Orange Duce

[Kismet]

Biden and Harris named Time's Person(s) of the Year for 2020. Orange Duce losses again.

... anyone care to bet that Trump will not tweet about it tomorrow??? Maybe he'll claim he really won that honor as well. Time is "fake news".

Nobel Peace Prize was announced yesterday - presented to World Food Program. DOPUS loses AGAIN.

[cradleandshoot]

You are pretty darn hardcore on your stance on abortions with little room for exception, kram. Mom's health, incest, and rape, the only exceptions. The third one is contradictory to your stance. Why rape? The baby (as you see it) is being killed for the sake of an unwanted pregnancy. No different than the 16 year old cheerleader. I don't think you, or anyone else, should stand in judgement of how one handles an unwanted pregnancy, I don't think it gets a whole lot more personal than that. You will say you don't stand in judgement, but your posts would lead one to believe differently.

DMac, please feel free to look up my post history on the SCOTUS thread.

From Sept 22:

The good news is people don't fit into boxes like people always think. I do personally think the "right side" is carrying a baby to term. I am also not going to judge those who have abortions. Murderer? That's between them and their maker. And who knows, perhaps I'm a "murderer" in His eyes for being pro contraception?

The same way you respect my deep held belief, I understand and respect that there are incredible circumstances where rape, incest and health of the mother are legitimate concerns and burdens for the mother. I do think that is more the outlier than the norm for most abortions and used as a straw man for the general discussion. I know I wont be changing their/your minds either.

Perhaps because I'm generally hopeful, I just don't see something transient and defeatable like poverty as a reason for abortion. But that's just me. I'm also pro-social safety-net to help those in poverty that need it.

And yes I do wear a mask, avoid large crowds and encourage my immediate family to do the same. But I don't expect others to wear them.

SO I guess you CAN be anti-abortion, pro-woman, pro-contraception, pro-personal freedom, and pro-mask.

I'm actually willing to allow abortions for rape, incest and mother's health, for the sake of argument and compromise to eliminate all the rest. I'm also for supporting a child until it becomes an adult and providing parents with the resources to make it happen.

NJ and others like to fling poo at me when it comes to abortions with extenuating circumstances and how we refer to the removed fetus itself. But that's all noise to distract from the topic at hand. It's why I don't name call. I just call out the hypocricy of their stances. Which as evidenced here, they really don't like.

Fling poo at you?

No, I castigate you for the outlandish things you say, for advocating a position that is contrary to the law, anti-American because it is authoritarian, anti-freedom of choice, anti-individual rights, and anti-human rights. Not to mention being a distinctly minority (and anachronistic) view in this country.

Besides that, you are the consummate buttinski, trying to tell other people what they should do with their own bodies.

I have no problem if you get a woman pregnant and you and she decide to have the baby. That is your decision to make. Not mine. Not anyone else’s.

Where I draw the line with you, as you well know, is that you push your anti-abortion views on others, condemning women who have abortions unless you have approved the reasons. (You are “willing to allow”? Good God man. Who the hell do you think you are?)

For goodness sake’s, these women are strangers to you. What right on God’s green earth do you have to tell them what they should do with their bodies, how they should live their lives?

Read your quote above about murder, which I have bolded. No, it’s not between the woman and her maker as to whether an abortion is murder. IT IS NOT MURDER IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! It is outrageous to call or even suggest that abortion is murder when that hasn’t been the law anywhere in this country for generations. Better call Saul...

I’m not going to respond each and every time you make irresponsible comments about abortion, but I will now and then. Count on it.

Can you remind me again counselor how many "evacuations" you have witnessed up close and personal? If you ain't had fetal blood splattered on your wingtips you are far and away from the moral authority on this issue. It cracked me up to read a bloodsucking, parasitic lawyer lecture anybody along the lines of "your ilk" It ain't like you lawyers come across as paragons of virtues in this world.

[njbill]

Same as you. None. You have it exactly backwards. I’m not the one moralizing. I’m the one advocating the rule of law.
But if you want to get into morality, seems pretty immoral to me to tell somebody else what to do with their body.

[DMac]

C'mon, cradle, when was the last time you had fetal blood splattered on your wingtips? On bring your spouse to work day?
Am sure there are many a hardcore anti abortionists who changed their minds when their teen aged daughters turned up pregnant. Am sure there are many rape victims who delivered their babies despite the circumstances of their pregnancy too. This is way too personal a decision for anyone to be criticizing/judging what one does when faced with having to make that decision. As the law of the land goes, there is no argument here. As the word of God goes, well, that's where some can find no justification for abortion despite their braking a few of the Ten Commandments on a regular basis. Feels to me as if there are some stones being casted here.

[MDlaxfan76]

Again, this deserves it's own thread...unless we're discussing something relevant to Orange Duce in specific?

cue bad jokes.

Seriously, it's not relevant here, as being discussed.

Those who feel strongly that they want to express abhorrence on this issue can start a thread...it'd probably attract some discussion.

[Brooklyn]

tRUMP = LOSER OF THE YEAR


Donald Trump Labelled 'Loser of the Year' by Europe's Biggest News Magazine

Source: newsweek




By Brendan Cole On 12/10/20 at 9:21 AM EST


The German magazine Der Spiegel has delivered a withering assessment of President Donald Trump's 2020 in an article headlined "The loser of the year."

The piece of more than 3,300 words pulled no punches in criticizing Trump's response to the coronavirus pandemic, his refusal to accept an election defeat, and for good measure, it took swipes at other presidential actions this year.

Headlined in German "Der Verlierer des Jahres" the article published online on Thursday describes how Trump's refusal to accept President-elect Joe Biden's victory is "not surprising," because, as Roland Nelles and Ralf Neukirch write: "nothing is normal under Trump.

"Instead, he speaks of massive electoral fraud, although there is no evidence for it. Trump's presidency ends as it began. Without decency and without dignity."

https://www.newsweek.com/der-spiegel-do ... ny-1553807




tRUMP is pathetic.

[seacoaster]

As the states watch us implode into a third world government, there is this happy note:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/nyre ... ticleShare

"State prosecutors in Manhattan have interviewed several employees of President Trump’s bank and insurance broker in recent weeks, according to people with knowledge of the matter, significantly escalating an investigation into the president that he is powerless to stop.

The interviews with people who work for the lender, Deutsche Bank, and the insurance brokerage, Aon, are the latest indication that once Mr. Trump leaves office, he still faces the potential threat of criminal charges that would be beyond the reach of federal pardons.

It remains unclear whether the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., will ultimately bring charges. The prosecutors have been fighting in court for more than a year to obtain Mr. Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns, which they have called central to their investigation. The issue now rests with the Supreme Court.

But lately, Mr. Vance’s office has stepped up its efforts, issuing new subpoenas and questioning witnesses, including some before a grand jury, according to the people with knowledge of the matter, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the investigation.

The grand jury appears to be serving an investigative function, allowing prosecutors to authenticate documents and pursue other leads, rather than considering any charges.

When Mr. Trump returns to private life in January, he will lose the protection from criminal prosecution that his office has afforded him. While The New York Times has reported that he discussed granting pre-emptive pardons to his eldest children before leaving office — and has claimed that he has the power to pardon himself — that authority applies only to federal crimes, and not to state or local investigations like the one being conducted by Mr. Vance’s office.

Mr. Trump, who has maintained he did nothing improper, has railed against the inquiry, calling it a politically motivated “witch hunt.”

The investigation by Mr. Vance, a Democrat, has focused on Mr. Trump’s conduct as a private business owner and whether he or employees at his family business, the Trump Organization, committed financial crimes. It is the only known criminal inquiry into the president.

Employees of Deutsche Bank and Aon, two corporate giants, could be important witnesses. As two of Mr. Trump’s oldest allies — and some of the only mainstream companies willing to do regular business with him — they might offer investigators a rich vein of information about the Trump Organization.

There is no indication that either company is suspected of wrongdoing.

Because grand jury rules require secrecy, prosecutors have disclosed little about the focus of the inquiry and nothing about what investigative steps they have taken. But earlier this year, they suggested in court papers that they were examining possible insurance, tax and bank-related fraud in the president’s corporate dealings.

In recent weeks, Mr. Vance’s prosecutors questioned two Deutsche Bank employees about the bank’s procedures for making lending decisions, according to a person familiar with the interviews. The employees were experts in the bank’s underwriting process, not bankers who worked with the Trump Organization, the person said.

While the focus of those interviews was not on the relationship with Mr. Trump, bank officials expect Mr. Vance’s office to summon them for additional rounds of more specific questions in the near future, the person said.

Glimpses into the investigation have come in court records during the bitter and protracted legal battle over a subpoena for eight years of Mr. Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns and other financial records.

A month after Mr. Vance’s office demanded the documents from the president’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, in August 2019, Mr. Trump sued to block compliance with the subpoena. The case has twisted its way through the federal courts, with the president losing at every turn, and is now in front of the Supreme Court for the second time.

Danny Frost, a spokesman for Mr. Vance, declined to comment on recent moves in the investigation. Alan Garten, the Trump Organization’s general counsel, declined to comment, but recently said that the company’s practices complied with the law and called the investigation a “fishing expedition.”

Aon confirmed that the company had received a subpoena for documents from the district attorney’s office but declined to comment on the interviews with prosecutors. “As is our policy, we intend to cooperate with all regulatory bodies, including providing copies of all documents requested by those bodies,” a company spokeswoman said in a statement.

Deutsche Bank, Mr. Trump’s primary lender since the late 1990s, received a subpoena last year from the district attorney and has said it is cooperating with the inquiry.

In court papers, the prosecutors have cited public reports of Mr. Trump’s business dealings as legal justification for their inquiry, including a Washington Post article that concluded the president may have inflated his net worth and the value of his properties to lenders and insurers.

Michael D. Cohen, the president’s former lawyer and fixer who turned on him after pleading guilty to federal charges, also told Congress in February 2019 that Mr. Trump and his employees manipulated his net worth to suit his interests.

“It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes, such as trying to be listed among the wealthiest people in Forbes, and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes,” he said in testimony before the House Oversight Committee.

Mr. Trump’s supporters have noted that Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to Congress and accused him of lying again to earn a reduced prison sentence.

The Trump Organization’s lawyers are also likely to argue to prosecutors that Mr. Trump could not have duped Deutsche Bank because the bank did its own analysis of Mr. Trump’s net worth.

Over the years, employees and executives inside the bank thought that Mr. Trump was overvaluing some of his assets by as much as 70 percent, according to current and former bank officials. Deutsche Bank still decided to lend Mr. Trump’s company hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decade, concluding that he was a safe lending risk in part because he had more than enough money and other assets to personally guarantee the debt.

The prosecutors’ interviews with the employees was not the only recent activity in the investigation. Last month, The Times reported that Mr. Vance’s office had subpoenaed the Trump Organization for records related to tax write-offs on millions of dollars in consulting fees, some of which appear to have gone to the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump.

According to people with knowledge of the matter, the subpoena sought information about fees paid to TTT Consulting L.L.C., an apparent reference to Ms. Trump and other members of her family. Ms. Trump was an executive officer of the Trump companies that made the payments, meaning she appears to have been paid as a consultant while also working for the Trump Organization.

Mr. Garten, the Trump Organization’s general counsel, argued in a statement at the time that the subpoena was part of an “ongoing attempt to harass the company.” He added that “everything was done in strict compliance with applicable law and under the advice of counsel and tax experts.”

Mr. Vance’s investigation has spanned more than two years and shifted focus over time. When the investigation began, it examined the Trump Organization’s role in hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Mr. Trump. Prosecutors were examining how the company recorded a reimbursement to Mr. Cohen for one of the payments. Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations for his role in the scheme.

A state grand jury convened by Mr. Vance’s office heard testimony from at least one witness about that issue last year, according to a person with knowledge of that testimony, but the payments have receded as a central focus of the inquiry."

[kramerica.inc]

Fling poo at you?

No, I castigate you for the outlandish things you say, for advocating a position that is contrary to the law, anti-American because it is authoritarian, anti-freedom of choice, anti-individual rights, and anti-human rights. Not to mention being a distinctly minority (and anachronistic) view in this country.

Besides that, you are the consummate buttinski, trying to tell other people what they should do with their own bodies.

I have no problem if you get a woman pregnant and you and she decide to have the baby. That is your decision to make. Not mine. Not anyone else’s.

Where I draw the line with you, as you well know, is that you push your anti-abortion views on others, condemning women who have abortions unless you have approved the reasons. (You are “willing to allow”? Good God man. Who the hell do you think you are?)

For goodness sake’s, these women are strangers to you. What right on God’s green earth do you have to tell them what they should do with their bodies, how they should live their lives?

Read your quote above about murder, which I have bolded. No, it’s not between the woman and her maker as to whether an abortion is murder. IT IS NOT MURDER IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! It is outrageous to call or even suggest that abortion is murder when that hasn’t been the law anywhere in this country for generations.

I’m not going to respond each and every time you make irresponsible comments about abortion, but I will now and then. Count on it.

I am well aware that Abortion is not murder in the USA. But unless you are an atheist, what a person chooses to do in life, they must account for. OR on the secular side - at the very least live-with until they die. That's the tough reality of this topic.

The "willing to allow" comment was in regard to the conversation, Cap'n. If you are a lawyer, I hope you're better at understanding context at work. You're upset at me for telling my opinion. And condemning me for holding a "minority" opinion...on an opinion forum.



Poor guy.

The reality is, you just don't want to hear the other side of it. Because you know what you're defending. The things I say aren't outlandish. It's just an opinion. Why so scared of it? I've not once scolded those who choose to end a preganancy. And I've never told others what to do with their bodies. Nor would I.

But IMO, your pro abortion tripe is what's quite outlandish. Nothing like trying to spin ending a pregnancy as being PRO human rights!

[njbill]

Fling poo at you?

No, I castigate you for the outlandish things you say, for advocating a position that is contrary to the law, anti-American because it is authoritarian, anti-freedom of choice, anti-individual rights, and anti-human rights. Not to mention being a distinctly minority (and anachronistic) view in this country.

Besides that, you are the consummate buttinski, trying to tell other people what they should do with their own bodies.

I have no problem if you get a woman pregnant and you and she decide to have the baby. That is your decision to make. Not mine. Not anyone else’s.

Where I draw the line with you, as you well know, is that you push your anti-abortion views on others, condemning women who have abortions unless you have approved the reasons. (You are “willing to allow”? Good God man. Who the hell do you think you are?)

For goodness sake’s, these women are strangers to you. What right on God’s green earth do you have to tell them what they should do with their bodies, how they should live their lives?

Read your quote above about murder, which I have bolded. No, it’s not between the woman and her maker as to whether an abortion is murder. IT IS NOT MURDER IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! It is outrageous to call or even suggest that abortion is murder when that hasn’t been the law anywhere in this country for generations.

I’m not going to respond each and every time you make irresponsible comments about abortion, but I will now and then. Count on it.

I am well aware that Abortion is not murder in the USA. Yet you continue to post comments suggesting it is ("deaths" of "children" at the hands of women) But unless you are an atheist, what a person chooses to do in life, they must account for. OR on the secular side - at the very least live-with until they die. That's the tough reality of this topic. There you go again, Mr. Holier than Thou. Making moral judgments about strangers. Look in the mirror. In fact, it is you who has to answer for his unchristian comments criticizing women for deciding what to do with their own bodies.

The "willing to allow" comment was in regard to the conversation, Cap'n. YOU MADE THE COMMENT. You are the one who has appointed himself arbiter of other people's morality. You are so blinded by your misguided beliefs that you don't see that your views are immoral. Wrap your head around that, Mr. Faux Moralist: YOU are the one who is being immoral by telling other people what to do. Not only that, your views are anti-American. They are Big Brother. We have personal freedoms in this country, or do you get to decide for the rest of us which freedoms we may exercise and which we can't? If you are a lawyer, I hope you're better at understanding context at work. You're upset at me for telling my opinion. And condemning me for holding a "minority" opinion...on an opinion forum. On the nose, bucko. If you don't want to be condemned, don't say contemptible things.



Poor guy.

The reality is, you just don't want to hear the other side of it. Because you know what you're defending. The things I say aren't outlandish. It's just an opinion. Why so scared of it? Go right ahead. Express away. You can try to dress up your garbage by calling it an "opinion," but it is still garbage. I've not once scolded those who choose to end a preganancy. And I've never told others what to do with their bodies. Nor would I. Oh, please. Just with every single post. You want us to believe you are pro choice?

But IMO, your pro abortion tripe is what's quite outlandish. Pro choice, as in every women has the right to choose for herself.Nothing like trying to spin ending a pregnancy as being PRO human rights! You are so twisted up by your "opinion" that you apparently don't even understand what freedom to choose means. Sad.

[cradleandshoot]

Same as you. None. You have it exactly backwards. I’m not the one moralizing. I’m the one advocating the rule of law.
But if you want to get into morality, seems pretty immoral to me to tell somebody else what to do with their body.

I get where you are coming from. Abortion is legal and should remain as such. It use to be stated by abortion advocates that abortion should be legal, safe and rare. That rare part kinda fell off of the haywagon during the ride. I will never personally judge any person that makes this decision. I will always believe the process is an abomination to human life. I was taken aback by your reference to folks who personally and morally find abortion as repugnant as " your ilk" Is there something wrong with us who accept the legality but will never accept the end result. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are trying to say? Does being opposed to abortion also make us bad people in your eyes?

[kramerica.inc]

I've not condemned anyone. Or made moral judgements about anyone. I haven't once told people what to do or not to do. You are certainly defensive and projecting/reading a lot more into my posts that simply isn't there.

You and I agree that "Choice" is the ability for a mothers to choose to end THEIR pregnancy. Under US law, what they "choose" is up to them. Their bodies, their choice. I don't have to agree with it. but I'm certainly not changing it. Or in a place to make any moral judgements.

As I've said repeatedly- Making a decision to end that pregnancy, is 100% on the mother. So how they handle that after the fact is also something they need to come to terms with themselves. Pardon the pun. It's their choice. If they are cool with it between their ears and with their maker, that's all that matters. But because it's legal, and its a real choice that many women consider, doesn't mean the reality of what is happening should be ignored.

I am a little stunned that you don't see the hypocrisy of valuing the "human rights" of a mother and not the unborn child. The strict reading of RvW but the causal disregard of the Unborn Victim of Violence act, tells me you aren't arguing in good faith. But that's understandable as most people, even the most staunch pro abortion advocates, need to block the reality of what abortion is to defend the idea of ending a pregnancy.

So for that reason, I promise not to kick you too many times in that weak spot of your case, good sir.

[njbill]

I've not condemned anyone. Or made moral judgements about anyone. I haven't once told people what to do or not to do. You are certainly defensive and projecting/reading a lot more into my posts that simply isn't there.

You and I agree that "Choice" is the ability for a mothers to choose to end THEIR pregnancy. Under US law, what they "choose" is up to them. Their bodies, their choice. I don't have to agree with it. but I'm certainly not changing it. Or in a place to make any moral judgements.

As I've said repeatedly- Making a decision to end that pregnancy, is 100% on the mother. So how they handle that after the fact is also something they need to come to terms with themselves. Pardon the pun. It's their choice. If they are cool with it between their ears and with their maker, that's all that matters. But because it's legal, and its a real choice that many women consider, doesn't mean the reality of what is happening should be ignored.

I am a little stunned that you don't see the hypocrisy of valuing the "human rights" of a mother and not the unborn child. The strict reading of RvW but the causal disregard of the Unborn Victim of Violence act, tells me you aren't arguing in good faith. But that's understandable as most people, even the most staunch pro abortion advocates, need to block the reality of what abortion is to defend the idea of ending a pregnancy.

So for that reason, I promise not to kick you too many times in that weak spot of your case, good sir.

Oh, please. You try to compare Covid deaths to abortions as though there is some type of equivalency. You refer to abortions as "deaths," to fetuses as "children." You judge (harshly) those who get abortions, maybe not to their faces but on this board. You refer to "coming to terms" with the decision, being "cool" with their "maker." That's not making a moral judgment? Are you really so blinded by your fanaticism that you don't see that?

If the sum and substance of what you write isn't condemnation for abortion, I don't know what is.

Nice try with the "defensive" comment. I have been so aggressive with you (actually, I'm being offensive, probably in multiple meanings of the word) because I am sick and tried of people who pontificate about "the sanctity of human life" when what they are really doing is is judging and trying to harass or intimidate young woman who likely have made a difficult decision to end a pregnancy. The pontificators aren't going to live through the pregnancy for nine months. They aren't going to go through delivery and its concomitant risks. They aren't going to raise the child. They aren't going to pay the costs of having a child. They are just going to sit on their high horses lobbing "moral" pot shots.

There is a clinic near me which I drive by on occasion. The "protesters" outside never fail to harass and sometimes assault people trying to get inside. Sickening.

Yeah, I'm well familiar with that law. Passed during W's time in response to Tea Party pressure. Opposed it at the time. Still do. Unnecessary, plus bad policy. I'm of the view that it is unconstitutional. (Of course, this Supreme Court would never so hold.) So my position is entirely consistent, but you won't find me going on and on and on, in post after post, month after month, about that law.

If you are now moderating your position, then we've made some progress.

[njbill]

Same as you. None. You have it exactly backwards. I’m not the one moralizing. I’m the one advocating the rule of law.
But if you want to get into morality, seems pretty immoral to me to tell somebody else what to do with their body.

I get where you are coming from. Abortion is legal and should remain as such. It use to be stated by abortion advocates that abortion should be legal, safe and rare. That rare part kinda fell off of the haywagon during the ride. I will never personally judge any person that makes this decision. I will always believe the process is an abomination to human life. I was taken aback by your reference to folks who personally and morally find abortion as repugnant as " your ilk" Is there something wrong with us who accept the legality but will never accept the end result. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are trying to say? Does being opposed to abortion also make us bad people in your eyes?

I have no problems with someone having a personal view that is anti-abortion. No, that doesn't make someone a bad person in my eyes (not that my opinion about that should matter).

My objection is to those who try to push an anti-abortion view on others by depicting abortion as somehow "immoral," or by criticizing those who get abortions, or by harassing or assaulting those trying to get an abortion, or through other similar aggressive and offensive behavior.

Now, as long as the proselytizers don't violate the law, they have the legal right to protest. That, to me, doesn't mean those protests are the right thing to do.

In America, we have freedom of choice, individual rights. Live and let live. To me that means we should allow our fellow citizens to make their own decisions and not castigate them for decisions we personally may disagree with.

[kramerica.inc]

In America, we have freedom of choice, individual rights. Live and let live. To me that means we should allow our fellow citizens to make their own decisions and not castigate them for decisions we personally may disagree with.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for your argument) is that giving my general opinion on a matter like abortion is not castigating anyone. Nor is talking about the often harsh realities of abortion, what it is, and what the after-effects on the mother sometimes can be.

If it makes YOU feel a certain way, tough. That issue lies with you, not me.

[MDlaxfan76]

In America, we have freedom of choice, individual rights. Live and let live. To me that means we should allow our fellow citizens to make their own decisions and not castigate them for decisions we personally may disagree with.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for your argument) is that giving my general opinion on a matter like abortion is not castigating anyone. Nor is talking about the often harsh realities of abortion, what it is, and what the after-effects on the mother sometimes can be.

If it makes YOU feel a certain way, tough. That issue lies with you, not me.

well...I'd agree with the objection to suggesting an equivalency between terminated unwanted pregnancies and lives lost to COVID. That's what sparked this...

Start a new thread unless there's a connection between Orange Duce and this issue.

[kramerica.inc]

In America, we have freedom of choice, individual rights. Live and let live. To me that means we should allow our fellow citizens to make their own decisions and not castigate them for decisions we personally may disagree with.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for your argument) is that giving my general opinion on a matter like abortion is not castigating anyone. Nor is talking about the often harsh realities of abortion, what it is, and what the after-effects on the mother sometimes can be.

If it makes YOU feel a certain way, tough. That issue lies with you, not me.

well...I'd agree with the objection to suggesting an equivalency between terminated unwanted pregnancies and lives lost to COVID. That's what sparked this...

Start a new thread unless there's a connection between Orange Duce and this issue.

This isnt an equivalency unless you are talking about the stopping of heartbeats. Both Covid deaths and abortions involve the stopping of heartbeats. And there is a further connection in this discussion. It's all about loss. One occurs via nature, the other occurs via human "choice."

[njbill]

Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for your argument) is that giving my general opinion on a matter like abortion is not castigating anyone. Nor is talking about the often harsh realities of abortion, what it is, and what the after-effects on the mother sometimes can be.

If all you did was express general opinions, you’d get no response from me. But as you well know, you go way, way beyond that on a regular basis.

It is your immoral (yes, immoral because you wrongly demonize conduct that is perfectly moral), preachy, and sometimes mean-spirited commentary that I object to. I have sat silently by for probably decades now and listened to this cr*p (obviously not all from you). No more.

I’m not going to respond every time because that would be tedious, but I will now and then as I have done over the past day or so. I’m done, at least for now.

[MDlaxfan76]

In America, we have freedom of choice, individual rights. Live and let live. To me that means we should allow our fellow citizens to make their own decisions and not castigate them for decisions we personally may disagree with.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for your argument) is that giving my general opinion on a matter like abortion is not castigating anyone. Nor is talking about the often harsh realities of abortion, what it is, and what the after-effects on the mother sometimes can be.

If it makes YOU feel a certain way, tough. That issue lies with you, not me.

well...I'd agree with the objection to suggesting an equivalency between terminated unwanted pregnancies and lives lost to COVID. That's what sparked this...

Start a new thread unless there's a connection between Orange Duce and this issue.

This isnt an equivalency unless you are talking about the stopping of heartbeats. Both Covid deaths and abortions involve the stopping of heartbeats. And there is a further connection in this discussion. It's all about loss. One occurs via nature, the other occurs via human "choice."

You drew the equivalency, the connection, the "tragedy", no one else did.
It's simply not relevant to this thread, and meanwhile is very, very offensive to those who have lost loved ones to Covid or who have loved ones at risk of such...because others around them are not behaving responsibly.

So, that discussion can be taken to another thread. Or draw the relationship to Orange Duce.

[ggait]

For myself, I prefer St. Louis cut ribs to baby backs. But reasonable people can differ on that.

I actually hang ribs over an open fire in my smoker rather than lay them out flat on a cooking grate. The ribs cook many hours faster but still come out very tender and smoky. You can also fit a LOT more ribs in the smoker by hanging them.

[Typical Lax Dad]

For myself, I prefer St. Louis cut ribs to baby backs. But reasonable people can differ on that.

I actually hang ribs over an open fire in my smoker rather than lay them out flat on a cooking grate. The ribs cook many hours faster but still come out very tender and smoky. You can also fit a LOT more ribs in the smoker by hanging them.

I would love to try your ribs!