Women's March mocked for pre-written press release opposing Supreme Court nominee 'XX'

Women's March mocked for pre-written press release opposing Supreme Court nominee 'XX'
Via:   96ws6
Created:   5 days ago
Comments:   182

Tags

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The Women’s March opposes XX.

A pre-written — and poorly edited — statement from the Women’s March on President Trump’s Supreme Court nomination became the subject of mockery on Twitter on Monday night, including from Mr. Trump’s former press secretary.

The feminist group blasted out a statement shortly after Mr. Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, saying him confimation would “further erode protections for almost every marginalized group in America.”

The introduction to the statement read “In response to Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_profile_id: user_id parameter required
96WS6
1  96WS6    5 days ago

Oh Damn, you weren't supposed to make it that obvious.LOL

 
 
TTGA
1.1  TTGA  replied to  96WS6 @1    5 days ago

Maybe they didn't know how to spell his name.

 
 
TTGA
1.1.1  TTGA  replied to  TTGA @1.1    5 days ago

Worse..... far worse.  Since his name was in all the newspapers, they didn't even know how to COPY it.

 
 
96WS6
1.1.2  96WS6  replied to  TTGA @1.1    5 days ago

laughing dude

 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.3  tomwcraig  replied to  96WS6 @1.1.2    5 days ago

What;s worse than not being able to copy his name, is the fact Trump could have nominated a woman and they would have said the exact same thing about her as they planned for all the men!

 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.3    5 days ago
What;s worse than not being able to copy his name, is the fact Trump could have nominated a woman and they would have said the exact same thing about her as they planned for all the men!

Why does that seem so strange to you?  All SCOTUS nominees that he considered had the same anti-woman beliefs, and yes even the female nominee (that everyone knew he would not select) was opposed to women's rights. 

Their protests applied to everyone he was considering.

 
 
Ender
1.1.5  Ender  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    4 days ago

Exactly. He picked from a pool of the same train of thought.

 
 
katlin02
1.1.6  katlin02  replied to  TTGA @1.1.1    4 days ago
Worse..... far worse.  Since his name was in all the newspapers, they didn't even know how to COPY it.

that was funny as hell---a  march held by the poorly educated and ii-informed for sure...poor soros, good marchers are hard to find these days since more people have real jobs now

 
 
KDMichigan
1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  96WS6 @1    5 days ago

Canned ham.

Like the snowflake response couldn't be predicted. 

 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2    5 days ago

It's like a broken record that keeps repeating the same notes, over and over and over. At some point, no listens anymore.

 
 
Heartland American
1.2.2  Heartland American  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.1    5 days ago

One demonstration in DC at the Supreme Court they had signs prepared for all the possible picks and went into their faux rage the moment the name came out of Trump’s mouth.  

 
 
Spikegary
1.2.3  Spikegary  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.2    5 days ago

Yeah, protesting is what they're good at.  Proofreading?  Not so much.  And the pre-printed signs thing-in such a hurry to protest the pick, it really didn't matter who it was.

 
 
Tessylo
1.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Spikegary @1.2.3    5 days ago

(Deleted)

 
 
Spikegary
1.2.5  Spikegary  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.4    5 days ago

Thought you might get a kick out of this one:

Supremes Wrong Poster.jpg

 
 
Old School Marine
1.2.6  Old School Marine  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.4    5 days ago
removed for context

Deleted

 
 
Tessylo
1.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Spikegary @1.2.5    5 days ago

Nah, I didn't.  Another stupid ass meme.  Is that all you got?

 
 
Tessylo
1.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Old School Marine @1.2.6    5 days ago

removed for context

 
 
Spikegary
1.2.9  Spikegary  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.7    5 days ago

I've got plenty more, but at your level, tis all you get.

 
 
sixpick
1.2.10  sixpick  replied to  Spikegary @1.2.5    5 days ago

This is the one I like. LOL

https://www.ac2news.com/wp-content/uploads/madam-president-newsweek-c-c-457x565.jpg

 
 
96WS6
1.2.11  96WS6  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.4    5 days ago

The irony of your post is astonishing.

 
 
Jasper2529
1.2.12  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.8    5 days ago
removed for context

Well, the main reason is that comment 1.2.4  is an untruthful Sweeping Generalization about Trump supporters when the article is about the Women's March participants who protested at the Supreme Court.

 
 
1ofmany
1.2.13  1ofmany  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.4    5 days ago
Removed for context

Liberals spend all day every day mocking and insulting people who disagree with them yet that goes unnoticed. 

 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.2.12    5 days ago
Well, the main reason is that comment 1.2.4  is an untruthful Sweeping Generalization about Trump supporters when the article is about the Women's March participants who protested at the Supreme Court.

How can you complain about "Sweeping Generalizations" when every comment above hers is a "Sweeping Generalization"?

 
 
Jasper2529
1.2.15  Jasper2529  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.14    5 days ago
How can you complain about "Sweeping Generalizations"

Can you please explain exactly how comment # 1.2.12  is a complaint? I made an accurate assessment that compared someone's sweeping generalization comment to the very specific topic of this seed.

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  1ofmany @1.2.13    5 days ago
Liberals spend all day every day mocking and insulting people who disagree with them yet that goes unnoticed.

Snowflake? Coloring books and crayons? Blankies and binkies?

Wasn't liberals who started throwing that out there

 
 
1ofmany
1.2.17  1ofmany  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.16    4 days ago
Snowflake? Coloring books and crayons? Blankies and binkies?

Morons? Deplorables? Racists? Misogynists, Nazis, white supremacits? Knuckle draggers? Neanderthals? 

Wasn't liberals who started throwing that out there.

They threw their own so they’re full of shit. 

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  1ofmany @1.2.17    4 days ago

You want civility from us but are unwilling to reciprocate.

 
 
PJ
1.2.19  PJ  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.18    4 days ago

Yes, it rings completely disingenuous when they all but fall at the feet of Mr. Trump embracing and celebrating what most human beings would consider unacceptable behavior.

Mr. Trump followers are at fault for the discord that has taken the country hostage.   

 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.20  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.16    4 days ago

Excuse me, but sometimes the truth hurts.


Elite Campuses Offer Students Coloring Books, Puppies to Get Over Trump


The post-election freak-out on elite campuses is total, and is made all the worse because students on these campuses never meet anyone who disagrees with them.






In the wake of the election, many college students at elite colleges and universities have come down with serious cases of PTSD: President Trump Stress Disorder.

Their inability to anticipate this outcome—the election of Donald Trump—should prompt the Ivy League to consider whether it’s really preparing students for life outside the liberal bubble of campus.

To equip students with the resources they need to refute Trumpism, colleges have to stop shielding them from ideas that offend their liberal sensibilities. They have to stop pretending that shutting down a discussion is the same thing as winning an argument. Silence is not persuasion.

At Cornell University, weary students sat outside in shock the morning after the election.The Cornell Daily Sun, whichlive-streamed the gathering,invited viewers to “cry with us.” Attendees said they were heartbroken and terrified.

Elsewhere, at campuses across the country, students begged professors to cancel classes and postpone exams, citing fear, exhaustion, and emotional trauma. Such accommodations werefrequently granted:Academics at Columbia University, Yale University, the University of Connecticut, and other institutions told students to take some time to come to terms with what had happened, as if the election of Donald Trump was akin to a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

That wasn’t all. Law students at the University of Michigan were provided with a post-election “self-care with food and play” event, complete with “stress busting” activities like play dough, coloring books, legos, and bubbles. Columbia University’s Barnard College offered hot chocolate and coloring. The University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League institution, created a healing space: more coloring books, and also puppies.

“There were actual cats and a puppy there,” one UPenn student, Daniel Tancredi, toldThe College Fix. “The event as a whole seemed to be an escape from the reality of the election results.”

Source:   https://www.thedailybeast.com/elite-campuses-offer-students-coloring-books-puppies-to-get-over-trump   (it was the first one that popped up when I googled for the terms.)

So, would you care to explain to me how reminding some of facts is derisive?   They did in fact have puppies, coloring books and crayons.  And I will submit that the snowflake is simply a descriptive verbalization of the complete meltdown of many on the left post Clinton loss Trump election win.

 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.21  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @1.2.19    4 days ago

Are President Trump voters and supporters the ones that are marching in the streets?

Are President Trump voters and supporters the ones harassing members of congress while out for dinner?

Are President Trump voters and supporters the ones harassing members of the Trump administration while out for a movie or dinner?

Are President Trump voters and supporters the ones closing down highways?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

 
 
PJ
1.2.22  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.21    4 days ago

I'm trying to figure out the point your are trying to make and the relevance it has to my comment.

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.23  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.20    4 days ago
So, would you care to explain to me how reminding some of facts is derisive?

You know what....no more derisive than "teabagger"

If some of your buddies continue to fling insults regarding coloring books I will continue to mock with the word teabagger. Afterall, the tea party morons called themselves that before they realized what it actually meant. By then, the damage had been done.

But don't go acting all innocent and pretend that your side doesn't mock and fling insults. "Libtard" seems to be a favorite amongst your buddies.

 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.24  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @1.2.22    4 days ago
Mr. Trump followers are at fault for the discord that has taken the country hostage.   

Obviously, you have forgotten the words you wrote.  I've supplied a direct quote above for your memory.

 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.25  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.23    4 days ago

Actually, I tend to wait until either side can be categorized as a lowlife scumbag thug.  It's totally non-discriminatory and apolitical.

But as to your desire, whatever floats your boat.  Have fun.

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.26  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.25    4 days ago

I don't think you do, but you continue to think in whatever way it makes you feel better

 
 
katlin02
1.2.27  katlin02  replied to  Spikegary @1.2.5    4 days ago

laughing dude

 
 
MonsterMash
1.2.29  MonsterMash  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.23    4 days ago

Deleted

 
 
Texan1211
1.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  Spikegary @1.2.9    4 days ago

LMFAO!

 
 
katlin02
1.2.31  katlin02  replied to  sixpick @1.2.10    4 days ago
This is the one I like. LOL

that one was hilarious--kinda like the FBI deciding hillary was inncocent 6 month before they looked at any evidence.

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.32  Trout Giggles  replied to  MonsterMash @1.2.29    4 days ago

Thanks for making my point

 
 
PJ
1.2.33  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.24    4 days ago

I wrote out a lengthy response but the site crashed and I don't feel like retyping it.  But I'll tell ya what.  Turn on the t.v. - OR - read a newspaper and I'm confident you will find examples of Mr. Trump's supporters making excuses for his behavior and actions against everyone  ...........well everyone except Putin.  devil

 
 
katlin02
1.2.34  katlin02  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.21    4 days ago

oh and don't forget it wasn't a trump supporters that went to the baseball field with a list of republicans to shoot--

not one democrat would stand up when scalize entered the congressional chamber with canes to walk..

not one democrat would stand up for the families who lost children to the violence of illegals.

and it was a democrat who got on the bullhorn and said make it uncomfortable for them to go anywhere, into a store, a restaurant, a gas station and harass them.

so yah don't expect us to be nice and civil and not push back and make sure we are protecting our  first & second amendment..the left may get what they keep asking for and they won't like, it just like schumer doesn't like the rules they made for themselves when obama was president and now they have to play by them.

 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.35  KDMichigan  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.23    4 days ago

Deleted

 
 
Texan1211
1.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2.35    4 days ago

I have often wondered if anyone had ever bothered to look up the definition when using the term as an insult.

 
 
1ofmany
1.2.37  1ofmany  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.18    4 days ago
You want civility from us but are unwilling to reciprocate.

I like civility period but at least recognize that one side is no better than the other in this respect. 

 
 
1ofmany
1.2.38  1ofmany  replied to  PJ @1.2.33    4 days ago
Turn on the t.v. - OR - read a newspaper and I'm confident you will find examples of Mr. Trump's supporters making excuses for his behavior and actions against everyone  ...........well everyone except Putin.  

Well it’s not like they’re unbiased media. They’re part of the Trump resistance so they’re supposed to trash his supporters. But trashing his supporters will probably get him re-elected and then democrats can blame Putin or emissaries of the Klingon empire or whatever lame excuse they can think up. 

 
 
PJ
1.2.39  PJ  replied to  1ofmany @1.2.38    4 days ago

No, I'll blame those who are to blame, Mr. Trump's followers.  Facts don't lie.  You don't like the way Mr. Trump is being portrayed?  Then hold his behavior accountable and make him change his vulgar hateful rhetoric.  

It's really rather simple.  As I've said time and again, a child will continue to do what he is able to get away with.  His follower's are allowing him to do whatever he wants with no consequences.  If the country falls it will be the fault of Mr. Trump's followers.  

 
 
1ofmany
1.2.40  1ofmany  replied to  PJ @1.2.39    4 days ago
No, I'll blame those who are to blame, Mr. Trump's followers.  Facts don't lie.  You don't like the way Mr. Trump is being portrayed?  Then hold his behavior accountable and make him change his vulgar hateful rhetoric.  

Facts don't lie but they’re often spun. If you want to spend your time pointing your finger at them while they point back at you, then knock yourself out. And if the press wants to act as the Trump resistance, that’s fine too. His supporters will just continue to tune the press out and re-elect him. 

It's really rather simple.  As I've said time and again, a child will continue to do what he is able to get away with.  His follower's are allowing him to do whatever he wants with no consequences.  If the country falls it will be the fault of Mr. Trump's followers.  

They don’t see it as you do or care what you think. They think the country has already fallen in some respect and they’re looking to Trump to fix it even if they think he’s obnoxious. For instance, some will endure anything to get conservative justices. Others want border control. Some want Roe reversed. Some are focused on the economy. Some have other issues. But what all have in common is the belief that they can’t get what they want from anybody but Trump. 

 
 
Landshark
1.2.41  Landshark  replied to  PJ @1.2.39    4 days ago

 Are you sure you don’t want to blame the Russians? Or is that too passe  now

 
 
PJ
1.2.42  PJ  replied to  1ofmany @1.2.40    4 days ago
Facts don't lie but they’re often spun.

I know......I've been reading your posts for years.  Winking 2  That you continue to try and protect Mr. Trump and make excuses for his behavior says more about you then him. 

I'm so bummed because I really really liked you even though I find some of your comments a bit homophobic and misogynistic - but - this whole defending Mr. Trump is something I just cannot turn a blind eye to.   We are not compatible.  I'm quitting you 1ofmany (that's what my brother used to say when he was little about breaking up with his girlfriend - he quit her)  lol  Giggle

 
 
sixpick
1.2.43  sixpick  replied to  1ofmany @1.2.13    3 days ago

Liberals are the new leaders of the Democrat Party.  They've decided to call themselves Democratic Socialists, but there are still some Democrats in the Party who haven't fell in line with this new leadership.  A lot of them voted for Trump.

 
 
1ofmany
1.2.44  1ofmany  replied to  PJ @1.2.42    3 days ago
I'm so bummed because I really really liked you even though I find some of your comments a bit homophobic and misogynistic - but - this whole defending Mr. Trump is something I just cannot turn a blind eye to.   We are not compatible.  I'm quitting you 1ofmany (that's what my brother used to say when he was little about breaking up with his girlfriend - he quit her).

If I let you can play with my saber, then you’ll come running back . . . dodging cars, jumping over thrash cans, pushing through crowds. lol.

 
 
PJ
1.2.45  PJ  replied to  1ofmany @1.2.44    3 days ago

maybe..... Hanging loose

 
 
1ofmany
1.2.46  1ofmany  replied to  sixpick @1.2.43    3 days ago

Liberals are the new leaders of the Democrat Party.  They've decided to call themselves Democratic Socialists, but there are still some Democrats in the Party who haven't fell in line with this new leadership.  A lot of them voted for Trump.

All working to get Trump re-elected through sheer stupidity. 

 
 
Texan1211
1.2.47  Texan1211  replied to  1ofmany @1.2.46    3 days ago

At least they won't have to work too hard!

 
 
1ofmany
1.2.48  1ofmany  replied to  PJ @1.2.45    3 days ago

Vixen 

 
 
Cerenkov
1.3  Cerenkov  replied to  96WS6 @1    3 days ago

The party of No.

 
 
Heartland American
1.3.1  Heartland American  replied to  Cerenkov @1.3    2 days ago

Indeed it is!  

 
 
lib50
2  lib50    5 days ago

It ain't rocket science.  Name one of any of those vetted (everybody knew) and tell us which one supports a woman's right to full personal rights.  Which one wasn't far right on the issues?  Which one has extensively and publicly advocated protecting a sitting president?  When I knew he was one of the top picks I guessed he be the pick for exactly that reason. 

And don't listen at your peril.

 
 
96WS6
2.1  96WS6  replied to  lib50 @2    5 days ago

Roe VS Wade is outdated and legalizes murder.  Are you really opposed to moving the date back far enough that you aren't killing a baby capable of life outside the womb?

 
 
lib50
2.1.1  lib50  replied to  96WS6 @2.1    5 days ago

I don't believe that and my spiritual beliefs back them up.  How dare you try to force your particular crap on all women.  Abortion is not murder and not your business.  Feel free to live any way you like to your values, but stay the hell out of mine.

 
 
tomwcraig
2.1.2  tomwcraig  replied to  lib50 @2.1.1    5 days ago

Do you believe EVERYTHING in the Declaration of Independence, lib50?

 
 
Tessylo
2.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  96WS6 @2.1    5 days ago

There is no murder involved.  I get so tired of that nonsense.  

How the hell is Roe v. Wade outdated?  

Obviously all who are opposed are anti-choice, not pro-life.  Opposed to a woman's choices over her own body and her life.  

 
 
Old School Marine
2.1.4  Old School Marine  replied to  lib50 @2.1.1    5 days ago
I don't believe that and my spiritual beliefs back them up.

Oh really?  

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.  https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:

 

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1

 

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

 

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….

 

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

 

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

 

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

 

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

 

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

 

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”2

http://naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/

Now do you need more because there's plenty. 

 
 
Tessylo
2.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Old School Marine @2.1.4    5 days ago

It is only a clump of cells at conception.  Sounds like bunch of nonsense from these 'experts'      

Life does not begin at conception.  

The bible even says that life begins at first breath.  

'Now do you need more because there's plenty.'

Nah.  Makes no difference.  It's all nonsense from these 'experts' anyway.  

The 'American College of Pediatrics' should not be confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The American College of Pediatrics supports junk science.  




AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS








The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a fringe anti-LGBT hate group that masquerades as the premier U.S. association of pediatricians to push anti-LGBT junk science, primarily via far-right conservative media and filing amicus briefs in cases related to gay adoption and marriage equality.​








 











EXTREMIST GROUP INFO:




Date Founded



 

2002





Location



 

Gainesville, Florida





Ideology



 




SPLC DESIGNATED HATE GROUP








ACPeds opposes adoption by LGBT couples, links homosexuality to pedophilia, endorses so-called reparative or sexual orientation conversion therapy for homosexual youth, believes transgender people have a mental illness and has called transgender health care for youth child abuse.

In its own words


“Homosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships. Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,substance abuse, suicidal tendencies and shortened life spans.”
—“Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for A Change?” updated July 2017, available on ACPeds website

“Driving in this morning I began to wonder. Why isn’t the movement of LGBT not the PLGBT movement: ‘P’ for pedophile? ...In one sense, it could be argued that the LGBT movement is only tangentially associated with pedophilia. I see that argument, but the pushers of the movement, the activists, I think have pedophilia intrinsically woven into their agenda. It is they who need to be spoken to and against.”
—Blog post on ACPeds website, July 15, 2015

I truly believe that when we are practicing a sexual act that goes against our natural design, it’s going to be very harmful to us emotionally, physically and, in the situation with AIDS, even infectious consequences will occur.”
—Former ACPeds President Den Trumbull on VCY America’s “Crosstalk,” May 2015

“[T]here is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.”
—“Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?” ACPeds article, January 22, 2004

“For unwanted sexual attractions, therapy to restore heterosexual attraction has proven effective and harmless.”
—Facts About Youth website, 2010

“Gay, lesbian, and bisexual students are not born that way. The most recent, extensive, and scientifically sound research finds that the primary factor in the development of homosexuality is environmental not genetic.”
—Facts About Youth website, 2010

“School officials are being increasingly pressured by pro-homosexual organizations to integrate homosexual education into school curricula. These organizations recommend promoting homosexuality as a normal, immutable trait that should be validated during childhood, as early as kindergarten. These organizations also condemn all efforts to provide treatment to gender confused students, advocating instead the creation of student groups that affirm homosexual attractions and behaviors.”
—Facts About Youth website, 2010

“In dealing with adolescents experiencing same-sex attraction, it is essential to understand there is no scientific evidence that an individual is born ‘gay’ or ‘transgender.’”
—ACPEds letter to 14,800 school superintendents, March 31, 2010

“Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”
—“Gender Ideology Harms Children,” ACPeds article, March 2016

“We at the American College of Pediatricians, and also I have many colleagues on the left, also insist that those solutions be rooted in reality, and transgender ideology is not. Sex is hard-wired from before birth, and it cannot change. And that's why we had actually called this child abuse, because by feeding children and families these lies, children are having their normal psychological development interrupted… Our job as parents and physicians is to help children embrace their healthy bodies. And when this is done, once they get past puberty into late adolescence, as many as 95 percent will come to embrace their bodies and identify with their biological sex.”
—Michelle Cretella, president of ACPeds, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” July 24, 2017

Background


Though it sounds official, the ACPeds is not the leading organization for U.S. pediatricians; that designation goes to the 66,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). ACPeds was founded in 2002 when a small number of socially conservative AAP members broke away from the AAP after it endorsed adoption by same-sex couples. ACPeds subsequently issued its own report stating that gay parenting puts children’s health and development at high risk.

ACPeds supports “reparative” or sexual orientation conversion therapy for homosexual juveniles, the debunked theory that homosexuality can be “cured” through therapy, and has encouraged the practice in communication with schools nationwide. ACPeds has also called being transgender a mental illness, and opposes families’ support of their transgender children, calling such support “child abuse.” Though membership is believed to be just a few hundred, ACPeds spreads its falsehoods by acting as a go-to authority for far-right media outlets like Breitbart and the Daily Caller, and Christian publications and websites.

In 2002, AAP released a policy statement in support of second-parent adoptions by same-sex parents. Its newsletter stated, “Pediatricians should support the legal adoption of children by co-parents or second parents because it provides permanency and stability to children of gay and lesbian parents.” In response, approximately 60 of the AAP’s 60,000 members broke off, forming ACPeds.

ACPeds’ founder, Dr. Joseph Zanga, described it as a “Judeo-Christian, traditional values” organization, “open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group’s core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.”

ACPeds now claims more than 500 members, though its current president, Dr. Michelle Cretella, wouldn’t answer a direct question about its membership numbers in 2016. In 2012, ACPeds was estimated to have no more than 200 members. AAP currently has more than 66,000 members.

ACPeds responded to AAP’s endorsement of adoption by gay couples with its own policy statement in January 2004 (re-posted in July 2017), titled “Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?” Among its false claims: “research has demonstrated considerable risks to children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle. Violence between same-sex partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples;” “[h]omosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed ‘committed relationships;’” and to excuse its bunk science, “[a]lthough some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures where the practice is more widely accepted.”

The statement concludes, “Given the current body of evidence, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on same-sex parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or reproductive manipulation.”

In 2008, AAP, along with 12 other leading national organizations including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, released a pamphlet titled “Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth.” Distributed to school administrators nationwide, the pamphlet declared, “The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.” It also warned against efforts to change sexual orientation through reparative or conversion therapy, stating, “such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure,” and clearly specifying that “homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be ‘cured.’”

In response, ACPeds joined with the reparative therapy organization the National for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH, now the NARTH Institute) to attack “Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth,” calling it “biased and grossly misleading,” and published an online rebuttal called “Facts About Youth” in 2010.

“Facts About Youth” contains a slew of false assertions, among them that“[h]omosexual attraction of young students is usually temporary (if not encouraged) and may be unwanted,” “[t]he homosexual lifestyle carries grave health risks, especially for males,” and “[f]or unwanted sexual attractions, therapy to restore heterosexual attraction has proven effective and harmless.”

“Facts About Youth” also includes a page called “Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle” which links LGBT people to disease and uses a legitimate Canadian study conducted in 1996 to claim that being LGBT shortens lifespans. The authors of that study blasted anti-LGBT groups for distorting their data, stating that “… it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights” of LGBT people “rather than promoting their health and wellbeing.”

The aim of their research, the paper’s writers stated, “was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide.” The writers concluded that they do not condone the use of their work in a manner that restricts political and human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.

On March 31, 2010 ACPeds sent a letter to 14,800 school superintendents across the country endorsing reparative therapy and directing school administrators to its “Facts About Youth” website.

One of the names on the masthead of the ACPeds letter endorsing sexual orientation conversion therapy was George Rekers. Rekers was a married Baptist minister and clinical psychologist who vocally advocated “curing” homosexuality. Just two weeks after the ACPeds letter was distributed, Reker was caught returning from a European vacation with a 20-year-old male escort he’d met on Rentboy.com.

The genuine leading pediatrics association, the AAP, issued a statement saying ACPeds’ Facts About Youth “campaign does not acknowledge the scientific and medical evidence regarding sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual health, or effective health education.”

Indeed, several medical sources cited prominently by ACPeds to support “Facts About Youth” immediately rebutted ACPeds’ assertions. Dr. Francis S. Collins, then director of the National Institute of Health, wrote, “The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents.”

Dr. Gary Remafedi, a University of Minnesota researcher also cited by ACPeds to support “Facts About Youth,” strenuously objected to the misrepresentation of his research, demanding a retraction.

Dr. Remafedi wrote to ACPeds, “this episode is especially troubling and egregious because it is led by colleagues within my own profession, who certainly have the ability, education, and experience to access, review, and accurately summarize the Pediatric scientific literature.” He continued, “Implicating me in this chicanery is doubly damaging to my professional reputation and career by holding me accountable for misstatements and by associating me with a cause that most ethical Pediatricians will recognize as misguided and hurtful to an entire class of children and families.”

Therapist Warren Throckmorton, who specializes in sexual orientation issues, was also cited by ACPeds. “The [ACPeds] letter and [Facts About Youth] website are just disingenuous,” Throckmorton told City Pages. “They say they’re impartial and not motivated by political or religious concerns, but if you look at who they’re affiliated with and how they’re using the research, that’s just obviously not true.”

While ACPeds may sound sufficiently marginalized within the medical and mental health professional communities, that hasn’t stopped the far-right from using its debunked pseudo-science to back anti-LGBT agendas.

In a debate between the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok on the November 30, 2010 edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” Perkins said, “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children.”

Evangelical anti-LGBT extremist and pseudo-historian David Barton cited ACPeds on his WallBuilders Live radio program in August 2011, falsely calling it “the leading pediatric association in America,” to claim schools are using “indoctrination” to make students homosexual. “If you’ll just let this develop naturally, they’ll end up being heterosexual unless you force them to be homosexual,” Barton paraphrased ACPeds.

In June 2013, the conservative Washington Times quoted then-president of ACPeds Den Trumbull’s continued endorsement of reparative therapy for homosexual teens: “‘Spontaneous and assisted change is possible,’ and if a teen’s sexual-orientation confusion is not encouraged or validated, in the vast majority of cases, he or she ‘will return to heterosexual orientation,’ said Dr. Trumbull, who has a pediatrics practice in Alabama.”

In May 2015, Trumbull appeared on VCY America’s “Crosstalk” program, where he disparaged preventative methods of arresting the spread of HIV, saying, “yet the push is more to find a vaccine, to use condoms, to — but I truly believe that when we are practicing a sexual act that goes against our natural design, it’s going to be very harmful to us emotionally, physically and, in the situation with AIDS, even infectious consequences will occur.”

Later in 2015, the current president of ACPeds, Dr. Michelle Cretella, decried the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, calling it “a tragic day for America’s children,” which was touted by Breitbart.

ACPeds also engages in court cases and files amicus briefs often filled with pseudoscientific claims and research. For example, it filed an amicus brief with the Alabama Supreme Court on November 6, 2015, urging the state court to defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s earlier decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States. Thebrief cited discredited anti-LGBT research while attacking legitimate research by professional organizations like the American Psychological Association.

In March 2016 (updated in September 2017), ACPeds published an anti-transgender position statement titled “ Gender Ideology Harms Children,” falsely alleging that gender dysphoria “is a recognized mental disorder” in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5). The statement called it “abusive” to support gender dysphoric children, and using twisted statistics alleged that “as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.”

Far-right conservative media outlets and commentators including Glenn Beck, theChristian Broadcasting Network, the Daily Caller and Breitbart parroted ACPeds' false claim that being transgender is a mental illness and “gender ideology” is child abuse.

Meanwhile, the legitimate leading association of pediatricians, the American Academy of Pediatricians, joined the Human Rights Campaign along with other leading mental health and educational organizations in April 2016 to issue a statement opposing “needless and mean-spirited legislation” targeting transgender students.

Still, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry felt comfortable citing “the American Pediatrics” stating “transgender identity is a mental illness” on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” radio program in May 2016.

The magazine Psychology Today’s website called out ACPeds in May 2017, quoting Dr. Scott Leibowitz, medical director of the THRIVE program at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and chair of the sexual orientation and gender identity issues committee for the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. Dr. Leibowitz said of ACPeds, “It can hardly be a credible medical organization when it consistently chooses to ignore science and the growing evidence base that clearly demonstrates the benefits of affirmative care with LGBT youth across all ages.”

Dr. Jack Turban, the author of the Psychology Today article, concluded, “I urge news organizations and individuals to stop propagating these false claims from the ACP. The health of LGBT youth depends on it.”

Yet ACPeds continues to be a far-right media favorite and prominent voice in anti-LGBT circles. On the July 24 episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox News, ACPeds president Cretella continued her attack on “transgender ideology.” “Sex is hard-wired from before birth, and it cannot change,” Cretella said. “And that’s why we have actually called this child abuse, because by feeding children and families these lies, children are having their normal psychological development interrupted … This is child abuse. It’s not health care.”

Additionally, Cretella was the keynote speaker at the reparative therapy organization NARTH Institute’s training institute in October 2017, and presented an anti-transgender session at the Minnesota Catholic Conference in December 2017. Cretella served as a board member (2010-2015) for NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), which changed its name to NARTH Institute in 2014.

In an anti-trans Daily Signal piece posted in July 2017, Cretella claimed that medial professionals are “using the myth that people are born transgender to justify engaging in massive, uncontrolled, and unconsented experimentation on children” who, she further claimed, “have a psychological condition that would otherwise resolve after puberty in the vast majority of cases.”

The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine issued a point-by-point rebuttal of Cretella’s Daily Signal claims, noting that her post is “littered with correlation without causation references.” One cannot claim to be an unbiased medical professional writing for the greater good, SAHM states, “when one’s entire article is predicated upon gender dysphoria as a choice.”




 
 
lady in black
2.1.6  lady in black  replied to  Old School Marine @2.1.4    5 days ago

Life begins _________.  Doesn't matter, what matters is the fact that a fetus will never have rights over a woman.  If you think it should then you have no regard for the woman herself and want to reduce her to a human incubator against her will.

 
 
Tessylo
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.5    5 days ago





Nothing but junk science from the 'American College of Pediatricians'

















Respect for Life from Conception



American College of Pediatricians – October 2009

ABSTRACT: The American College of Pediatricians, being truly dedicated to all children, affirms the health and lives of all pediatric patients equally. Many medical and mental health organizations profess to be dedicated to the health of all children, yet some espouse neutrality on the issue of induced abortion and recommend that pregnant adolescent women consider “all pregnancy options.” The American College of Pediatricians finds this position be be scientifically untenable and wholly unethical.

Abortion throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy became legal in all 50 states when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in 1973.1 Since human life begins at conception, 2,3 there are two pediatric patients involved when a teen undergoes an abortion: the child in utero and the adolescent woman. The College affirms the equal right to life of both the adolescent woman and her unborn child.

Advocates often claim that abortion procedures are necessary to preserve the health and life of the mother. Such situations, however, are exceedingly rare.4 Induced abortion is almost never necessary to treat a pregnancy-related maternal condition. Instead, it is typically possible to preserve the health of both mother and child via an induced pre-term delivery.5

As the College reiterates its opposition to the termination of an in utero human life by any means, the College also calls attention to the mobidity and mortality induced abortion presents for both adolescent women and their children. Abortion-associated morbidities include the increased risk of subsequent substance abuse, anxiety, depression, breast cancer, and premature births (which endangers the health of the newborn).6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 While maternal deaths due to abortion are rarely reported,15recent studies document a greater incidence of both abortion-associated “natural cause” mortality and abortion-associated violent deaths (including suicides, homicides and accidents) when compared with women who deliver at full term.16,17,18

Disappointingly, while there have been documented cases in the lay press sufficient to warrant passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, the medical literature has remained silent regarding the incidence and fate of infants born alive during late-term abortion procedures.19 Depending on the abortion procedure employed and the degree of resuscitation provided, the surviving infant may face subsequent physical, emotional and cognitive impairments. For this reason, the College insists that during any abortion procedure involving potentially viable fetuses, a healthcare professional skilled in and dedicated to the resuscitation of newborns be present.

It is unfortunate that the medical community has been persuaded by shifting societal ideology and existing civil law in its determination to affirm the rights of viable patients over those dependent upon a uterine environment for their survival. Civil law cannot take the place of conscience or dictate moral norms. Societal standards must be characterized by a moral basis of respect for all and especially for the rights of the weakest and the most defenseless. The central issue is not viability but rather the inviolability of all human life from conception to natural death. As pointed out by Paul Ramsey in 1975, “The fetus is generally viable at all stages unless it is removed from its natural environment.”20 The limitations to fetal viability have undergone considerable change over the past 36 years and it is anticipated that medical advances will continue this improving trend. A court, society or the medical profession should not define personhood on the basis of such changing measures.

With the imperative of the medical profession to preserve the health of all patients, the College looks forward to the day when all children will be treated with the respect deserved by each human being, regardless of gestational age, medical condition, or social circumstances. Pediatricians must advocate for all children, not just for those deemed “viable” or “worthy of existence.” Pediatricians should honor the advocacy once proclaimed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (some thirteen months preceding Roe v. Wade in 1972) that a pediatrician’s responsibility for the child should extend from conception through young adulthood.21 Physicians must uphold scientific integrity and speak out against further “sacrifice” of the in utero child. The College shall not waiver from this commitment.

October 8, 2009

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.

A printable Adobe Acrobat (pdf) copy of this position is available by checking here.

Other articles of interest regarding respect for life:


November 2, 2017: Frank Stephens, a man with Down syndrome, says that his life is worth living… he does not feel he should have to justify his existence. (At the bottom right hand side of the video screen on the above link, be sure to click the sound ‘on.’)

 

References

[1] Wardle, Lynn D. and Wood, Mary Anne Q. A Lawyer At Abortion. Brigham, Young University Press, Provo, UT .1982;pp. 3-6, pp. 47-54.

[2] de Miranda, F. When Human Life Begins. American College of Pediatricians.. 2004. Available at /?CONTEXT=art&cat=10007&art=53. Accessed October 8, 2009.

[3] Condic, M.. When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective. The West Chester Insitute. October 2008. Available at  http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf . Accessed October 8, 2009.

[4] Finer, L.B., Frohwirth, L.F., Dauphinee, L.A., Singh, S., Moore, A.M. Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005:37(3):110-118. Guttmacher Institute. Article available at  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html. Accessed October 8, 2009.

[5] Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Campbell S. Is third trimester abortion justified? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995; Jun; 102(6);434-5

[6] Reardon, D.C. and Ney, P.G., Abortion and Subsequent Substance Abuse. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.. 2000;26(1):61-75.

[7] Benute GR, Nomura RM, Pereira PP, et al. Spontaneous and induced abortion: anxiety, depression, and guilt. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2009 May-June; 55(3):322-7.

[8] Pedersen W. Abortion and depression: a population-based longitudinal study of young women.  Scand J Public Health. 2008 June;36(4):424-8.

[9] Cougle JR, Reardon DC, Coleman PK. Depression associated with abortion and childbirth: a long-term analysis of the NLSY cohort.  Med Sci Monit 2003 Apr; 9(4):CR105-12.

[10] Brind J, et. al., Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-analysis,  Hershey Medical Center, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 1996.

[11] Reardon DC, Coleman PK, Cougle JR. Substance Use Associated with Unintended Pregnancy Outcomes in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse. Taylor & Francis Ltd; 2004: p. 369-83.

[12] Ferguson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM. Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006 Jan;47(1):16-24.

[13] Coleman PK, Rue VM, Coyle CT. Induced abortion and intimate relationship quality in the Chicago Health and Social Life Survey. Public Health. 2009 Apr; 123(4):331-8.

[14] Rees DI, Sabia JJ. The relationship between abortion and depression: new evidence from the fragile families and child wellbeing study. Med Sci Monit. 2007;Oct;13(10):CR430-6.

[15] Strauss, LT, Gamble, SB, et. Al. Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2003.  MMWR 55 (SS11); 1-32, November 24, 2006. Available at  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm?s_cid=  Accessed October 8, 2009.

[16] Gissler, M., et. al., Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000.  American Journal of ObGyn.  2004;190, 422-427.

[17] Reardon D.C., et. al., Deaths Associated with Pregnancy Outcome.  Southern Medical Journal. 2002:Vol. 95, No. 8, 834-841.

[18] Shadigian, E., Bauer S., Pregnancy-Associated Death: A Qualitative Systematic Review of Homicide and Suicide, OB GYN Survey. 2005; Vol. 60, No. 3..

[19] Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Available at  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-2175 Accessed October 8, 2009.

[20] Ramsey P. Appendix, Research on the Fetus, National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1975.

[21] American Academy of Pediatrics. Age Limits of Pediatrics. Policy Statement (RE8116). Pediatrics. 1972:449-463.

©2009 American College of Pediatricians





 
 
96WS6
2.1.8  96WS6  replied to  lib50 @2.1.1    5 days ago
How dare you try to force your particular crap on all women.  Abortion is not murder and not your business.

Abortion once the baby can survive outside the womb IS murder and I'm not OK with murder.  When is it murder in YOUR opinion?  Are you are ok with a mom that is overdue on delivery 2 weeks murdering her child?  Do you still want to be able to kill it once you start labor?  Is it not murder until the baby takes it's first breath?  Until the cord is cut?  Can't we even agree on when a baby is a baby?  

People that don't like being called a murderer because they would kill a healthy child that could survive out of the womb should look in the mirror and think a little more about what they really stand for.

I would like to point out I have no interest of denying you being able to kill your own fetus, I just don't want people murdering babies, so let's talk about when it becomes a baby because that is the real issue when you defend Roe VS Wade, and that is the issue most the left won't even talk about.  Why is that?  Is it because then you would have to admit that in some cases ABORTION IS IN FACT MURDER?

Taking 10 to 1 odds there will be no reply to this post that opens dialog of when it becomes murder from the pro choice crowd.

 
 
96WS6
2.1.9  96WS6  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.3    5 days ago

There is no murder involved.  I get so tired of that nonsense.  

How the hell is Roe v. Wade outdated?  

Obviously all who are opposed are anti-choice, not pro-life.  Opposed to a woman's choices over her own body and her life.  

So you think abortion should be legal after the baby could survive outside the womb?  Is it not murder until the child takes it's first breath?  At what point EXACTLY does the baby have the same rights YOU do?  When EXACTLY is it murder?  We are not talking about if a woman has the right to abort a fetus we are talking about when the fetus becomes a baby.  I know you don't want to talk about it but have you ever thought about it?

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.5    5 days ago

Good find, Tessy. It shows that the American College of Pediatrics really is a far-right fringe group.

 
 
Jasper2529
2.1.11  Jasper2529  replied to  lib50 @2.1.1    5 days ago
Abortion is not murder

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell agrees with you. Fortunately, our legal system disagrees with both of you, because he's serving life without parole (plus 30 years) for first degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and other crimes. 

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  96WS6 @2.1.9    5 days ago

Who's killing babies that can survive outside the womb? If you know of these murderers, call the police so that they can be prosecuted

 
 
1ofmany
2.1.13  1ofmany  replied to  lib50 @2.1.1    5 days ago
I don't believe that and my spiritual beliefs back them up.  How dare you try to force your particular crap on all women.  Abortion is not murder and not your business.  Feel free to live any way you like to your values, but stay the hell out of mine.

Ok, how dare women think that they can treat their unborn child as a wad of snot and kill it with impunity. A woman’s real choice over her body is to either use contraceptives or keep her damn legs closed. Once she procreates, then she has arguably created another person who may have rights the state can protect. 

 
 
charger 383
2.1.14  charger 383  replied to  96WS6 @2.1.9    5 days ago
At what point EXACTLY does the baby have the same rights YOU do?

Age of 21 is point of EXACTLY same rights.  

 
 
Colour Me Free
2.1.15  Colour Me Free  replied to  1ofmany @2.1.13    5 days ago

Disclaimer:  My personal feelings on abortion are of no consequence - I am merely curious to what extent the opposition to abortion has thought out the "what's next" part of the equation ...

Once she procreates, then she has arguably created another person who may have rights the state can protect.

Which opens up a whole other can of worms … unwanted children being carried to term .. then what?  

Tax payer financed foster care is broken and over loaded … not everyone has family that is willing to take in another mouth to feed nor raise the ditzes baby that could not figure out birth control - so then who is it that takes care of these unwanted children carried to term?

The dreaded "welfare queen" is being vilified … social safety nets become a life long support system - many feel that these programs should be cut .. so now where do these unwanted children carried term turn next?

I understand that individuals do not approve of abortion, see it as immoral etc etc etc...  yet what is worse .. a child aborted unaware that he/she was not wanted - or to grow up feeling/knowing they were/are unwanted?

Just asking...

 
 
Colour Me Free
2.1.16  Colour Me Free  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.14    5 days ago

HA!  Once I was asked at what age a child is viable outside the womb .. the only thing I could think of to say was ..When they buy their own food!

 
 
1ofmany
2.1.17  1ofmany  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.15    4 days ago

. . . I understand that individuals do not approve of abortion, see it as immoral etc etc etc...  yet what is worse .. a child aborted unaware that he/she was not wanted - or to grow up feeling/knowing they were/are unwanted?

Just asking...

Unborn children, if declared to be people, may have a right to live no matter how inconvenient they are to others or how unaware they are of their own murder. If being aware were the standard, then it would be ok to murder people while asleep or unconscious. To me, it never was a constitutional or legal issue to begin with. It’s a moral issue more appropriate for a state legislature to determine just like they do anything else.

 
 
96WS6
2.1.18  96WS6  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.10    4 days ago

So when science disagrees with you it's because it is "right wing science"?laughing dude

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  96WS6 @2.1.18    4 days ago

You're laughing about baby killers?

 
 
96WS6
2.1.20  96WS6  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.19    4 days ago

Now they are baby killers too?   Do they preform abortions?laughing dude

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.21  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1ofmany @2.1.17    4 days ago
It’s a moral issue more appropriate for a state legislature to determine just like they do anything else.

It's a fake moral issue for people who consistently show immorality in their own personal lives.  I refer specifically to those several "pro-life" republiscum politicians (and, of course, the sanctimonious hypocrites who voted for them) who pressured their mistresses (!) to get abortions.  This feigned concern for the unborn is also against a backdrop of total indifference if not outright callousness toward the plight of actual children, whether American born in poverty or those brought here in the hopes of escaping horrendous violence in other countries.  Time and time again we're confronted by the disgusting double standard these "moral" people show us.  They sicken the country with their hypocrisy. 

 
 
96WS6
2.1.22  96WS6  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.12    4 days ago

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/roe/roe2.html

The age a of successful survival outside the womb has changed since the law was written.  Unless you are flat out denying these advances in medicine and science in general, or are FOR killing babies that could survive outside the womb,  why would you be against changing the dates/range of "viability"  in Roe vs Wade?

Given advances in medicine and the refusal to change the term of "viability" in Roe vs Wade, The irony in your statement is you probably know someone personally who fits that description, whether you know it or not...

 
 
lady in black
2.1.23  lady in black  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1.21    4 days ago

But doncha know that's different because it happened to them. /s

 
 
96WS6
2.1.24  96WS6  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1.21    4 days ago

Is that why you don't know what to do when someone approaches you about changing the range of "viability" in roe vs Wade?

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @2.1    4 days ago
Roe VS Wade is outdated

When does the expansion and recognition of individual rights become outdated?

and legalizes murder.

No it doesn't. Abortion is not murder.

Are you really opposed to moving the date back far enough that you aren't killing a baby capable of life outside the womb?

The cutoff for elective abortions is generally at the point of viability. Before that point, a fetus is incapable o surviving outside the womb. So what's the problem?

Abortion once the baby can survive outside the womb IS murder and I'm not OK with murder.

Then it's murder, and not abortion.

When is it murder in YOUR opinion?

Birth.

Are you are ok with a mom that is overdue on delivery 2 weeks murdering her child? Do you still want to be able to kill it once you start labor? Is it not murder until the baby takes it's first breath? Until the cord is cut?

Such hyperbole, to the point of being completely asinine! I doubt women consider "murdering their child" if they're overdue. It's more likely they'll be worried that there is a medical problem. In such cases, a doctor can induce labor or perform a C-section.

Can't we even agree on when a baby is a baby?

Birth.

People that don't like being called a murderer because they would kill a healthy child that could survive out of the womb should look in the mirror and think a little more about what they really stand for.

Who's advocating killing children?

I would like to point out I have no interest of denying you being able to kill your own fetus,

Good, because it's really none of your or anyone else's business.

I just don't want people murdering babies,

Murdering babies is illegal. o if you know anyone doing that, you should contact the authorities immediately.

so let's talk about when it becomes a baby

Birth.

because that is the real issue when you defend Roe VS Wade,

No. Roe is about women's rights and autonomy. It established woman cannot be denied their right to choose. Roe touched on when abortions are permissible or not. Subsequent abortion cases only expanded on that.

and that is the issue most the left won't even talk about. Why is that?

What's to talk about exactly? Abortion is a settled matter and established legal precedent.

Is it because then you would have to admit that in some cases ABORTION IS IN FACT MURDER?

What "cases" precisely? Calling abortion murder is factually and legally incorrect.

Taking 10 to 1 odds there will be no reply to this post that opens dialog of when it becomes murder from the pro choice crowd.

Looks like you just lost that bet.

So you think abortion should be legal after the baby could survive outside the womb?

it already is. But usually in cases of medical necessity.

Is it not murder until the child takes it's first breath? At what point EXACTLY does the baby have the same rights YOU do? When EXACTLY is it murder?

Birth. (I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself here)

We are not talking about if a woman has the right to abort a fetus we are talking about when the fetus becomes a baby.

Geez, I am repeating myself. Ok, once again, birth!

I know you don't want to talk about it but have you ever thought about it?

What's to think about: abortion is a woman's legal right, it her business and no one else's, her reasons for choosing to have an abortion or not are hers and hers alone, and it's not a baby until birth (before then, it's a fetus). Not only did I talk about it, I also summed it up for you.

Is that why you don't know what to do when someone approaches you about changing the range of "viability" in roe vs Wade?

Viability is a medical determination, not a legal one. The courts simply used that determination to establish limits on elective abortion.

The age a of successful survival outside the womb has changed since the law was written. Unless you are flat out denying these advances in medicine and science in general, or are FOR killing babies that could survive outside the womb, why would you be against changing the dates/range of "viability" in Roe vs Wade?

Viability is approximately 23 weeks gestation. Even at that point, a fetus only has a 50% chance of survival at best.

Given advances in medicine and the refusal to change the term of "viability" in Roe vs Wade,

Medical science has not reduced the point of viability. Only the survival chances at that point.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.26  Trout Giggles  replied to  96WS6 @2.1.20    4 days ago

I won't discuss a serious issue with someone who isn't serious.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.27  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.25    4 days ago

My daughter is a Neo-Natal Nurse and has taken care of preemies that were born right around the 24 week gestation age.** She said they can usually make it with the technology they have at the hospital. Anything less than 24 week gestation and the child almost always dies.

**Of course that's not even going into the developmental difficulties the child may have

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.27    4 days ago
My daughter is a Neo-Natal Nurse and has taken care of preemies that were born right around the 24 week gestation age.**

My respect and admiration for your daughter. Neonatal nursing is a stressful and difficult field of nursing. Kudos to her.

She said they can usually make it with the technology they have at the hospital. Anything less than 24 week gestation and the child almost always dies.

True. As I said, medical science only improves the chances of survival, not necessarily the point of survival.

**Of course that's not even going into the developmental difficulties the child may have

indeed.

 
 
Colour Me Free
2.1.29  Colour Me Free  replied to  1ofmany @2.1.17    4 days ago
Unborn children, if declared to be people, may have a right to live no matter how inconvenient they are to others or how unaware they are of their own murder.

Yet that is the point 1ofmany … it is the child that ultimately pays the price for that right to life … even though they did not have a say in it.

Schools are full of students whose mothers and fathers cannot even take the time to attend a parent teachers conference .. take no interest in their child's goals, the child's achievements - nor needed discipline .. many young people are raising themselves..  Which opens up the conversation to quality of said right to life ...…  my sons have had, still have friends that parents could not careless about them .. unless said parents are inconvenienced by them - in which case I get a knock at the door as said children seek refuge at my house.

I am a strong supporter in States rights .. and am a bit originalist when it comes to the Constitution ………. yet abortion is a legal issue, ever bit as much as it is a moral issue .. as soon as a State makes a decision one way or another regarding abortion … it becomes a matter of law, as well as a court issue on how the law is to be enforced / implemented .. abortion is far outside the realm of what a religion believes, or an individual believes is morality... in my opinion anyways …

How unwanted children should be paid for has still not been addressed .. I think that is a extremely big factor - especially when individuals scream about the costs of Medicaid .. food stamps etc...

 
 
Sunshine
2.1.30  Sunshine  replied to  96WS6 @2.1.22    4 days ago
Given advances in medicine

They think a baby just plops out and survives on it's own.  Strange criteria.  Regardless of how many weeks of growth, a baby can not survive without assistance. 

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.28    4 days ago

Thank-you. She loves her job. She decided to go into neo-natal when she was working as a nurse tech while in school. She can't stand taking care of adults because all they do is complain.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.32  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.30    4 days ago

I've had 2 babies of my own. I know they don't just "plop out". Stop insulting our intelligence

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.31    4 days ago
She loves her job.

That's always important.

She decided to go into neo-natal when she was working as a nurse tech while in school.

Good for her, to make such a career choice. She should be very proud.

She can't stand taking care of adults because all they do is complain.

So true. just look at some of them complain here, LOL

 
 
Tessylo
2.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.12    4 days ago
'Who's killing babies that can survive outside the womb? If you know of these murderers, call the police so that they can be prosecuted'

My thoughts exactly.  

 
 
Tessylo
2.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  96WS6 @2.1.9    4 days ago

How come you don't say all that junk you provided from the American College of Pediatricians is full of lies and junk science?

 
 
Tessylo
2.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.10    4 days ago
'Good find, Tessy. It shows that the American College of Pediatrics really is a far-right fringe group.'

Thank you - the citations he supplied shows nothing but lies and junk science.  

 
 
Tessylo
2.1.37  Tessylo  replied to  96WS6 @2.1.18    4 days ago
'So when science disagrees with you it's because it is "right wing science"?'

No, it's bogus, junk science, and a lot of lies.  

 
 
It Is ME
2.1.38  It Is ME  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.32    4 days ago
I know they don't just "plop out".

Maybe with you, and some others. My wife was a baby machine. Water breaks, 35 minutes later we have a son, daughter and another son....and no....not all at the same time. Doctor never made it into the delivery room any of those times. Saved me bunches of bucks. I suppose you could say, some are more Blessed than others. chuckle

 
 
1ofmany
2.1.39  1ofmany  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.29    4 days ago
. . .  I am a strong supporter in States rights .. and am a bit originalist when it comes to the Constitution ………. yet abortion is a legal issue, ever bit as much as it is a moral issue .. as soon as a State makes a decision one way or another regarding abortion … it becomes a matter of law, as well as a court issue on how the law is to be enforced / implemented .. abortion is far outside the realm of what a religion believes, or an individual believes is morality... in my opinion anyways …

I understand your position but I disagree. The constitution is not a panacea for every situation. All the Court has to do is say that it’s isn't addressed in the constitution and then leave it to each state to decide under the 10th amendment. 

 
 
Old School Marine
2.1.40  Old School Marine  replied to  lady in black @2.1.6    4 days ago

You know, your bullshit doesn't even deserve the little bit it would take to destroy the comment.

 
 
PJ
2.1.41  PJ  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.26    4 days ago

These are the same people that are okay with someone going into a school shooting up teenagers.  

They have no credibility.  Talk about phucked up logic.  Don't waste your time.  You're a woman and therefore they need to tell you how to behave and what to believe.  

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.42  Trout Giggles  replied to  PJ @2.1.41    4 days ago

And they continue with the "sanctity of life" and "all life is sacred" memes.

They totally contradict themselves when they support cutting off support for Medicare and supporting the War Machine

 
 
PJ
2.1.43  PJ  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.42    4 days ago

Good points.  I forgot how they actively work against the elderly and the very poor.   

 
 
1ofmany
3  1ofmany    5 days ago

Schumer isn’t likely to get any bipartisan support when liberal groups make it obvious that they’re driven by blind hatred of anybody Trump nominates. Trump should thank the Women’s March for their help. 

 
 
96WS6
3.1  96WS6  replied to  1ofmany @3    5 days ago

Well it isn't like it wasn't already common knowledge, it just makes it harder to deny.

 
 
1ofmany
3.1.1  1ofmany  replied to  96WS6 @3.1    5 days ago

Democrats sound like they’re in a hillbilly feud where one side’s comment about the other is “it don’t matter what he says, if he’s fer it, then I’m agin it.” And, after saying it, they look surprised when the other side responds by sticking shotguns out the window and aiming at them. 

 
 
katlin02
3.1.2  katlin02  replied to  1ofmany @3.1.1    4 days ago
Democrats sound like they’re in a hillbilly feud where one side’s comment about the other is “it don’t matter what he says, if he’s fer it, then I’m agin it.” And, after saying it, they look surprised when the other side responds by sticking shotguns out the window and aiming at them.

laughing dude---omg i had to laugh at that--because it is so true nowdays.

hell dems have said they are against tax cuts- people having more money,,they are against lower unemployment, they are against a stronger GDP---weren't they praising obama for doing this by 1% and now trump has done it by 4% and they are agin it........

 
 
lib50
3.2  lib50  replied to  1ofmany @3    5 days ago

(Deleted)

 
 
Spikegary
3.3  Spikegary  replied to  1ofmany @3    5 days ago
These folks have become really good at shooting themselves in the foot. 

Maybe that's why they want to ban guns.

 
 
Tessylo
3.4  Tessylo  replied to  1ofmany @3    5 days ago

It's not blind hatred - it's reality.  

 
 
1ofmany
3.4.1  1ofmany  replied to  Tessylo @3.4    5 days ago
It's not blind hatred - it's reality.  

The two aren’t mutually exclusive . . . their blind hatred is a reality.

 
 
Texan1211
3.4.2  Texan1211  replied to  1ofmany @3.4.1    4 days ago

Oh!

To NEVER having to hear the freaking crazy chant of "Obstruction!!!" again!

This alone makes it all worth it!

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1ofmany @3    4 days ago
Schumer isn’t likely to get any bipartisan support when liberal groups make it obvious that they’re driven by blind hatred of anybody Trump nominates.

It's truly a remarkable display of a complete lack of awareness that someone could think that after how ( deleted )  treated Obama's nominee for Scalia's replacement in 2016.  Scalia's empty seat on the court was simply stolen--no two ways about it. 

 
 
Spikegary
3.5.1  Spikegary  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.5    4 days ago

Off topic much?  President Trump already has one nomination seated.  His name is Neil Gorsuch.  So you are only worried about the 2nd nomnation?  Wait until Judge Ginsberg retires.....you will be absolutely apoplectic. 

Probably should have gone after the Dems a few years back, when they decided to wave the super majority requirments for their appointees.  Anyone with a lick of common sense could have seen that it would actually bite them in the ass.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.5.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Spikegary @3.5.1    4 days ago
Off topic much?

Desperate not to face reality and the consequences of the fascist-like behavior ( deleted )

 
 
katlin02
3.5.3  katlin02  replied to  Spikegary @3.5.1    4 days ago

i do think mconnell tried to warn reid at the time----now it is biting them in the ass and they are cryin, hey chuckie schumer.

 
 
Texan1211
3.5.4  Texan1211  replied to  katlin02 @3.5.3    4 days ago

Remember Reid's words on lying about Romney--"It worked, didn't it?"

I wonder if he feels the same way about the nuclear decision now?

 
 
1ofmany
3.5.5  1ofmany  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.5    4 days ago

“Schumer isn’t likely to get any bipartisan support when liberal groups make it obvious that they’re driven by blind hatred of anybody Trump nominates.”

It's truly a remarkable display of a complete lack of awareness that someone could think that after how (deleted)  treated Obama's nominee for Scalia's replacement in 2016. 

Uh huh. Well you mosey on over and see if you can work out a bipartisan deal after calling them  ( Deleted )

Scalia's empty seat on the court was simply stolen--no two ways about it.

Seats can’t be owned or reserved. But if they can be, then Scalia’s seat was reserved for another conservative like Scalia and Republicans stopped Democrats from stealing it. 

 
 
Kathleen/Butterfie
4  Kathleen/Butterfie    5 days ago

Goes to show you no matter who he picked... They would cry about it.

 
 
1ofmany
4.1  1ofmany  replied to  Kathleen/Butterfie @4    5 days ago
Goes to show you no matter who he picked... They would cry about it.

If they have a blanket objection to anyone Trump picks, then they have legitimized blanket support from the other side. Since Republicans control the senate, all democrats have done is make it easy to get themselves steamrolled. 

 
 
Gordy327
4.2  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen/Butterfie @4    4 days ago
Goes to show you no matter who he picked... They would cry about it.

It wouldn't be any different if the roles were reversed: if Hillary was president and picked a SCOTUS nominee, the Republicans would be whining about it. political games is all the same no matter who is in office.

 
 
Spikegary
4.2.1  Spikegary  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2    4 days ago

But she didn't and we live in the here and now.  So, your strawman is full of 'what if' imaginings that really have nothing to do with the United States in 2018.

 
 
Gordy327
4.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Spikegary @4.2.1    4 days ago
But she didn't and we live in the here and now. So, your strawman is full of 'what if' imaginings that really have nothing to do with the United States in 2018.

You don't get it: it doesn't matter who is in the white house. We would still see this particular issue play out like it is.

 
 
Spikegary
4.2.3  Spikegary  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.2    4 days ago

And you don't get that you can play with your imaginings all day-they have nothing to do with the current situatuion in the here and now.

 
 
Gordy327
4.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  Spikegary @4.2.3    4 days ago

you  still don't get it. Oh well.

 
 
Kathleen/Butterfie
4.2.5  Kathleen/Butterfie  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2    4 days ago

I don't think it would be as bad... I truly do.

The moaning and groaning from the other party has been relentless.

I am also diplomatic about this, but this is getting out of control.

They despise Trump, and it fuels from that. So it's a lot worse then it usually is this time.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.4    4 days ago
still don't get it.

Not getting it is a feature, not a bug, of extreme rightwingism.

 
 
KDMichigan
4.2.7  KDMichigan  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.6    4 days ago
Not getting it is a feature, not a bug, of extreme rightwingism.

Creating a false scenario then commenting on it is typical of the LWNJ

 
 
Sunshine
5  Sunshine    5 days ago

“In response to Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

What they should have done...“In response to Donald Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

At least they wouldn't look too much like a bunch of dumbasses.

 
 
96WS6
5.1  96WS6  replied to  Sunshine @5    5 days ago

That would require actual thought process...

 
 
Cerenkov
5.1.1  Cerenkov  replied to  96WS6 @5.1    3 days ago

That's not part of a liberal skill set.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sunshine @5    4 days ago
At least they wouldn't look too much like a bunch of dumbasses.

You mean like this one:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/396254-santorum-rips-trump-supreme-court-pick-he-bowed-to-the-elite-in

 
 
Sunshine
5.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5.2    4 days ago

I don't see the relevance....did Santorum make an ass of himself?  He stated an opinion based on the actual person picked not a blanket statement prior to any nominee.  

 
 
96WS6
5.2.2  96WS6  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5.2    4 days ago

Not even close.  Sanatorum not only knows who the pick is, he demonstrated he actually knows some facts about the pick as well and made objections based on those facts.   Are there any other examples of bat shit crazy VS sensible approach you would like to point out?

 
 
Silent_Hysteria
6  Silent_Hysteria    4 days ago

Weaponized outrage.  It's the new political tool.  It doesn't matter if you are actually outraged... it only matters if you can attack the other side with your opinion.

just like the group who was protesting ice while they were making arrests.... of child traffickers.  In their mind ICE is bad and no matter what they do they will protest them.  Same with trump.  He could have picked a liberal judge and they would have found a reason to protest.  

 
 
A. Macarthur
7  A. Macarthur    4 days ago

LET'S SEE THE ACTUAL, FULL TWEET!

LET'S SEE THE SOURCE OF THE SO-CALLED TWEET!

This is A TWEET ABOUT THE ALLEGED TWEET … IT IS NOT THE TWEET ITSELF … if there actually is one …

Screen Shot 20180711 at 2.15.37 PM.jpg

As far as I can tell, the "report" come from the WASHINGTON TIMES and INFO WARS.

Between 1998 and 2004, the Times covered every biennial American Renaissance conference, hosted by the white supremacist New Century Foundation. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, "the paper’s coverage of these events—which are hotbeds for holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, and eugenicists—was stunningly one sided," favorably depicting the conference content and conference goers.[76]

Under Pruden's editorship, the Times regularly printed excerpts from white supremacist publications, such as VDARE and American Renaissance magazine, and Bill White, leader of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, in its Culture Briefs section.[76] Under Pruden's editorship, an entire page in the Sunday edition was devoted to the American Civil War, often times glorifying the Confederacy.[76]

Pruden himself authored columns where he argued that Barack Obama could not understand or appreciate America due to his race. In a 2009 column entitled "'Inner Muslim' at work in Cairo", Pruden wrote that Obama is the "first president without an instinctive appreciation of the culture, history, tradition, common law and literature whence America sprang. The genetic imprint writ large in his 43 predecessors is missing from the Obama DNA."[76] In another 2009 column, Pruden wrote that Obama had “no natural instinct or blood impulse” for what America was about because he was “sired by a Kenyan father” and “born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World.”[76] These columns stirred controversy, leading the Times to assign the Deputy Editorial Page Editor to edit Pruden's work.[76]The editor in question, David Mastio, said that drafts provided by Pruden used subtle racism and glorified the Confederacy, "He was constantly re-litigating the Civil War, and attacking the historical figures on the right side of the war, Lincoln and Grant being his favorites... He also used terms with animal implications when referring to blacks".[76]

InfoWars
Infowars logo.png
Tomorrow's News TodayIf you are receiving this transmission, You are the Resistance
InfoWars.com homepage.png
Homepage of Infowars.com
Type of site
Politics
News and opinion
Available in English
Owner Alex Jones (via Free Speech Systems LLC)
Website www.infowars.com
Alexa rank Decrease 3,579 (February 2018)[1]
Registration None
Launched March 6, 1999; 19 years ago[2]
Current status Active

InfoWars (stylized as INFOWARS) is an American conspiracy theoristand fake news website and media platform owned by Alex Jones's Free Speech Systems LLC.[3][4][5][6][7] It was founded in 1999.

Talk shows and other content are created primarily in studios at an undisclosed location in an industrial area outside Austin, Texas.[8] The InfoWars website receives approximately 10 million monthly visits, making it more visited than some mainstream news websites such as The Economist and Newsweek.[9][10]

______________________________________________________________

Find and post a VERIFIABLE, ORIGINAL TWEET FROM THE ALLEGED SOURCE … and I will apologize unequivocally for what I have implied … otherwise, the seeded article is the usual right-wing bullshit/hate screed crap.

 
 
KDMichigan
7.1  KDMichigan  replied to  A. Macarthur @7    4 days ago
This is A TWEET ABOUT THE ALLEGED TWEET … IT IS NOT THE TWEET ITSELF … if there actually is one …

Well golly I'm sure you're not going to see a article on this in any leftwing news site so you can be safe in your denial that it ever happened.

 
 
Cerenkov
7.1.1  Cerenkov  replied to  KDMichigan @7.1    3 days ago

Ridiculous right?

 
 
Texan1211
8  Texan1211    4 days ago

Are there really people so dense that they think only ONE issue should decide who sits in the Supreme Court?

And why don't they all take a cue from their illustrious Senate Leader and not ask possible SCOTUS picks to say how they would rule on a hypothetical case which isn't even before the SCOTUS? 

Would anyone respect a judge who decided a case without facts?

 
 
r.t..b...
8.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @8    4 days ago
Are there really people so dense that they think only ONE issue should decide who sits in the Supreme Court?

There are many voters who cast a ballot for our current President based solely on this ONE issue.

 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1    4 days ago

My local talk show host is a one issue voter. He won't vote for any pro-choice candidate. He has admitted that many, many times

 
 
Texan1211
8.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1    4 days ago

That would probably be pretty hard to prove.

 
 
A. Macarthur
8.2  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @8    4 days ago
Are there really people so dense that they think only ONE issue should decide who sits in the Supreme Court?

Wait until the density gets to be fluid … as in, f'rinstance …

WHAT'S THE CONNECTION BETWEEN JUSTICE KENNDY'S SON, JUSTIN, TRUMP'S CONNECTION TO JUSTIN KENNEDY … and loans to Trump from Deutsche Bank?

This is one of many questions about to be raised regarding Kavanaugh's nomination …

Actually, Texan, for once, WE AGREE! This will be far more than a one-issue deal!

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2    4 days ago

Really hate to break it to you, but Kennedy has absolutely nothing to do with this.

I realize that many Dems love to fantasize about conspiracy theories, but, hell, come ON, man! 

That is ridiculous!

 
 
Ender
8.2.2  Ender  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2    4 days ago

I always wondered why none of that is ever brought up. Also odd that he all the sudden just decided to quit.

 
 
A. Macarthur
8.2.3  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.1    4 days ago
Really hate to break it to you, but Kennedy has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Dismissive comments give the ones making them a false sense of security … whether "Kennedy has nothing to do with this," may or may not be the case, but it's clear to me, that you know little or nothing about what I posted.

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.3    4 days ago

If you can in any sane way relate your conspiracy theory about Trump and Kennedy to a women's group making a dunderheaded blunder and talking about opposing Trump's pick based on a single issue of abortion, I will be more than willing to discuss this with you. 

Let's start, shall we?

 
 
Sunshine
8.2.5  Sunshine  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.1    4 days ago
That is ridiculous!

Hillary voters!  Go figure....always a conspiracy.

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Sunshine @8.2.5    4 days ago

What else do they have?

 
 
Colour Me Free
8.2.7  Colour Me Free  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2    4 days ago

Did Justice Kennedy quit due to family ties to Trump and Russia?

Our ruling

Bloggers wrote that Justice Kennedy retired last week because "he and his son helped launder illegal Russian money through Deutsche Bank."

This story has all the buzz words to make a good conspiracy theory: Russia, real estate, billions of dollars, coincidence, corruption. But there is no evidence that Trump and Justin Kennedy ever had a relationship beyond Trump’s real estate loans.

There is also no evidence that Kennedy was involved in Russian money laundering, as he left the bank before either of the major scandals happened, or that the Trump White House was blackmailing his father because of it.

We rate this claim False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/10/blog-posting/did-justice-kennedy-quit-due-family-ties-trump-and/

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Colour Me Free @8.2.7    4 days ago

Well, now politifact will be said to be part of the vast right wing conspiracy!

 
 
A. Macarthur
8.2.9  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.4    4 days ago

If you can in any sane way relate your conspiracy theory about Trump and Kennedy to a women's group making a dunderheaded blunder and talking about opposing Trump's pick based on a single issue of abortion, I will be more than willing to discuss this with you. 

Let's start, shall we?

Take your Ginkgo, sir.

YOU brought the thread to this point with YOUR comment …

Are there really people so dense that they think only ONE issue should decide who sits in the Supreme Court?

All I did was corroborate your assertion that this was not a ONE issue matter!

Started!

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.9    4 days ago

After rereading the thread, I have no earthly idea what you read.

You make it seem as though you think your little conspiracy theory is an actual issue for sane people.

Democrats and groups like this women's group are using only ONE issue to attempt to block this (or any other Trump nominee) on a SINGLE ISSUE.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
8.2.11  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.10    4 days ago
You make it seem as though you think your little conspiracy theory is an actual issue for sane people.

That is rich coming from the extreme rightwing. 

 
 
A. Macarthur
8.2.12  A. Macarthur  replied to  Colour Me Free @8.2.7    4 days ago

Your link misrepresents the speculation by stating it as follows:

"Justice Kennedy quit because he and his son helped Trump launder illegal Russian money through Deutsche Bank."
— Bloggers on Saturday, June 30th, 2018 in a blog post

THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE/CONNECTION THAT MAY BE QUESTIONABLE!

THIS IS …

As Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC has reported, Justin Kennedy left Deutsche Bank long before the money laundering and had no direct connection to the bank's loans to Trump. The more interesting fact is where Justin Kennedy went next -- he became the co-CEO of LNR Property. And that brings us straight to the most immediately vulnerable member of the Trump family, Jared Kushner.

From the New York Times, in 2012:

The Kushners' purchase in 2007 of 666 Fifth Avenue for a record price of $1.8 billion is considered a classic example of reckless underwriting. The transaction was so highly leveraged that the cash flow from rents amounted to only 65 percent of the debt service.

As many real estate specialists predicted, the deal ran into trouble. Instead of rising, rents declined as the recession took hold, and new leases were scarce. In 2010, the loan was transferred to a special servicer on the assumption that a default would occur once reserve funds being used to subsidize the shortfall were bled dry.

Instead of foreclosing on the 39-story building, which stretches from 52nd Street to 53rd Street, the lenders agreed last month to reduce the principal and defer some of the interest payments on the interest-only loan and extend its maturity for two years, until February 2019.

Vornado has taken an ownership stake in several troubled Manhattan properties. But the 666 Fifth deal raised some eyebrows because Vornado is also a part-owner of the special servicer on the loan, LNR Partners, of Miami Beach.

There was a direct business relationship between LNR and Kushner Companies at the time Justin Kennedy and Jared Kushner were both CEOs. Even the future President was aware of the deal and commented on its respective merits.
-- In 2011, the year in which some of these negotiations took place, Justin Kennedy for the first time was ranked on the New York Observer’s 100 Most Powerful People in New York Real Estate at #36. Donald Trump clocked in at #12. At that time, The New York Observer was owned by Jared Kushner.

The 666 Fifth Avenue deal is generally regarded as the all-time stinker in New York commercial real estate. What did LNR see as the upside? Better question: Was there any upside? As we know, 666 Fifth Avenue went badly for the Kushners, so badly that they were scrambling for a partner. Where might one be?

The Intercept reported earlier this year that Charles Kushner, Jared's father, had discussed a financing deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with Qatari finance minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi in April 2017. A month after that deal cratered, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Jared Kushner’s backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. NBC News reported that Qatari government officials visiting the U.S. “considered turning over to Mueller what they believe is evidence of efforts by their country’s Persian Gulf neighbors in coordination with Kushner to hurt their country.”

Back in March 2017, when Bernstein and Rusk published their Medium article, they ended on a hopeful note:

We know what the Justice’s son may have done for Mr. Kushner, but what did the President’s children do for Justin Kennedy? How have they been nice to him? Evidently Justice Kennedy knows, and this may have had an impact on his opinion of the Trumps in general and the President in particular. This is perhaps a significant cause of concern for those who hope that Justice Kennedy will try and hold out until after Trump is replaced by a Democrat. Time will tell.

Well, time has told. Kennedy didn’t hold out. Although there’s clearly more to this story than an 81-year-old justice who was ready to retire, I’m thinking Anthony Kennedy’s farewell gift to Trump isn’t just right-wing control of the Supreme Court for the rest of most of our lives. For once, it may not be about the money. The real prize here may be a gold-plated Get Out of Jail Free card.

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @8.2.11    4 days ago

"Extreme right wing"?

WTF you talking to?

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.12    4 days ago

The horrifying consequences of Justice Kennedy’s retirement
While there’s no evidence that Justin Kennedy’s business relationship with Trump played any role in his father’s decision to retire at a time when Trump is positioned to be able to select his successor — and following a term in which Kennedy regularly sided with the court’s four conservatives justices to cast deciding votes in cases dealing with issues like Trump’s travel ban and abortion — political observers have noted the connection.

Just to state this: Justice Kennedy's son gave a billion dollar loan to Trump when no one would give him a dime, and Justice Kennedy has been ruling in favor of the Trump Administration position for 2 years as the Court decides 5-4 case after 5-4 case.

Your very own source makes it clear that Kennedy decided with the majority in many cases favorable to the Trump Administration.

So there would be no need to try and have Kennedy retire because nothing would be gained.

If Trump convinced Kennedy to retire, so what? 

SCOTUS are lifetime appointments and nothing short of impeachment or mental impairment can make them leave the bench.

And it seem those loans you seem concerned about were made long before Trump was elected.

If there is anything illegal about any of those loans, spell it out.

You seem to be attempting to insinuate that Kennedy was bought somehow without actually coming out and saying it.

 
 
r.t..b...
8.2.15  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.14    4 days ago
So there would be no need to try and have Kennedy retire because nothing would be gained.

Exactly. That leaves nothing but insinuation and partisan conjecture (so a couple daze of scintillating cable news punditry)...much ado about nothing, and we're only two days in.

 
 
A. Macarthur
8.2.16  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.14    4 days ago
So there would be no need to try and have Kennedy retire because nothing would be gained.

Unless he feared his sign might be indicted … AND NEED …

A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON!

I understand the comfort-factor of ignoring the details and coming to a dismissive conclusion, based not on the details, but rather, a convenient misapplication and/or, avoidance of the trail they create.

I have no illusions regarding convincing you of anything other than what you wish to believe; I post what I post, AND THE SPECIFIC, METHODICAL MANNER IN WHICH I POST, as a way of saying to the summary-dismissal-whistling-past-the-graveyard-gangbangers …

" … I do my homework, I make my case … feel free to specifically rebut any/all of my case, OR, otherwise, just know that pains-in-the-ass like myself, will relentlessly hammer away and be content in understanding that there will always be "Jess Willards" and their fans … AND THOSE OF US WHO PUNCH BACK!

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @8.2.15    4 days ago

The whole article seemed like something you'd find in the National Enquirer.

You know---right between the story on Obama and Oprah's Secret Love Child and the one on Trump and Ivanka's Love Trinagle!!

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.16    4 days ago

Not one thing you have posted proves anything at all.

What convictions for federal offenses do you have to support your conspiracy theory?

Has Justin Kennedy even been indicted for a federal offense?

Has Anthony Kennedy been indicted secretly?

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.16    4 days ago

Did you read the one how Ruth Ginsberg has undergone extreme experimental therapy to prolong her life until a Democrat takes office again?

Made some kind of deal with a  future Democratic sure-fire pick for President in 2020 in exchange for some very favorable tax breaks and government no-bid contracts in exchange for free drugs.

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @8.2.15    4 days ago

Yep.

I would love to see the Republicans put off the confirmation until mid-September and then let the Democrats try to delay it.

It will be pretty hard for Democrats to explain why they did the same thing they pilloried the GOP for. I mean, without looking like gigantic hypocrites.

 
 
Colour Me Free
8.2.21  Colour Me Free  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.12    4 days ago

I see I am not the only one that loves a good conspiracy...

We know what the Justice’s son may have done for Mr. Kushner, but what did the President’s children do for Justin Kennedy? How have they been nice to him? Evidently Justice Kennedy knows, and this may have had an impact on his opinion of the Trumps in general and the President in particular. This is perhaps a significant cause of concern for those who hope that Justice Kennedy will try and hold out until after Trump is replaced by a Democrat. Time will tell.

Well, time has told. Kennedy didn’t hold out. Although there’s clearly more to this story than an 81-year-old justice who was ready to retire, I’m thinking Anthony Kennedy’s farewell gift to Trump isn’t just right-wing control of the Supreme Court for the rest of most of our lives. For once, it may not be about the money. The real prize here may be a gold-plated Get Out of Jail Free card.

Pure speculation...

Accusations are being leveled at Justice Kennedy with NO proof that Justice Kennedy has knowledge of wrong doing.... there is NO proof of any actually wrong doing by anyone -  just conjecture 

An 81 year old man and Supreme Court justice chooses to retire and it becomes a conspiracy?  Did anyone stop to think that perhaps Justice Kennedy is tired, and wants to enjoy the years that he has left in Peace?

 
 
A. Macarthur
8.2.22  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.18    4 days ago

Not one thing you have posted proves anything at all.

1) Prior to indictments, trials and/or convictions, facts are generated, and, sometimes, the facts become metaphorical "dots," and, sometimes, the dots get connected. Notice, I posted a number of known "dots," which, in-and-of-themselves, may or may not lead to some sort of proof, or, probable cause for an investigation. Let's talk reality, not "dismissive" response.

What convictions for federal offenses do you have to support your conspiracy theory?

2) See 1)

Has Justin Kennedy even been indicted for a federal offense?

3) See 1) and 2) … think "dots".

Has Anthony Kennedy been indicted secretly?

4) See 1) through 3)

The retirement of Kennedy, it's timing, the fact that he had updated his staff close to the time of his retirement … those are all, say it with me … YES! They're f'n "dots" … and, while circumstantial, as more dots emerge and possibly get connected … or not … to quote Jess Willard … "We'll see what happens."

You're not among my favorites on NT, but you seem to me to be a bright individual; so please, do not feign incredulity over the reality that

• legitimately conducted investigations proceed at the speed of viable, gleaned information, to where, if anywhere of significance, they lead the investigator. 

For month-after-month-after-month, I waited for questions like yours when Republicans were playing Benghazi with Hillary! So, spare me the indignation and let us together, see if there are dots to be connected, all the while understanding that "dots" emerge when the emerge … and sometimes … as the dots connect … the BLANKS get filled in.

DOTS, BLANKS, PUZZLE PIECES … I'm not calling "conspiracy," but, if there's a tidal wave of Americans who make it clear, that in November, they're hauling ass to the voting booths, if I were Trump, I'd have nightmares …

… FILLED WITH FUCKING DOTS!

Let's have dialogues, not dismissive rhetorical questions.

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.22    4 days ago

Sometimes dots are just dots, and don't mean a damn thing.

Like now.

 
 
Tessylo
8.2.24  Tessylo  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.22    4 days ago

That's all some have, dismissive rhetorical questions.   

 
 
A. Macarthur
8.2.25  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.23    4 days ago

Sometimes dots are just dots, and don't mean a damn thing.

Like now.

OK, everyone; we can all back off … the man speaks with the conviction and knowledge … well, with conviction.

whistle-past-the-graveyard. Verb. (idiomatic, US) To attempt to stay cheerful in a dire situation; to proceed with a task, ignoring an upcoming hazard, hoping for a good outcome.

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.22    4 days ago

Dismissive questions are more than what conspiracy theories like these deserve.

 
 
Texan1211
8.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.25    4 days ago

Looney-tune conspiracy theories get what they deserve sometimes.

 
 
A. Macarthur
8.2.28  A. Macarthur  replied to  Colour Me Free @8.2.21    4 days ago
there is NO proof of any actually wrong doing by anyone -  just conjecture

You may be 100% correct, but I must make you aware that your statement is also conjecture … pure conjecture at that … while I laid out a number of specifics, that granted, may lead to nowhere.

And in reality, neither you nor I know if there is currently an investigation, or will shortly begin one, that determines proof.

 
 
A. Macarthur
8.2.29  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.26    4 days ago
Dismissive questions are more than what conspiracy theories like these deserve.

Do you know that your comment is DISMISSIVE …

Did I DESERVE yet another?

Shall we have a dialogue, or, shall we toss even piles of information into the "fake news" hopper without so much as a "let's see what happens"?

 
 
Heartland American
8.2.30  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.20    4 days ago

Democrats look exactly like that almost all the time now.  

 
 
Colour Me Free
8.2.31  Colour Me Free  replied to  A. Macarthur @8.2.28    4 days ago
You may be 100% correct, but I must make you aware that your statement is also conjecture … pure conjecture at that … while I laid out a number of specifics, that granted, may lead to nowhere.

Yep, all speculation .. yet, it is important to lay out a number of specific speculation

Sad really, a well respected man and Supreme Court justice has unsubstantiated accusations leveled at him based on [speculating here] a disdain some have for Trump? … wonder when Justice Kennedy will be buying a Pizza Shop with the Clinton's? 

 
 
katlin02
9  katlin02    4 days ago

Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said the Supreme Court question alone has the potential to expand Mr. Trump’s base.

“Vast majorities of the country do not want the court to shift left, and its undeniable that would happen if Hillary Clinton is elected,” said Ms. Severino, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

“For a lot of people, the Supreme Court is the No. 1 reason that they want to vote for Donald Trump. Really, it is a vote against Hillary Clinton having any say about who is on the Supreme Court,” she said.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/10/hillary-clintons-vow-to-push-supreme-court-left-ga/

sorry but the vast majority of americans really don't care how much the libs protest and cry and whine about this---the left is going to have  very rough next 6 yrs...trump is your president  just deal with it.. you see elections have consequences and we won--gee who said that ?

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
9.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  katlin02 @9    4 days ago
sorry but the vast majority of americans really don't care how much the libs protest and cry and whine about this---the left is going to have  very rough next 6 yrs...trump is your president  just deal with it.. you see elections have consequences and we won--gee who said that ?

That's some beautiful whistling (past the graveyard) you got goin' there.  Have you ever thought of trying out for this new show, America's Got No Talent?

 
 
A. Macarthur
9.2  A. Macarthur  replied to  katlin02 @9    4 days ago
sorry but the vast majority of americans really don't care how much the libs protest and cry and whine

And yet, many of them CARE ENOUGH TO TAKE THE TIME AND MAKE THE EFFORT TO TELL US HOW MUCH THEY DON'T CARE!

So who's actually crying and whining?

 
 
A. Macarthur
9.3  A. Macarthur  replied to  katlin02 @9    4 days ago
Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said the Supreme Court question alone has the potential to expand Mr. Trump’s base.

I'm f'n shocked that Carrie would say such a thing!

Carrie? 

Carrie … really?

Carrie Severino is an American lawyer. She serves as chief counsel and policy director at the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal organization.[3][4] She was previously a law clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and to Judge David B. Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[5] She is a contributor to National Review.[6][7]

Severino has been involved with constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act.[9][10]

 
 
Heartland American
9.3.1  Heartland American  replied to  A. Macarthur @9.3    4 days ago

She’s a well qualified, highly experienced person who knows well what she’s talking about.  

 
 
Heartland American
9.3.2  Heartland American  replied to  A. Macarthur @9.3    4 days ago

She’s a well qualified, highly experienced person who knows well what she’s talking about.  

 
 
A. Macarthur
9.3.3  A. Macarthur  replied to  Heartland American @9.3.1    4 days ago
She’s a well qualified, highly experienced person who knows well what she’s talking about.

I give you specifics regarding her background and agenda, and you, whom I question as to your qualifications to evaluate hers, declare her wonderfulness.

THIS is the Trumpian mentality … simplistic, fact-free pronouncements.

Frightening.

 
 
Heartland American
9.3.4  Heartland American  replied to  A. Macarthur @9.3.3    4 days ago

Everything you said about her and who she worked for, represented, published with, and clerked for are all huge pluses for her to me. If you were trying to denigrate her experience it didn’t work.  She’s simply awesome 👏.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Gordy327
Heartland American
Enoch
Drakkonis
sixpick
epistte
pat wilson


44 visitors