What was it that Carrie Underwood said about the rest of your life?

Trump's warning:   "Former President Donald Trump said Thursday the nation would face "problems ... the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen" if he is indicted over his handling of classified documents after leaving office, an apparent suggestion that such a move by the Justice Department could spark violence from Trump's supporters. The former president said an indictment wouldn’t stop him from running for the White House again and repeatedly said Americans “would not stand” for his prosecution."

Still quoting old white European men - why?

"All some have"............sadly

Lol ..... BAZINGA!

"Former President Donald Trump said Thursday the nation would face "problems ... the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen" if he is indicted over his handling of classified documents after leaving office, an apparent suggestion that such a move by the Justice Department could spark violence from Trump's supporters.

meh, I'm not worried. the wild critters will eat all their brains splattered everywhere and with winter just around the corner their corpses won't start to thaw and stink here in colorado until march or april. /s

The rest of this thread was removed for Meta.

Carrie Underwood said about the rest of your life

Will may have been a gal!

theatlantic

Probably because that is all that some people will listen to....

Not all I have.  

Interesting, thanks.

"What was it that Carrie Underwood said about the rest of your life?"

Are you trying to say goodbye?

What was it that she said about the rest of your life?

Special Master appointed:

It's hilarious that as soon as the Special Master was appointed, the FBI stated they would return documents.  I'm willing to bet that if it weren't for the appointment, NOTHING would be returned.

You see Judge Raymond Dearie was one of the FISA judges that the FBI lied to.

And I'm pretty sure he didn't forget the illegal activity by the FBI in support of the hoax.

Sen Lindsey Graham has offered legislation that would deny abortions after 15 weeks, similar to what France, Germany and the UK mandate. 

I don't think the majority of people with their panties in a wad over abortion don't realize how restrictive abortion laws are in other countries.  We actually have it pretty easy here in the US.

It's hilarious that as soon as the Special Master was appointed, the FBI stated they would return documents.  I'm willing to bet that if it weren't for the appointment, NOTHING would be returned.

Hadn't seen that.  Returning material removes it from review by Drearie.  It's a stall tactic to try to use the material as evidence.  So, now there'll be a need for more wrangling in the courts and review to determine what is and is not privileged info.

I don't think the majority of people with their panties in a wad over abortion don't realize how restrictive abortion laws are in other countries.  We actually have it pretty easy here in the US.

IMO it's not surprising that liberal's extreme views on abortion would snap back to extreme anti-abortion laws.  Lindsey Graham really is showing where the abortion issue will end up.  I don't necessarily agree that Federal legislation is the way to go.  But partial bans (instead of total bans) on abortion is inevitable.

I don't necessarily agree that Federal legislation is the way to go.

I think federal legislation is definitely what is needed.  I didn't want to see a return to the 1960's where we had a patchwork of states that allowed abortion and others that didn't, that just created a hardship mostly on the poor who don't necessarily have the means to travel.  The below is a rough list, I'm confident it will have it's critics but it's a start and I would rather see this handled at the Federal level than left to each State.  

I would much rather see federal legislation that is a bi-partisan effort to allow :

1. Unlimited abortion under 15 weeks.  Limited abortion beyond the 15 weeks for the health of the mother and/or child, said health issues must be confirmed by two doctors.  I believe additional work would be needed to clarify details here, I don't want to approve abortions simply because the child prenatal testing indicates Downs Syndrome.
2. Minors must have parental / guardian approval before an abortion may be performed.
3. No federal funding may be used to provide abortion services.
4. Legally hold both parents financially accountable for the child's welfare, and absent father must still pay child support.  
5. Enhanced budgets for family planning and support services.

but it's a start

Here's a start for ya, a woman's reproductive decisions are between her and her doctor, full stop.

I think federal legislation is definitely what is needed.  I didn't want to see a return to the 1960's where we had a patchwork of states that allowed abortion and others that didn't, that just created a hardship mostly on the poor who don't necessarily have the means to travel.  The below is a rough list, I'm confident it will have it's critics but it's a start and I would rather see this handled at the Federal level than left to each State.  

Addressing the issue at the Federal level would certainly be easier and more uniform.  But that won't address the issue of Constitutional rights for the unborn which is going to continue to be a sticking point and a source of legal challenges.  IMO a Federal abortion ban would only kick the can.

When the life of a woman can be saved by delivering an infant (rather than killing the fetus) then birth is a rather arbitrary measure for when Constitutional rights come into play.  During the late stages of the pregnancy an abortion can actually place the woman's life in danger. 

Federalizing abortion also raises questions about Federalizing sex crimes.  Should rape be a Federal crime?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.

With Constitutional rights for the unborn established, there shouldn't be a problem with Federal spending that supports abortion, contraceptives, or family planning.  That's my opinion, anyway.  

Except a partisan approach is not going to solve the issue, only allow the partisan politicians to continue to use the issue to attack the other side.  The only way this can really be resolved is to come up with a bi-partisan solution that both sides can agree with which allows something for each side.  

So it's partisan to say a woman has bodily autonomy ? Bodily autonomy is a very basic human right, there's no left or right about it.

Bodily autonomy is a very basic human right, there's no left or right about it.

Yes, and the Pro Life side focuses on the basic human right of the developing baby in the womb.

"I don't want to approve abortions simply because the child prenatal testing indicates Downs Syndrome."

That should be a no question reason for an abortion. It is wrong to make parents keep a defective child and deny them the chance to have a normal child.  

It is partisan to say   "are between her and her doctor, full stop.".  In order to get bi-partisan involvement in Congress (which is where this action is needed IMO) you cannot go one-sided like that.  In a perfect world that would work but we don't live in a perfect world and compromises must be made in order to move forward.

It is wrong to make parents keep a defective child and deny them the chance to have a normal child.  

That's a very hard line IMO as there are degrees of impact from Downs Syndrome.  There are many adults who have Downs who are living successful lives.  I can understand the desire to abort if testing shows the child will not have any sort of life at all but I also don't want the choice to be as simple as a woman deciding which handbag to purchase.  If the parent(s) AND the two doctors agree then I believe the abortion should be allowed.  But there's variance in the question that also needs to be looked at.

As the test for Down Syndrome is normally done within the first 10 to 13 weeks this would then fall under #1 in my initial list of unlimited abortion in the first 15 weeks.  TBH I would go with the age of viability myself but the majority of voters from what I have seen agree with 15 weeks. 

Does a fully developed human woman have bodily autonomy or not ?

No not really.  In many states suicide is illegal so if a fully developed human woman had full bodily autonomy then she would be able to commit suicide legally.  

But you continue to argue from only one side and ignore the political reality of it.  All I'm trying to do is have a conversation where compromise can allow for abortions nationwide as I truly hate the patchwork version we are currently reliving.  I don't know you but I lived thru the '60's where woman had to travel to other states in order to get an abortion, and it was the poor who suffered the most from this.  I would like this resolved at the Federal level so that it's fair and balanced in the entire country but we will not get there by only pushing one side.

C'mon, suicide legality ?? Lol.

I appreciate your moderate opinion and efforts to find compromise, I just don't agree that you can compromise on a very basic human right. 

C'mon, suicide legality ?? Lol.

It was a valid reply to your question in 2.1.10.  If a fully developed human  (male or female) truly had bodily autonomy, then legal suicide would be a medically accepted procedure when all other forms of medical assistance is of no use and the quality of life is so poor.  Some states do allow for assisted suicide so some states recognize the legality of it.  I would say that when the breakdown of the body is so great that the quality of life available is extremely poor, then suicide would be a basic human right.  

But calling something a basic human right does not make it so.  We live in a world where politics and religion have a greater influence on our lives.  And IMO the only way the question of abortion will truly be answered is at the federal level thru Congress.  To get something like this thru Congress is going to require compromise.  Refusing to find a compromise that both sides can live with will be as effective as those who shouted at the sky after the 2016 election.  

But I appreciate the discussion.  I think  you're wrong but I appreciate your position.

es a fully developed human woman have bodily autonomy or not ?

No one does. 

Like so much else, it's just a euphemism to avoid talking about the reality of what they want. Describing it as fight over   a made up right  to "bodily autonomy" that sounds good is better p.r. than saying we want the right to kill viable human life up until the moment of birth.  The truth of what they want isn't so appealing, so they hide it. 

C'mon, suicide legality ?? Lol.

Lol?  How can you miss the logic? 

Why do you find it laughable that all adults have a moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they inflict no harm on others. This right of free choice includes the right to end one's life when they choose. 

Don't we have a moral obligation to relieve the suffering of our fellow human beings and to respect their dignity. There are some people with excruciatingly painful and probable terminal conditions and diseases isn't it cruel and inhumane to refuse assistance with their desire?

Of course those pro-life folks oppose this common sense and argue that society has a moral duty to protect and to preserve all life. 

then legal suicide would be a medically accepted procedure 

In some places it is, unfortunately not very many.

My position is that every living breathing fully developed human being has a basic right to bodily autonomy.

No one does. 

Of course they do. 

than saying we want the right to kill viable human life up until the moment of birth.  

That is an exceedingly rare occurrence and should only happen when the mother's life is threatened, again, a decision between the woman and her doctor.

Oh, please. My "lol" was regarding the absurdity of suicide being illegal, will the decedent be incarcerated ?

Why do you find it laughable that all adults have a moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they inflict no harm on others. This right of free choice includes the right to end one's life when they choose. 

You're putting a whole lot of words in my mouth that I never said or implied. I stated my point quite clearly yet you've twisted it into something else entirely. Maybe try reading my words for exactly what they say. Or don't read them at all I don't really care.

Of course they do. 

Really? Americans have never been drafted against their will and forced to do things they didn't want to do, including being killed in wars?  

Vaccine mandates don't exist?

I can put whatever substance I want into my body?

Suicide is a protected Constitutional  right? 

The list goes on...

 What does "should only"  mean? 

Does the mother "bodily autonomy" or not? Can she kill the human life inside  her he up until birth for the sake of convenience or not? 

If abortion is a matter of autonomy, why does a doctor have a say?  

The draft was over a long time ago as it should have been.

Vaccine mandates ? Has anyone ever had a vaccine forced on them ? Not in this country.

How does it matter if suicide is a constitutional right ?

Can she kill the human life inside  her he up until birth for the sake of convenience or not? 

No, at the point of birth you have a fully developed human being. As I said if the mother will die as a result of giving birth it would be her choice to make. No where did I say anything about "convenience".

Oh, please. My "lol" was regarding the absurdity of suicide being illegal,

Sure it was.  

You're putting a whole lot of words in my mouth that I never said or implied. 

I put no words in your mouth, I asked you why you found legal suicide as laughable.

I don't really care.

That goes without saying.

he draft was over a long time ago as it should have been.

People still register. It's still legal. And if we go to war with China tomorrow, there's a good chance a lot of people will lose their "bodily autonomy"

Just because no one has been drafted in a while doesn't mean they can't, or won't be.  Some imagined  right to "bodily autonomy" isn't going to get people out of being forced to serve against their will.

 Has anyone ever had a vaccine forced on them ? 

Fine. You would agree than that forcing people to carry a pass proving they haven't had an abortion in order to enter restaurants, to travel etc,,, doesn't effect their bodily autonomy.

t the point of birth you have a fully developed human being. 

I said up until the point of birth.  If the mother's bodily autonomy is all that matters, than she has the right to kill the human life for convenience while its still inside her.  I thought you believed she has unlimited bodily autonomy. 

Has anyone ever had a vaccine forced on them ?

Yes, I had no choice on receiving vaccines anthrax and botulinum before entering Kuwait in Desert Storm.  Unless you consider the option of court martial a choice.  

It was your choice to be in the military.

Yes, I had no choice on receiving vaccines anthrax and botulinum before entering Kuwait in Desert Storm.  Unless you consider the option of court martial a choice.  

Same here. And don't forget the vaccine guns that shot multiple things in your body in boot camp. Lord knows exactly what was in them.

I'm sure telling your CC no would not have been your best choice.

And don't forget the vaccine guns that shot multiple things in your body in boot camp.

I remember the peanut butter shot in the butt as the worst.

It was your choice to be in the military.

Yes, I guess you can say the same thing about a woman who chooses to remain in Texas.

Yea made for some very uncomfortable sitting for a couple of days. I remember going through some classes where several guys would rather stand during them.

My position is that every living breathing fully developed human being has a basic right to bodily autonomy.

Maybe they should but they don't today and they never have had it.  Maybe in 10,000 years human beings will mature to a point where it's possible.  But as you and I won't live to see that future I am more concerned with the here and now.

They could .... but they won’t ... because that’s how they roll.  

Up until the time they have another human being growing within that body yes. Then there is a second life to consider. 

Outside of rape or incest no one is forcing anyone to get pregnant; or take actions to get pregnant.

Only the most hard line anti abortion maniacs won't allow for rape or incest; or carrying pregnancy to term is a threat to the life of the mother. They offset the hard left morons that want abortion on demand for any reason up until the time of birth.  Hard liners on both sides need to be ignored. 

Democrats love to call for the European model of health care in the US. Pick your favorite EU model for abortion and enact it within the US. It will still be more stringent than most states abortion laws.

Its not up to any man when it comes to decisions about our bodies and our lives.  

Snuffy has absolutely no say in this matter.

It's MY body, MY life, MY choice, MY decision.

That's what they all do Pat.  Typical MO.  Which is why DOTW is on ignore

I'm willing to bet that if it weren't for the appointment, NOTHING would be returned.

Was there a rush to do so, Donald's scrapbook paste was drying up?

So you call violating attorney/client confidentiality and executive privilege OK? 

Brandon, Obama, Clinton, and Bush Jr are shaking in their shoes awaiting your answer.

The Jan 6th committee already shat all over attorney/client confidentiality. The FBI/DOJ have already followed suit with the Mar Lago raid. They have already gone through all of the documents; and think they should be able to decide what to return (after being leaked to the press that is); and what should be used against Trump. Nothing like the FBI/DOJ making the decisions. It is already to late for the special master. They know what they have; and documented/made copies of what they want.

Sure that all living presidents don't want similar raids against them and their lawyers to occur. No telling what they are hiding.

Your usual nonsense.

Trumpturd is no longer 'president'

He had no rights to keep or have any of those documents in the first place

Yeah, you can take a coat hanger and do black market business in a bunch of states now.  Go free enterprise! Sarcasm....?

See 1.1

Eric Arthur Blair wrote of the potential danger of the concentration of power in the central government, the dangers of totalitarianism.  

Let's put aside the theology of immigration. Let's pretend, just for a moment, that Jesus would have nothing to say about whether or not the state should seek to discourage undocumented migrants as a high-level matter of government policy.

Those planes were filled with actual human beings. People with dignity. People with hopes and dreams, problems and challenges. People with names and families.

And this Christian man used them as props. He didn't clothe the naked or feed the hungry. He literally did the opposite: Evicted them—and not because he felt that he had to, because it was a requirement of the law. But because he saw that he could use them as a means to the ends of his personal ambition.

I'm trying— really  trying—not to get too hot here. But Christians should look at this act and be revolted. They should be  horrified.

Because using vulnerable human beings for your personal gratification is evil. Full stop.

thetriad.thebulwark

What would Jesus say about rich people who tout their enclave as a “sanctuary” as a means of self promotion but protest and play victims when actually asked to provide it?

Let's put aside the theology of immigration.

Theology of immigration?

Where you stand has to do with where you sit:

• The Martha’s Vineyard’s Chamber of Commerce on Thursday called the situation a “humanitarian crisis”.
• “The President does not feel that children coming to our border seeking refuge from violence, economic hardships, and other dire circumstances is a crisis', Psaki said at the press briefing.
• Mayorkas emphatically said “the answer is no” when asked if there was a crisis, saying instead that there is a “challenge at the border that we are managing.”

See - people keep completely glossing over the fact that these are our fellow human beings.

Exactly.

Some cynics will see the declaration of sanctuary cities as a cheap political stunt to garner votes.  I see it as  a way to promote the ideals of human rights, separation of local and federal government, and enablement of communities to help immigrants.

The actions of these Repub governors will backfire as they have given these communities the opportunity to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

I see it as  a way to promote the ideals of human rights, separation of local and federal government, and enablement of communities to help immigrants.

hahaha yeah that's why they are crying when someone gives them the opportunity to walk the walk. Good one.

Some cynics will see the declaration of sanctuary cities as a cheap political stunt to garner votes.

The governor of Florida got involved to the extent of importing the immigrants from Texas and sending them then from Florida to Massachusetts. If that isnt a political stunt what is it?

I guess you missed this that I commented to you earlier.

He didn't t ake them from Texas. They were already there via the Biden administration "Midnight Planes to Florida".

Biden Sent 70 Secret Night Flights Of Migrants From Border To Florida

"More than 70 flights transporting migrants from the southern border to Jacksonville have landed in the dark of night in recent months as the Biden administration struggles to empty overflowing border facilities, the office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said.

It is the first time the state of Florida has disclosed the number of confirmed flights arriving in the state since the summer. The governor's office has scrambled in recent weeks to uncover who is facilitating the mystery flights landing in northern Florida daily, but the Biden administration has refused to disclose any information, one official said"

denvergazette

importing the immigrants from Texas and sending them then from Florida to Massachusetts. If that isnt a political stunt what is it?

The flight originated in San Antonio, and made stops in Crestview, Florida, and North and South Carolina.  Are you confirming that all the migrants that departed on Martha's Vineyard got on in San Antonio?

Is deflection all you have?

Do you deny that the federal government sent undocumented migrants to Florida under the cover of darkness and without prior coordination with the state?

Not a deflection. The comment I was responding to was the fact that DeSantis didn't have to "Import immigrants from Texas"

There were plenty in stock. 

Is trolling me all you have?

Yup.  A deflection

Texas governor Greg Abbott has been  busing immigrants to New York  and  Chicago  as part of his reelection campaign. DeSantis, who's also running for reelection (while simultaneously running for president), is clearly frustrated that  his  state doesn't share a border with Mexico -- he proposed sending Cuban immigrants to Joe Biden's Delaware, then  backed down in response to bipartisan outrage  in his state.

So Abbott, like a human trafficker generously sharing some of his ill-gotten human goods with a fellow criminal, generously offered DeSantis a couple of planeloads of humans. Or maybe DeSantis paid Abbott for the right to have the human cargo flown to Florida, using Floridians' tax dollars.

A $12 million human trafficking slush fund could cover a lot more charter flights between now and Election Day, though you also have to take into account the cost of  non-monetary payments to DeSantis's chief publicist : A video provided to Fox News Digital shows the migrants deboarding the planes at Martha’s Vineyard Airport in Massachusetts.

Fox got the exclusive video! Amazing how that always happens with DeSantis!

If we've decided that this is an acceptable way to treat human beings in America, maybe blue-state mayors and governors should turn these planes and buses around and send them straight to  Lachlan Murdoch's Bel Air mansion .

nomoremister.blogspot

And the beat goes on.  We're actually seeing the political status quo crumble before our eyes.  Liberals have constructed a media wall around truth and that wall has been breached.  That old Maytag on the spin cycle is starting to smoke.

Immigration has shoved Black issues off the page altogether.  Immigration has even pushed abortion into the background.  Illegal immigrants are the victim du jour.  And the liberal punditry has started working overtime to blame Republicans, conservatives, and any non-liberals for the plight of illegal immigrants.  But what the public is witnessing is a complete and utter failure of central planning.  The status quo simply cannot cope.  What's overlooked in the spin of desperation is that these illegal immigrants don't seem concerned about 'white privilege', equity, or any of the other nonsense the liberal punditry have foisted onto the public. 

Illegal immigrants see the United States as a land of opportunity and they are willing to risk everything to get here.  Liberals don't understand that truth and don't know how to respond to that truth.  The liberal wall around truth has been breached.

The interesting thing about the looming rail strike is that blue collar workers are part of our country's infrastructure.  Closing colleges during the pandemic certainly didn't threaten to bring the country to a screeching halt.  Limiting routine medical care during the pandemic wasn't a crisis that threatened the economy.

But stopping rail traffic threatens to bring down the whole house of cards.  That can only mean blue collar jobs are an important part of the country's infrastructure that we all depend upon.  That reality doesn't fit with status quo attitudes toward education, finance, or liberal social planning.  Daily life can go on without academics, pundits, stock brokers, and wellness therapists.  But the loss of rail workers will bring the country to its knees.  The same is true with longshoremen, truckers, utility workers, construction workers, and a host of other blue collar workers.  The country needs miners, drillers, and bulldozer operators more than it needs college professors, astronauts, and social scientists.

Status quo politics can't cope with the cognitive dissonance.  Both parties have been favoring marmalade for far too long while ignoring the bread and butter.

Something happened between the Obama administration and the Biden administration that has shaken the status quo to its core.  We're actually seeing cracks appear in the liberal wall around truth.  The status quo is slowly becoming a parody of itself.

Can you hear us now?

“Can you hear us now?”

Loud and clear…and frightening. 

Loud and clear…and frightening. 

OWS:  Can you hear us now?

Fear of the electorate is another indication that the status quo is crumbling.

Here's a good article proving the hypocrisy of the leftist liberal elites....

townhall

Townhall?

So the current batch were from Venezuela and escaping Communism ... that used to be golden for entry into the Realm of Liberty and all that sort of stuff.

Considering the left love Communists and Socialists they should be all shipped back to where they came from.

Considering all the ridiculous authoritarian pronouncements you routinely make it is hard to believe you really believe in freedom.

The latest from the left:

Breaking out of NYC:

That is a Civil lawsuit against Donald Trump

Socialism..... regularly creating a new border crisis for other countries for over a hundred years now ....... engage!