LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 5:54 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 4:45 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 4:01 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:10 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:01 pm Regular people all agree on allowing abortion during the first trimester and a few weeks into the second trimester. Which is when 95+% of abortions occur anyway. Which is where most of our developed nation peers are.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdGYdmDLGcN/

Let me grab some popcorn. This factual post is gonna trigger some folks.

So you and YA are both going to pretend that you're both too dumb to know that that chart doesn't tell the whole story, and is intentionally misleading?

I'm gonna give YA the benefit of the doubt that he'll be willing to learn it was wrong...Petey, well...

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 5:54 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 4:45 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 4:01 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:10 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:01 pm Regular people all agree on allowing abortion during the first trimester and a few weeks into the second trimester. Which is when 95+% of abortions occur anyway. Which is where most of our developed nation peers are.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdGYdmDLGcN/

Let me grab some popcorn. This factual post is gonna trigger some folks.

So you and YA are both going to pretend that you're both too dumb to know that that chart doesn't tell the whole story, and is intentionally misleading?

I'm gonna give YA the benefit of the doubt....

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 5:57 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 5:30 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:48 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:39 pm Yeah the thing I’ve noticed anecdotally is that people don’t even check to see fo their pregnant until 3-4 weeks in so 6 weeks is crazy. You basically have to make a spot decision more or less as to what to do. That’s so dumb.

Of course it is. It is really about control over Women’s behavior than a real concern about life.

A hundred and fifty years ago there were no restrictions on a woman creating the conditions for a miscarriage before the ‘quickening’ and not even the Catholic Church objected to this then.

... sh*t before the late 70s not many evangelicals cared or objected. It is not about abortion per se.

I think Florida changed to 15 weeks this past year, at DeSantis' urging...but now he's gonna be under pressure to outlaw entirely...he'll probably try to land on 6 weeks. Which is essentially outlawing. But all these candidates for POTUS are gonna get pushed hard in their primaries...DeSantis will try to delay it until after this election cycle, but I suspect he'll get pushed..

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:15 am The amount fo false flag stuff utilized by Fox News and this right wing mess of inhumanity is so disgusting.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 8:04 am I’m aware of dishonest brokers who waste time and make everyone disgusted with them around here.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:05 am Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:25 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:05 am Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:18 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:25 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:05 am Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:26 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:18 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:25 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:05 am Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

You understand those people (Schumer and Collins etc) are politicians? You are as well? Because the standard to accuse someone of lying shouldn’t be trying to appeal to others like a politician, you hopefully would be more precise. But alas.

And I tend to ignore others here as well. The level of honest dialogue isn’t worth one’s time, unless it’s fun which it is for me. Joe Mauer has stated this best by remarking how absolutely no one on the lefts echo chamber here has once paused to reflect ‘hey maybe you’re correct and I’m wrong’. Very good observation tbh.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:33 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:26 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:18 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:25 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:05 am Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

You understand those people (Schumer and Collins etc) are politicians? You are as well? Because the standard to accuse someone of lying shouldn’t be trying to appeal to others like a politician, you hopefully would be more precise. But alas.

And I tend to ignore others here as well. The level of honest dialogue isn’t worth one’s time, unless it’s fun which it is for me. Joe Mauer has stated this best by remarking how absolutely no one on the lefts echo chamber here has once paused to reflect ‘hey maybe you’re correct and I’m wrong’. Very good observation tbh.

Collins and Murkowski are politicians too. Not sure of the relevance.

Yes, lied. Misrepresented, obfuscated to deceive.

Now, I'd agree that many weren't fooled by these lies, but I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

And if they sign on to this opinion they will definitely have deceived those willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, including Collins and Murkowski.

I've explained the lie, and you have no response.

which is typical, as your sole purpose on here is to troll..."for "fun"...

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 11:02 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:33 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:26 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:18 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:25 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:05 am Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

You understand those people (Schumer and Collins etc) are politicians? You are as well? Because the standard to accuse someone of lying shouldn’t be trying to appeal to others like a politician, you hopefully would be more precise. But alas.

And I tend to ignore others here as well. The level of honest dialogue isn’t worth one’s time, unless it’s fun which it is for me. Joe Mauer has stated this best by remarking how absolutely no one on the lefts echo chamber here has once paused to reflect ‘hey maybe you’re correct and I’m wrong’. Very good observation tbh.

Collins and Murkowski are politicians too. Not sure of the relevance.

Yes, lied. Misrepresented, obfuscated to deceive.

Now, I'd agree that many weren't fooled by these lies, but I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

And if they sign on to this opinion they will definitely have deceived those willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, including Collins and Murkowski.

I've explained the lie, and you have no response.

which is typical, as your sole purpose on here is to troll..."for "fun"...

"Yes, lied. Misrepresented, obfuscated to deceive."

You forgot to add the disclaimer... "in my opinion" Because your not proving any facts, your just expressing an opinion. In your world, the only opinion that matters is yours... Nobody knows what the final decision will be. If it is overturned and sent back to the states that is not rolling back abortion. It verifies the opinion Justice Rehnquist had in his original dissent. In case you have not paid attention, a number of states are already ahead of the game making the right to an abortion a STATES RIGHT!!

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:15 am The amount fo false flag stuff utilized by Fox News and this right wing mess of inhumanity is so disgusting.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:52 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:15 am The amount fo false flag stuff utilized by Fox News and this right wing mess of inhumanity is so disgusting.

Are you aware that the left is organizing massive protests at the homes of the justices on Wednesday?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 10:18 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:25 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:05 am Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

And that repudiation is the basis for saying they lied, as they'd been clear that would not be consistent with their 'philosophy'. Total misrepresentation of what they would do, intended to obfuscate to deceive.

Collins and Murkowski were fooled by that lie.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.