument is that we should put the rights of any group up to popular vote?

.... then that would render this statement ....

Heretic wrote:: Most of America supports liberal and progressive policies.

1. True?
2. False?
3. Nonsense?

Pick one.

Posts : 3520

Then still true. Most Americans are pro-choice. And most Americans do not believe the rights of any group should be up to majority vote.

Your terrible argument aside, point taken. So I reiterate: on most issues, Americans favor the liberal/progressive policies.

So...

Quote :: It might be more helpful if you explain what "warped philosophies and policies" you are referring to first.

And seriously...

Quote :: your argument is that we should put the rights of any group up to popular vote?

Is that a liberal thing? I must have missed a meeting.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: It might be more helpful if you explain what "warped philosophies and policies" you are referring to first.

Antifa
Maxine Waters
The wearers of pussyhats
Kathy Griffin
The Democrats who embarrassed themselves during the Kavanagh hearings
Those who call for safe spaces
Michael Moore
Those who call for Trump's impeachment, but when asked, "On what grounds?", have no answer
Hillary Clinton
Those screaming 'Russia, Russia, Russia
Proprietors who throw customers out of their establishments for wearing a MAGA hat
Ocasio-Cortez
Those who demand that ICE be abolished
Those who claim that any and all people who voted for or who support Trump are complete, horrible racists

Those are just from a short list from another thread.
If you need any others, just throw a rock in any direction - you'll hit one.

Posts : 2141

I really don't know what your last post has to do with the discussion underway, but as long as you've posted the list again...

I'm still trying to understand your list, so I have a question...

Would you add the following statement to your list? Does it belong on your list?

"Democrats believe our country should be a giant sanctuary city for criminal aliens."

Do you believe that the above statement is true?

Heretic wrote:: Your terrible argument aside, point taken. So I reiterate: on most issues, Americans favor the liberal/progressive policies.

Heretic is right, you know... and Americans favor progressive policies by significant margins. You know... people do polling, and trends form over time. Here... I'll give you an example...

http://pollingreport.com/health.htm

Quote :: "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

Favor Oppose Unsure/No Answer

65% 30% 5%

Pretty progressive... and it looks like Americans overwhelmingly agree on this, doesn't it?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: "Democrats believe our country should be a giant sanctuary city for criminal aliens."

Do you believe that the above statement is true?

I neither made that statement, cited that statement, nor posted that statement, so my answer is: I have no idea.
What does crack me up, though, is that when, a few years ago, Arizona wanted to enforce immigration laws, the state was told that immigration enforcement was a federal responsibility, not a state responsibility. But when federal authorities try to enforce immigration laws, they are told that states and cities can do whatever they wish to stymie the federal enforcement of immigration laws.
At some point, you really should make up your minds, doncha think?

Scorpion wrote:: Heretic is right, you know... and Americans favor progressive policies by significant margins.

Then why all the pants-wetting over one Supreme Court nominee?
Why do you need a judicial mandate for your policies if you are so confident that your progressive policies will be mandated legislatively?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: "Democrats believe our country should be a giant sanctuary city for criminal aliens."

Do you believe that the above statement is true?

I neither made that statement, cited that statement, nor posted that statement, so my answer is: I have no idea.
What does crack me up, though, is that when, a few years ago, Arizona wanted to enforce immigration laws, the state was told that immigration enforcement was a federal responsibility, not a state responsibility. But when federal authorities try to enforce immigration laws, they are told that states and cities can do whatever they wish to stymie the federal enforcement of immigration laws.
At some point, you really should make up your minds, doncha think?

Yeah. Well that's not how I understood the issue. I believe the issue was whether the state/city authorities had to detain undocumented aliens or not. Many states said no. That's not quite the same as saying that states and cities can do anything to "stymie" the federal authorities, is it?

Do you favor family separation when families come to this country seeking asylum?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Heretic is right, you know... and Americans favor progressive policies by significant margins.

Then why all the pants-wetting over one Supreme Court nominee?
Why do you need a judicial mandate for your policies if you are so confident that your progressive policies will be mandated legislatively?

I'm really not concerned about the addition of a conservative justice. Obviously, I don't like it, but elections have consequences. But we really should have had an actual investigation, Jack. Now we don't really know what kind of person was just elevated to a lifetime position. That's a problem.

Quote :: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?

BTW - What's your answer to the above question? Favor? Oppose?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: "Democrats believe our country should be a giant sanctuary city for criminal aliens."

Do you believe that the above statement is true?

I neither made that statement, cited that statement, nor posted that statement, so my answer is: I have no idea.

Ok... So you wouldn't put this statement on your list, then? Or would you?

Again... I guess I don't fully understand how your list is part of some kind of "bigger picture?" Or is it just a list of things that piss you off? And what does it have to do with the "upside" of Trump? Wasn't that your original point? ... that Trump was serving a positive purpose by "exposing people's true colors?"

Frankly, Jack... I'm confused. If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: "Democrats believe our country should be a giant sanctuary city for criminal aliens."

Ok... So you wouldn't put this statement on your list, then? Or would you?

I really don't understand why it is incumbent upon me to either put this statement on my list, or to omit this statement from my list, considering that the statement is something you pulled out of thin air and then attempted, through insinuation, to attribute to me.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: "Democrats believe our country should be a giant sanctuary city for criminal aliens."

Ok... So you wouldn't put this statement on your list, then? Or would you?

I really don't understand why it is incumbent upon me to either put this statement on my list, or to omit this statement from my list, considering that the statement is something you pulled out of thin air and then attempted, through insinuation, to attribute to me.

No man... I have no ulterior motive. I didn't try to attribute the statement to you. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. Trump said it... I told you... I'm just trying to get a handle on your list.

As I said:

Scorpion wrote:: Again... I guess I don't fully understand how your list is part of some kind of "bigger picture?" Or is it just a list of things that piss you off? And what does it have to do with the "upside" of Trump? Wasn't that your original point? ... that Trump was serving a positive purpose by "exposing people's true colors?"

Frankly, Jack... I'm confused. If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Wasn't that your original point? ... that Trump was serving a positive purpose by "exposing people's true colors?"

Frankly, Jack... I'm confused. If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

Sure.
A cockroach who comes out of the woodwork is much easier to deal with than a cockroach who hides in the woodwork.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: "Democrats believe our country should be a giant sanctuary city for criminal aliens."

Do you believe that the above statement is true?

I neither made that statement, cited that statement, nor posted that statement, so my answer is: I have no idea.
What does crack me up, though, is that when, a few years ago, Arizona wanted to enforce immigration laws, the state was told that immigration enforcement was a federal responsibility, not a state responsibility. But when federal authorities try to enforce immigration laws, they are told that states and cities can do whatever they wish to stymie the federal enforcement of immigration laws.
At some point, you really should make up your minds, doncha think?

Yeah. Well that's not how I understood the issue. I believe the issue was whether the state/city authorities had to detain undocumented aliens or not. Many states said no. That's not quite the same as saying that states and cities can do anything to "stymie" the federal authorities, is it?

Is it your contention that state and local authorities should be able to choose to not cooperate with any crimes or investigations that may fall under the purview of federal authorities?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: Is it your contention that state and local authorities should be able to choose to not cooperate with any crimes or investigations that may fall under the purview of federal authorities?

Yeah. Well I'd be glad to answer your question, but there's a couple of my questions still on the table that haven't been addressed. I'd like to get those answered before we go on...

Scorpion wrote:: Do you favor family separation when families come to this country seeking asylum?

Scorpion wrote:: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?

BTW - What's your answer to the above question? Favor? Oppose?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Do you favor family separation when families come to this country seeking asylum?

No, but that's not happening anymore, is it?

Scorpion wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?

BTW - What's your answer to the above question? Favor? Oppose?

No idea. I'd really have to see the details of the plan before making any assessment.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: Is it your contention that state and local authorities should be able to choose to not cooperate with any crimes or investigations that may fall under the purview of federal authorities?

No, of course not. Never even implied that I had such a view, either...

But here's the reality of the situation...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/20/trump-administration-pressures-sanctuary-cities/99404732/

Quote :: ICE detainers have been a controversial issue for years, as several federal courts have ruled that local authorities are under no legal obligation to honor them. But Trump said "sanctuary jurisdictions" that don't fully comply with federal immigration requests will be punished with the loss of federal grants. Hundreds of local police agencies depend on hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from Homeland Security and the Justice Department.

One agency listed in the report is the Boulder County, Colo., Sheriff's Office. Sheriff Joe Pelle said his jail formally adopted a policy in 2014 after a series of court rulings that nobody would be detained without a warrant. The ICE detainers were not the same as a warrant signed by a judge, the courts said, and counties that held prisoners without that legal authority could be sued.

Pelle said Monday he will abide by those court rulings, not the Trump administration's decrees.

"They can shame all they want, but there's a lot of case law out there from three different federal courts, and it all says the same thing," Pelle said. "We are not honoring detainers. We would absolutely honor a federal arrest warrant signed by a federal judge or magistrate."

This pretty much captures the absurdity of the whole disingenuous "sanctuary city" argument... in a nutshell... It's simply not true that states and cities are trying to "stymie" federal authorities.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: A full investigation would end any speculation.

And rule out hypnosis.

Yeah, hypnosis does sound rather silly, doesn't it?
But do you know what doesn't sound silly, and what would not surprise me in the least?

$$$$$$$$$

Yeah. No reason to investigate. Let's just say it's because of money, and rush to confirm Kavanaugh ASAP.

Kinda old news, I realize, but it needed to be said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-gofundme-brett-kavanaugh-allegations-senate-testimony/

GoFundMe campaigns for Christine Blasey Ford raise over $700,000 combined

Two GoFundMe accounts made on behalf of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and her family have raised over $700,000 in donations for the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. "Cover Dr. Blasey's security costs," has surpassed its $175,000 goal and raised over $200,000 in nine days. The GoFundMe campaign was created by Heidi Feldman on behalf of Ford's family.
"Due to death threats, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford ... and her family have had to leave their residence and arrange for private security," the page description reads. "Let's create a fund to cover her security expenses, to do just a bit to make it easier for women in her position to come forward despite great risks."
The page specifies that extra funds raised "will go to women's organizations and/or into an account to cover similar costs incurred in comparable situations."
Feldman, who says she is a professor of law at Georgetown University, wrote in the page description that she does not know Blasey Ford personally, but contacted her to inform her of the fundraising page. "My reason for starting this fundraiser is to make concrete the power of collective action in providing security, and therefore support, for Dr. Blasey's willingness to contribute to a thorough, fair vetting of a nominee for Supreme Court Justice," Feldman wrote.
Over 6,000 people have donated to that GoFundMe campaign. A second, separate campaign has raised over $500,000 from over 11,000 donors on behalf of Ford. "Help Christine Blasey Ford" was created by a GoFundMe account titled "Team Christine Blasey Ford."
"The money raised from this campaign is going directly to the Ford Family," the GoFundMe description reads. The description also suggests donors visit other similar GoFundMe pages, such as Charity Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) as well as a second campaign started by Heidi Feldman, intended to create a scholarship in Dr. Blasey Ford's name. The scholarship campaign has raised over $14,000 of its $25,000 goal.
Ford was asked about the fundraising efforts on her behalf during Thursday's hearing. "I'm aware that there's been several GoFundMe sites that I haven't had a chance to figure out how to manage those because I've never had one," Ford said when prosecutor Rachel Mitchell asked about funding.
Ford said the intention of the fundraising was to help her cover the cost of security detail, but did not specify if she talking about Feldman's "Cover Dr. Blasey's security costs," GoFundMe.
Ford and her lawyers said her legal team is working on a pro bono basis. When asked again about additional costs the hearing has brought on, Ford said "There are members of the community in Palo Alto that have the means to contribute to help me with the security detail, et cetera."

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: A full investigation would end any speculation.

And rule out hypnosis.

Yeah, hypnosis does sound rather silly, doesn't it?
But do you know what doesn't sound silly, and what would not surprise me in the least?

$$$$$$$$$

Yeah. No reason to investigate. Let's just say it's because of money, and rush to confirm Kavanaugh ASAP.

Kinda old news, I realize, but it needed to be said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-gofundme-brett-kavanaugh-allegations-senate-testimony/

GoFundMe campaigns for Christine Blasey Ford raise over $700,000 combined

Two GoFundMe accounts made on behalf of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and her family have raised over $700,000 in donations for the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. "Cover Dr. Blasey's security costs," has surpassed its $175,000 goal and raised over $200,000 in nine days. The GoFundMe campaign was created by Heidi Feldman on behalf of Ford's family.
"Due to death threats, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford ... and her family have had to leave their residence and arrange for private security," the page description reads. "Let's create a fund to cover her security expenses, to do just a bit to make it easier for women in her position to come forward despite great risks."
The page specifies that extra funds raised "will go to women's organizations and/or into an account to cover similar costs incurred in comparable situations."
Feldman, who says she is a professor of law at Georgetown University, wrote in the page description that she does not know Blasey Ford personally, but contacted her to inform her of the fundraising page. "My reason for starting this fundraiser is to make concrete the power of collective action in providing security, and therefore support, for Dr. Blasey's willingness to contribute to a thorough, fair vetting of a nominee for Supreme Court Justice," Feldman wrote.
Over 6,000 people have donated to that GoFundMe campaign. A second, separate campaign has raised over $500,000 from over 11,000 donors on behalf of Ford. "Help Christine Blasey Ford" was created by a GoFundMe account titled "Team Christine Blasey Ford."
"The money raised from this campaign is going directly to the Ford Family," the GoFundMe description reads. The description also suggests donors visit other similar GoFundMe pages, such as Charity Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) as well as a second campaign started by Heidi Feldman, intended to create a scholarship in Dr. Blasey Ford's name. The scholarship campaign has raised over $14,000 of its $25,000 goal.
Ford was asked about the fundraising efforts on her behalf during Thursday's hearing. "I'm aware that there's been several GoFundMe sites that I haven't had a chance to figure out how to manage those because I've never had one," Ford said when prosecutor Rachel Mitchell asked about funding.
Ford said the intention of the fundraising was to help her cover the cost of security detail, but did not specify if she talking about Feldman's "Cover Dr. Blasey's security costs," GoFundMe.
Ford and her lawyers said her legal team is working on a pro bono basis. When asked again about additional costs the hearing has brought on, Ford said "There are members of the community in Palo Alto that have the means to contribute to help me with the security detail, et cetera."

Not sure what your point is... could you clarify? Thanks!

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Not sure what your point is... could you clarify? Thanks!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Posts : 6988

Hmmmm.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/christine-blasey-ford-gofundme-campaign.html

Posts : 3520

The Long Con. Very clearly what she had in mind when she reported her attempted rape to her husband and therapist years ago.

'Cause that's a thing.

Wait... I could be confused...

Are you suggesting she made public her attempted rape FOR ALL THE MONIES or she fabricated a story of an attempted rape FOR ALL THE MONIES?

Posts : 3520

If only the GOP would have gotten to her first, she could have shut down the Mueller investigation.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: The Long Con. Very clearly what she had in mind when she reported her attempted rape to her husband and therapist years ago.

'Cause that's a thing.

Wait... I could be confused...

Are you suggesting she made public her attempted rape FOR ALL THE MONIES or she fabricated a story of an attempted rape FOR ALL THE MONIES?

Not suggesting anything, because I don't know what, if anything, actually happened - just pointing out that quite a large chunk of change is being made here.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: Not suggesting anything...

Bullshit.

You wrote:

Heretic wrote:: A full investigation would end any speculation.

And rule out hypnosis.

Yeah, hypnosis does sound rather silly, doesn't it?
But do you know what doesn't sound silly, and what would not surprise me in the least?

$$$$$$$$$

So again, are you suggesting she made public her attempted rape FOR ALL THE MONIES or she fabricated a story of an attempted rape FOR ALL THE MONIES?

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: So again, are you suggesting she made public her attempted rape FOR ALL THE MONIES or she fabricated a story of an attempted rape FOR ALL THE MONIES?

So again:

happy jack wrote:: Not suggesting anything, because I don't know what, if anything, actually happened - just pointing out that quite a large chunk of change is being made here.

Is there something about the above statement that you find to be ambiguous or confusing?
Because it seems pretty straightforward to me.

» Women in combat
» Republicans Don't Like Their Leaders
» Republicans Voted Against TSA Funding
» Republicans...Then and Now
» Republicans vs. Making BP pay