Democratic women, in solidarity, all dressed up in white, did not stand, did not applaud, couldn't even manage a nod nor an ever so slight affirmation, when the President called for the practice of aborting babies, "moments from birth", to end!
Last night, their display made me sick to my stomach. Today, I am more determined than ever to call out today's Democratic Party and to call out these 'women' that will cry out for the weather, but not for a full-term baby! The gloves are coming off, I've had it!
What say you?
This is just childish behavior and they are suppose to be our best and brightest...we have 330 million people in our country, is this the best we can do? All 535 members of Congress, represents us...
Do you think that might be because Trump mischaracterized the law in New York when he said that it ". . . would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother's womb moments before birth"(1).
As per this factcheck:
"The law allows a woman to get an abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy if her health is threatened, or if the fetus would be unable to survive outside the womb"(2).
Or this factcheck:
"The law only allows abortions up to term if it’s "necessary to protect the [mother]’s life or health" and in "absence of fetal viability"(3).
Or this factcheck:
"Previously, pregnancies after 24 weeks could be terminated only if they were life-threatening. The new law provides for two more instances in which abortions would be allowed: the “absence of fetal viability” or to protect the patient’s health"(4)
And do you think Trump's mischaracterization may have been intended to have exactly the effect it had on you, i.e. make people angry? And doesn't that run contrary to almost everything he said about bridging old divisions etc?
(1) https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/05/poli … index.html
(2) http://time.com/5520715/state-union-don … act-check/
(3) https://qz.com/1543714/there-is-no-scie … -abortion/
(4) https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/factc … -union-2/_
I made this point about Trump gaslighting the issue, but the AB just reposted the snippet Trump said to get her anger boiling. I wouldn't have stood to applaud such a mischaracterization either.
The AB ... I like it!
My problem was with these women sitting on their hands, scowling, when the subject was a life (outside of their own) then jumping to their feet, when the subject changed to be all about them.
I can understand you wanting to protect life. When the NY and VA bills aim to protect life (that of the mother), if you knew those details, you would know that what Trump said should have made you more angry because of the way he mischaracterized the intent of those laws.
The next problem for me, presented itself when one of the women that chose to sit on her hands and scowl when precious life was being discussed, elected to make a show of children separated at the border....for their own safety....but, she tried to make it into something else entirely.
I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, it's not complicated.
Reading into your anger, you care about the unborn. Logically speaking then, since you're so angry at what the NY and VA bills aim to do, you don't care if the mothers die. Because the bills that Trump was referencing aim to protect the lives of mothers. So either you didn't realize that was what he was referencing or you don't care. I'll assume it's the first. And if it is, why are you so angry that people sat there scowling that Trump would not support bills that protect the lives of mothers?
Yes, and you sat on your hands while already born children--conscious of their own lives unlike a fetus--were torn from their parents. Lots better!
Are they killing these children you keep bringing up?
Not sure what they had hoped to accomplish by wearing white, and sitting there with belligerent expressions? I don't find anything positive about their behavior. Just one woman's opinion, but I think they made fools of themselves. Wish there were more women in Washington that I oud be proud of. It's very sad o me, that this bunch is setting us back 40 years. They looked silly...
According to the statement, Women’s Working Group members are wearing white to symbolize fighting for women’s rights like equal pay, paid sick and family leave, retirement security, the right to live “lives free from fear and violence,” and access to affordable child care and affordable health care — “including reproductive health services like those offered by Planned Parenthood.”
Do you subscribe to any of those things for women that wearing white represented?
They wore white to "send a message" and their message came off as anti-baby, pro-woman. Not impressed, far from it.
You are choosing to say you don't care about the life of mothers when their lives are put in danger or their babies are not viable. I'm not sure what can be more anti-woman than that.
I struggle to understand how women can buy into such ugly rhetoric from a man that attacks a woman's right to choose what happens to her body in such scenarios.
That is a false narrative.
No one is saying the life of the mother is not important. In most of these late term abortion cases, the health of the mother is not in question.
And you have the stats for that claim that most cases are not a danger to the mother?
And even if the numbers were low, you're the guy who parades one case of an immigrant taking the life of an American to justify policy, so surely you feel that even one American mother's life is important enough to justify this.
And there's nothing false about Trump misconstruing the facts of what the NY and VA laws allow. They protect a mother's life or give her options when her baby is non-viable. The way he laid it out gave the impression that the babies were healthy. That was clearly a purposeful lie to get those like AB, who obviously do not understand the basics of the NY and VA laws, angry and divide the country further.
No I am not and that is not what President Trump is doing.
We believe that a baby in the womb is an individual, with as much Right to exist as you or I.
Yes, there are exceptions when a pregnancy may put a woman in harm....but they are very rare and should be handled case by case.
Abortion has become a matter of convenience for the woman, as if she is the only one that matters in the scenario and she's not!
I agree. this bunch put women back 100 years...
I am against funding for planned parenthood which aborts nearly 1 million babies each year.
Me too Jack, has there ever been an organization any deadlier?
+39,373, or the amount of people who lost their lives in the Unites States at the point of a gun in 2017.
Really? I thought it was due to illegal immigrants coming through the border where there's no "wall" and murdering our citizens. Trump sez…..
So it's not the bad guys (some illegal, some not) pointing the gun and pulling the trigger...
It's not the Drs. who have made the choice to kill babies rather than deliver them whole and intact...
It's not the Mom who gives the Abortion Doc the go ahead to kill her baby...
It's not Planned Parenthood supplying the facility...
It's the gun's fault
It's the baby's fault
It's Trump's fault
Now I am beginning to see how ya'll's minds work. It's a puzzle for sure!
Great! I still can't figure out how your mind works. It doesn't!
Do you want to simply trade insults, AB? We can do this all day if you're of a mind to. It's not very becoming to a lady though.
What's puzzling is that you deny to accept the fact that legal or not, young women will be looking to get abortions. I guess you are fine with young women being butchered in unsafe procedures. Again, your complete disregard for the women is astounding.
And when a single person can kill 58 people and wound 851 others in a ten-minute spree, when guns are so available that troubled teens can walk into their schools and shoot multiple classmates, some of us see that as cause to change existing gun laws. For someone so concerned for babies, it's amazing how you can change to disregard life when children get into elementary (Sandy Hook) or high school (Stoneman Douglas).
And yes, when Trump (and the entire GOP for that matter) does nothing about gun violence or tries to promote policies that restrict the choices of pregnant women, I would put some of the fault there.
Where is that Gosnell link?
It is around here somewhere.(find it, check it out V)
Yes, messed up teens, products of growing up believing in nothing bigger or greater than themselves. Watching people defend the killing of babies, as if Human Life means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Spending their time playing violent video games. Being fed lies about this Country, her founding and their fellow man.
These 'products', value NOTHING and they walk into schools and they kill their teachers, their peers, police officers and any other in their path...
IF there was a raid and every gun from every LAW-ABIDING citizen was confiscated. Evil and screwed-up teenagers will always be able to find a means to hurt others (including guns which when and if ever confiscated, would create the deadliest underground market you could ever even imagine) The death toll would be comparable to Planned Parenthood's.
Yes, and how many die of car accidents?
Do you want to ban cars and trucks?
The NRA train people on gun safety. They don’t abort innocent babies, and then sell their body parts for money.
And there it is folks. The well-educated person speaking about all his knowledge. Nothing you ever say again will have any credibility on this site after making that statement.
HA! He lost credibility when he said he knew more than the scientists about Climate Change.
You just can't make this kind of $hit up, Val.
What, do you deny that happens? There are videos by project veritas that exposed this dirty side of rhe bisiness at Planned Parenthood.
Here is video -
For an educated man, your fact-checking ability sure does stink. Those videos were shown to be heavily edited and after multiple investigations into Planned Parenthood, no wrong-doing was found to have occurred, including the selling of baby parts.
What the video did do, however, was likely add motivation for someone to kill two civilians at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility while mumbling about no more baby parts.
So congrats on promoting fabricated videos that led to innocent deaths. You're my hero.
No, your are mistaking. Yes those video were edited because it was done in secret and hidden video goes on for many minutes. It was edited to present the most damaging part. Anyone watching the video without prejudice would see it for exactly what it is.
For you to try and defend it shows more about who you are than what is staring you right in your face.
Let’s face it, no one in his right mind would go on live TV to say they are selling baby parts. Would they?
It took project veritas to expose this insidious practice and others as well.
I still love it when you try to claim I'm wrong using the wrong words. It's mistaken, not mistaking.
They make this thing called google. You can do internet searches with it. There you will find the facts that back up my claim that Planned Parenthood was found to have committed no wrong doing. That the money discussed was in reference to expenses incurred and not a sale. That those who secretly recorded the videos, which was a violation of privacy laws, were charged with crimes. So you are parroting illegally obtained video that was highly edited to form a narrative that did not exist.
Please, please, do more research before posting here.
He resides in the bubble. And....
Yes, and you believe every thing planned parenthood say. I thought they were for family planning? Why are they performing so many abortions?
Why are these people getting contraception education?
Why do you suppose they counsel teenagers to abort without parental consent?
The answer is simple $$$.
Don't try and tell me what I believe. You clearly don't know much at all if you believed that video you posted. It's clear that you cannot discern between reality and the fabricated information all the right-wing media sources feed you. How did you miss all the hearings they had in Congress that proved Planned Parenthood did nothing wrong? Do you just block out all the factual evidence that doesn't fit with your narratives?
As a heart attack....
I had a bad experience with Planned Parenthood, before I knew what they were. They aren't about protecting anyone's best interest. Far from it.
The NRA exists for a reason as well, but it's to protect my 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Leftists have gone so far off the deep end, they not only work to make it easier to end the lives of babies, that don't want me to be able to protect myself, my children, my grandbabies and anyone that may need me to be there for them someday.
You have no argument here.
Valeant, Statement from the chairwoman of the Democratic Women’s Working Group, on why the women were asked to wear white. Not sure where you got your explanation on why the women were asked to wear white?
"The chairwoman of the Democratic Women’s Working Group, Florida Rep. Lois Frankel, encouraged members to wear white to this year's State of the Union address as a shoutout to the voters who handed Democrats a majority in the House in the midterm elections and a reminder that they plan to make women's economic security a priority."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 775444002/
IN my opinion, they should use their voices in their workplace. These women were voted in due to their agendas, not their fashions sense... They appeared foolish. It is fighting to see these women in government have the responsibility to create laws. It's downright scary. As a woman, it saddens me to have this kind of silliness, high school mean girl stuff...
They could learn from the children Jack, but they do not wish to learn or grow in their maturity. They are too locked into their leftist agenda and judging from their behavior...this Country, their constituents, are the very last things on their minds. Sad display!
AB, I saw the immaturity of the Leftist Socialist Party. It was beyond appalling. Did you see Nancy grimacing when Trump spoke? Almost every time Trump spoke, she made a......GRIMACE.....totally disrespectful. Yes, the Leftist Socialist Party, formerly the Democratic Party is a party of kindergarteners. Even children in kindergarten exhibit a greater level of maturity than these "women". Yes, the Leftist Socialist Party has become too embedded in their socialistic behavior. Time to drain, AB.
I think that's the normal look for Pelosi. She doesn't respect anyone but herself.
AB, please watch DONKEYS & ELEPHANTS on Amazon Prime if you have Amazon Prime. It details how extreme both parties have become. Democrats have turned left while Republicans have turned towards the right. There is a war occurring between the Democrats & Republicans, those w/more centrist & moderate views are left out. The ascendency of the Baby Boom generation has exacerbated this political extremism. This was predicted in William Strauss' & Neil Howe's book, GENERATIONS: A HISTORY OF AMRICA'S FUTURE, 1584 to 2069. This book predicted that in the early part of the 21st century, there will be cultural & political wars between Conservatives & Liberals a/k/a Republicans & Democrats. This has come to fruition. Get the book & see the aforesaid documentary.
Yes, I did GM, not many can "grimace" or "disrespect" any better than Nancy. We've seen it before, we know how pathetic she is and for some unknown reason....America invited her back, to do it again!!!
I can't imagine how empty one must be, when they value nothing, have no core beliefs and have to look around to see how others are responding, (to things which should make the average individual spring to their feet in thunderous applause) in order to know how other empty souls are responding.
They really were 'Stepford'-like.
I used the words, "sad display" earlier, but it's so much worse....not sure if there is a word for it, evil doesn't even seem to suffice.
Yes, because Republicans always cheer and support Democratic presidents' SOTU addresses.
Every year, people gripe about the opposition party as though they are singularly awful, when they all behave similarly at the SOTU.
Thanks, Panther, my thoughts went along those lines as well.
Yes, but you have to admit the optics was bad no matter which side does it...
I do, but as Panther points out, the GOP do not exactly behave like choir boys during these events when there is a President from the Democratic Party.
It is OK not to applaud when a policy is presented by the other side, especially one that you disagree with. It is a totally dofferent situation when the topic is universal and you sit there like a log just because you don’t like the person making it.
Just stupid and childish...
If Trump announced a cure for cancer, would you applaud?
Trump has done some good things for this country. However, there are people unfortunately who REFUSE to give him credit. Yes, Trump has his faults but he also has strengths. One has to be analytical here.
Lol, you all are hilarious. There were quite a few moments when Democrats stood and applauded. You act as though they didn't happen.
Yes, you all have a right to vent, but at least be honest about it.
Did you missed the part about late term abortion?
I say Kamala Harris shaking her head...what was that about?
Yes, they applauded when Trump congradulate the women opin white for the largest number of women elected to Congress...
What about the Virginia law proposal? The one Governor Northam gave the interview on? I think that was what Trump was alluding to in his speech...
Are you OK with that?
"What did the bill propose?
Under current Virginia law, third-trimester abortions are only permitted if the risk to the mother's life is "substantial and irremediable" - language that Democrats wanted removed.
The Democratic bill sought to allow for late-term abortions if the mother's physical or mental safety were at risk .
The procedure would also have required sign-off by only one doctor, rather than the three required under existing law."
Sounds pretty much like the NY law.
…..and what of the word "mental", now added to "physical" health of the mother in the wording of some of these new bills? Is anxiety reason enough to abort PP?
I doubt it, but again, it should be a decision of the family and their doctor. Not yours and not the government's.
What about the other human being in this equation PP, the one that pro-abortionists don’t want to talk about, the one without a voice, the one that you all want to pretend doesn’t exist?
I believe there are already stringent conditions in place. One cannot simultaneously pretend it doesn't exist and discuss the laws surroundinhg it. Now you're just being ridiculous.
I am not pro-abortion; I am pro-choice. I would never presume to tell another family what health decisions they should make for themselves and their loved ones.
I am being ridiculous? By mentioning the other human being?
I believe pro-abortionists do not want any limits on abortion, because they've always justified abortion by making it all about one person and one person alone, the woman.
At the risk of causing a myocardial infarction, I will say that it seems we are on the same side of the fence here. I found those comments on abortion inappropriate - almost as if he hadn't read the NY law at all.
I can only put it down to appeasement of the R side of the room, just as the comments about women participation in Congress was to appease and throw a bone to the D side. It makes no sense whatsoever to deny abortion when the mothers life is at stake or there is no chance of viability of the fetus.
Perhaps you can clear up something for me, a man who has no knowledge first hand on pregnancy or abortion.
When the supreme court ruled back in 1973,abortion was suppose to be rare and restricted...
Now we routinely abort 1 million fetus a year...why ?
What happened to all those funds of Planned Parenthood to help with contraception education...
Why in this mondern day, with advances in medicine and day after pill, and birth control pills and free condoms...why are their so many unwanted pregnancy?
Second, assume you didn’t want it and it was an accident, why wait till late term to abort?
Yes, it always looks bad for the opposition party. That's why it's silly to gripe about it.
I am very specific in what I was appalled by.
Indeed Kenna, "Government of, by and for the People."
Isn't the biggest part of the leftist, socialist agenda, for Government to be over, above and in charge of the People?
Well, with these people elected to Congress, perhaps we do need a strong government. These people have no principles and need some guidance.
A strong government is better than no government.
Jack, the people need to ensure that activists, such as AOC; void of principle, guidance, knowledge of our Constitution, apparently...a soul... aren't elected!
What works for us, what has always worked for us, is our government designed just as it was, with we the people in charge, but we've got back to get back to teaching the basics of how this all works to our children.
Agreed 100%. The reason millennials is confused is because of the liberal education. We need to change our education system where they teach the basics of civics.
Yes, in Business, why? What does that have to do with anything?
How many professors did you have who espoused socialism?
None that I recall, but I am old now, that was a very long time ago. How many espouse it today, would you say? A guesstimate?
The poll shows 90% of professors in our senior colleges are liberal progressives.
Not all are socialists. My guess is at least 50% of them are or lean towards democratic socialism.
That is where AOC and other millenniels picked up these ideas.
Among ivy league schools, the percentage is higher.
I have no idea, but since it's fashionable to claim young people are brainwashed by liberal college professors, one would think some hard evidence exists. Does it?
jackclee, would you offer an example on a "basics of civics" that you think isn't being taught now?
What about the people that elected her abwilliams, shouldn't they be able to choose who they want to represent them?
Couldn't they have elected her because she did have principles and ideas that agreed with theirs?
Obviously she doesn't have those things as you determine to be, but about the 'other shoe'? Can you deny that the exact same thing you said about her could be said by others regarding Pres. Trump?
GA, my initial response is to go back to that very last sentence, "we must get back to teaching the basics of how this all works, to our children."
Otherwise, they will continue to vote for those they see as celebrities and/or for things they'd prefer not to have to work for, without giving any thought to the long term harm they do.
I was reluctant about Trump from the get-go, for the celebrity aspect, I felt people were caught up in the celebrity of Trump and I was all about Cruz. Trump has proven me wrong and he has won me over. If AOC proves me wrong....and she is only pretending to be a socialist, I'll be proven wrong once again and I will admit it.
Hi abwilliams, Had your first paragraph, (here), been your original response I would have heartily endorsed it.
I can't get onboard with the AOC bashing just because her views are in extreme opposition to mine, or because she appears naive to me. And as you noted from my response to your comment, I think that such anti-AOC comments need a little of what jackclee is always promoting - a few basic civics lessons.
Hold on now, wait, don't take that personally. Your "explanation" covers it.
It's not gripe. It's having a say. We need to be heard.
Exactly and look what happened to Venezuela. Socialism does not work. The government gives power to the people.
+100000000000000000000000000000 Kenna! When will SOME PEOPLE learn??!
Socialists in the United States of America, do not want to talk about, hear about or know about Venezuela!
Of course not, Socialists have a quite utopic, if not delusional, view of their politics. Every intelligent person knows that socialism is bad-it is the gateway to……...communism. Why don't some people SEE this?! I am a Liberal Democrat who is discerning & KNOWS BETTER...…..Why are so many Liberal Democrats...……..mere sheeple? Sad, isn't it...…..
That display by them and Pelosi is what I see as the problem with some women in politics. Pelosi acted little different than I observed of Clinton, on the floor of the Senate. Holier than thou, unable to act without emotion, lacking civility. Pelosi running across the floor recently and interrupting a speaker, calling him 'nothing' or some rot.
Such a proud moment for women. Not.
Agreed LtL, any person that takes pride in the pathetic display of these women, is as lost as they are.
Yes, because any woman doesn't agree with your brilliance is lost.
PP, you were comfortable with these women sitting on their hands, while President Trump was talking about eliminating the horrific act of terminating a full-term baby? You were comfortable with that? I've never claimed to be brilliant, but I do have a heart.
Did you not see the several times they stood and applauded, or did you watch an edited version?
Again, I repeat, I have been very specific in what it was that I was appalled by last night.
So, you oppose allowing the family to.choose when the life of the mother is at stake or the fetus is not viable? You want government to decide for them?
So, you are okay with the mental health of the woman being reason enough to abort? What about Governor Northam's explanation of making a baby comfortable before Parents and Physicians decide what to do with a defective baby after birth, are you okay with that? Who decides what makes a baby defective? What if a girl was expected to be a boy, does that make her defective? You tell me...how far would you let it go?
I am okay with the family and their doctors making those decisions. Apparently, you want the government to make them.
No, I want people with some common sense making those decision. It appears we have people elected to high office without common sense.
I would not let my healthcare be administered by these officials.
Who is better equipped to make the decision regarding abortion outside the family and the physician? Who else is to be involved, we have Roe vs. Wade, yet conservatives have been trying to do an end run on this decision since its inception.
We all don't agree that life begins at conception and Roe vs Wade is a fair compromise to all concerns and issues. Why can't conservatives get off from their high horse...
So what do you think about suicide?
And other sensitive matters?
Does the state have any say in that?
Your logic escapes me...
Let me get this straight -
A Dr. and his patient a women, are the only one who has a say in the life or death of a fetus, either first, second or third trimester?
What about the father?
What about society?
In this country, you can’t kill a pet or a wildlife that is protected...yet you can kill a baby that is viable outside the womb because the mother choose to do so...
The question is very simple. It comes down to when do you consider life starts?
Once you decided, all the other legal implications becomes crystal clear.
If I wanted to end my life, it is my life to end. If I mentioned it to others or the state, I could be institutionalized until "I see reason".
Conservatives always talk about getting government off from the back of people, yet are all for sticking their noses in regarding the most sensitive matters between people. Just another reason why I am not fond of them nor their philosophy of life.
So, you are in support of suicide? It is against the law in most western societies...
People have depression, it is a real disease, mental disease. We are compassionate and rather treat people with mental disorder than to let them fend for themselves. That is why we have mental hospitals, where some people are commited by their family or society to protect them from themselves...and not harm others.
'So, you are in support of suicide? It is against the law in most western societies...
What are you going to do, arrest me?
How a bout some of that compassion for people in the economic sphere, rather than the simple adage, "produce or starve"
Wow, this is your response?
No one is arresting anyone.
You do know anyone can commit suicide and it happens everyday around our country.
It does not make it right or legal.
Those are two different situations.
If a person is of sound mind and body, and decides to end his life, no one will stop him. However, in our compassionate society, if a person is depressed and wants to end his life, I would hope their family member, friend, colleagues, will try and stop him and get him help. There are many medications to deal with depression.
We kind of got side tracked here with suicide. But my main point was to respond to your comment about who has the right over the fetus.
In my thinking, the fetus is defenseless. It is a new life. You can argue when life begins but legally, it should begin when it is viable outside the womb. Philosophically, and religiously, it begins at conception.
Lets take this one step furthur. Suppose you say it is up to the mother to decide. She decides to abort at 8 months. Is this ok with you?
What if a pregnant women who is 8 months pregnant and wants to keep her baby. A drunk driver causes an accident and she lost the baby in a misscarriage. What faults do you place on the driver? Is it manslaughter or a misdemeanor? After all it is just a fetus until it is born.
"it should begin when it is viable outside the womb"
Presuming you mean Human life (a cancer tumor is alive, and so is a malfunctioning appendix or tonsil), why? Why would you tie that to an ever changing point, even to the point of conception as one day we will see "test tube babies" that never see a womb at all?
"it should begin when it is viable outside the womb. Philosophically, and religiously, it begins at conception."
Jack, Now you're cooking with gas, that is where I stand, when the fetus can live outside the womb. Otherwise everybody has their own philosophy and religion...
The idea behind Roe vs Wade is not to allow abortion on demand, especially in the later stage of pregnancy. The law gets involved with the pregnancy at the point the fetus if it is viable and can live on its own, in my opinion.
The idea of Roe vs Wade is a compromise between the rights of the mother and the state's interests in preserving life.
Since the baby at 8 months could well be viable outside the womb, and if there is a direct correlation between the accident and miscarriage where the accident is the cause, I would go with a manslaughter charge. But, I would not say the same if the fetus is say, 8 weeks.
"If I wanted to end my life, it is my life to end."
Oh hell Cred, you have stepped in it now. But, since I agree with you I will hang around awhile in case you need help, (with this topic, not the act).
Stop waving roe vs wade as a license to kill.
Go back and read the decision.
It said no such thing. You and your liberal compatriots are the one politicizing this issue.
Abortion was made legsal, but restricted and rare.
That was the decision. Not abortion on demand...
That is the debate.
Tell me, when do you consider life to begin?
I really want to know.
Roe vs Wade spoke about abortion only within so many weeks of conception. Abortion is made difficult after that "so many weeks" have passed.
I am not for destroying a baby that can survive outside of the womb on its own.
I have my own ideas about when life begins, I, for myself, would say conception. However, the difference between conservatives and progressive thinking people is that my opinion does not have universal application. My thoughts on the topic are no more valid than anyone else's. And I am not the woman who has to carry the child to term.
Restricting options for women is just going to make problems and they will go elsewhere or otherwise do what they have to do.
This comment makes no sense in this discussion of the NY and proposed Virginia laws. Those laws leave the decision making to the woman and her doctor, not the government, within certain stringent conditions of the law.
Banning late-term abortions outright, with no consideration for the mother, takes that decision making out of the hands of the individual and her doctor and puts it squarely on the government.
Not what he said. This is what he said:
“This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. When we talk about third-trimester abortions, this is done with the consent of obviously the mothers, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non-viable.
So in this particular example- a woman is about to give birth and is dilating- if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont … kTopSKo1xs
Do you agree it has begun by the third trimester Cred?
Too bad that all of this has been allowed to go so much further than where it began.
Which was bad enough!
I've had friends attempt suicide, otherwise living in depression, on meds or drinking all of the time to eliminate the pain .....because when they were very young girls, in junior high school, no one properly prepared them for what abortion is and what the long term effects would be on them...they only received their blessing!
But, you can call the opposition to it something else if you'd like.
If I had to question the procedure at all, it would be problematic to abort when the fetus has developed to the point where it could survive outside the womb. Then options like adoption and such are available.
With the exception of children that are genetically non-viable (encephalitic) for example, the state steps in at this at the normal point of independent viability of the fetus and can express its concern for the maintenance of life.
My daughter was just telling about her friend who is currently preganant. It is a planned pregnancy, but they’ve just found out that the baby’s brain is growing outside of the skull. It is called encephalocele and it occurs in the United States, less than 400 times per year. Obviously these things happen, they are very rare in the modern era, but happen. As awful as this sounds and I assumed the worst, there are options and they are going through them right now with their Doctor.
“There MAY be a fetus that’s non-viable”, “the infant would be delivered”, “the infant would be kept comfortable”, “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and family desired.”
A discussion ensues and then what?
They will get a pillow and kill the baby.
I dont know. Do you think you should make that decision?
I am pro-choice & believe in abortion for the first trimester. Procedures are routinely performed when there is an ectopic pregnancy or when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. However, I don't believe in late term abortions which I deem as murder! A slippery slope was reached when the act of late term abortion was written into law.
I think the little human being, at the very least, has a Right to have a chance.
If continuing a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, do you believe the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother? I don't.
It is legal before a certain number of weeks gestation.
+10000000000000000000000000,PP. We have far more in common than what is supposed. I am staunchly pro-choice in terms of abortion. I have personally seen the effects of unwanted pregnancies on my two maternal aunts. Their youthful dreams were crushed. Although there is contraception, contraception isn't 100 proof in some cases & accidents occur. No girl/woman should be punished for accidents. That is why Roe vs. Wade was instituted. Studies show that teenagers who were mothers were more likely not to finish high school & be poor or impoverished. No teenaged girl should derail her dreams because of an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there was the draconian premise of shot gun weddings- how barbaric is that?!
OMG. We were originally discussing the NY and Virginia laws having to do with late-term abortions.
Are you trying to change the parameters of the discusdion? If you are, I'm not interested in continuing, since you are clearly prone to.game playing and misinformation.
OMG you posed the question, "if continuing the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, do the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother?"
Yes, because that was one of the conditions under which a late-term abortion could occur according to the laws under discussion in this thread.
Democratic women, in solidarity, all dressed up in white, did not stand, did not applaud, couldn't even manage a nod nor an ever so slight affirmation, when the President called for the practice of aborting babies, "moments from birth", to end!
Last night, their display made me sick to my stomach. Today, I am more determined than ever to call out today's Democratic Party and to call out these 'women' that will cry out for the weather, but not for a full-term baby! The gloves are coming off, I've had it!
What say you?
I notice you avoided the question.
"If continuing a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, do you believe the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother? I don't."
Now I have a question for you. Were you comfortable with all of those women sitting, unmoved, unresponsive to the President's suggestion that the practice of aborting babies moments from birth should end?
This is where we have an issue. Trump never mentions the reasons why a baby may be aborted moments from birth that are included in the NY and Virginia bills. That the fetus is not viable or there is a danger to the mother's life. He distorts the facts to make it sound draconian and his followers jump on board with that distortion. When facts are so skewed to get the type of reaction he has obviously caused in you, I would not be standing for them either. It was done with the false intent to cause division, and you've bought into the way he misconstrued the facts of the laws he referenced in a way that makes you angry toward the opposition.
I'm pretty liberal, but even I agree that when a fetus is viable outside the womb, life has begun and should be protected. I'm willing to accept the protection of the mother's life in those rare instances where the pregnancy endangers her, however. I do not think that unreasonable.
Much like I accept one of the reasons for Roe v. Wade was likely to protect young women from being butchered while trying to get an abortion prior to them becoming medical practice. I've read some of the first hand accounts and would recommend those not thinking of the pregnant women in these cases to do the same. They are quite horrific.
But I digress. This was a clear example of Trump gaslighting the American public. Bringing forth an issue in a partially factual way to anger one side towards another. That's not unifying, that's bringing up an issue sure to divide the country. For a speech that claimed to want to unify, bringing up this topic undermined that theme, that's for sure.
"It was done with the false intent to cause division"
I actually doubt that - I think it far more likely that it was done to throw a bone to his support base, just as he threw a bone to the D's in the comments about women in Congress.
We'll never know, of course, but I really do doubt that it was an intentional effort to divide, not after all the talk of coming together and comments designed to gain approval from the Democrats that want nothing to do with anything from the white house.
Valeant, long time no chat, hope all is well.
No, we have an "issue" because abortion was ramrodded through in 1973, without thought or concern...none whatsoever...for girls and young women and the long-term effect abortion would have on them.
I've witnessed many cases over many years. I've written on this subject before and I am not about to stop now. (stay tuned)
My response to the women in white sitting as bumps on a log, while birth day abortion was being discussed, is one of disgust, because the guy defending life is the object of their death stares, when they should be going after the activists that decided to use girls and women as guinea pigs, back in the 70s. Now that's something to be in solidarity about!
As for the "not getting butchered" argument...that went out with Kermit Gosnell and Planned Parenthood chop shops, don't you think?
"No, we have an "issue" because abortion was ramrodded through in 1973, without thought or concern...none whatsoever...for girls and young women and the long-term effect abortion would have on them.
I've witnessed many cases over many years. I've written on this subject before and I am not about to stop now. (stay tuned)"
Doesn't have much (anything) to do with the topic of this thread, but...We had almost no information on long term results of women that had legal, safe, effective and well performed abortions. Perhaps there WAS an effort to consider that effect, but there was no data to look at.
But beyond that, I'm not generally in favor of a committee sitting in a back room somewhere deciding what is good for me...and forcing me to behave as they think I should. Abortion is a very personal choice, and that committee has no business in intruding on it. The task of government is to protect us from our neighbors, not from ourselves.
I agree, I want government as limited as possible in our lives.
In the meantime, we have fractured women not wanting to talk about it, broken men that never had a say in the matter and babies about to be stopped from entering this world, without a voice, their rights dismissed.
It's ugly all the way around. We have failed miserably at education on so many levels.
Here is an honest question. If you're making a speech in the hopes to unify the country, why would you bring up the topic of abortion? And why do so distorting the facts pertaining to a bill that aims to save the lives of women?
Second, the Democratic women wore white to honor suffrage. Do you have an issue with women being able to vote? You keep bringing up them wearing white like it's a bad thing.
Do you think babies are killing a lot of women these days Valeant?
I became fixated on the white section, when my hubby said, what's going on there, is that the virgin section and then Melania came in looking all fabulous...in black. I guess you had to be there, but it was funny, we had a good laugh and then their behavior made me stop laughing.
Yes, I heard that too, I also heard that a lot of tweeting was going on about "sending a message" to President Trump. I'm sure it was nothing political, only them paying homage to the suffragettes.
I tend to rely on stats for things, such as in 2016, as many as 900 women between the ages of 16 and 43 died from pregnancy- and childbirth-related causes. I'll assume you do not find that number inconsequential.
You didn't really address my question. If unity was the mission of the State of the Union speech, how does bringing the abortion issue into the discussion help that cause?
As in the pregnancy or childbirth itself caused the death? I'd be interested in seeing that, can you please send it to me?
(9) States now do not have ANY of the major types of abortion restrictions and more States are working toward the same.
Other States are currently working toward passing 'Fetal Heartbeat' laws, only to have the 9th Circuit shoot them down, but they are trying!
There's a lot going on when it comes to abortion, why wouldn't it be addressed?
AB - CDC maternal death rates in the US for the data source.
It does pertain to the state of the union, I can concede that. But it certainly isn't going to be an issue that unifies the country any time soon. Seemed counterproductive to bring it up, and even worse to distort the facts pertaining to the NY and Virginia bills.
You are right, we are further apart than I can ever recall, not just on abortion, but on every single issue, (except for infrastructure) and we may lose that if y'all's new leader AOC, gets her way in wanting to replace every single building in the U.S.A.
Alrighty then....are you a fan?
I am an environmentalist, so yes, I am supportive of reducing the effects of climate change and not distorting the facts of what she proposes. Making buildings energy efficient is not the same as replacing all the buildings in the U.S.A.
I'll go with the scientists in the topic, much like I'll go with the intelligence leaders over the gut of a functional illiterate president. Energy independence and the conversion to renewable energy needs to happen sooner rather than later.
Not by 2030. We are going to be using fossil fuel for a long time.
It is what drives our society. Solar, wind and other renewable sources amount to a small percentage. In some mission critical areas, it is the only source that is cheap and reliable.
Climate change is a problem but not dire. We have time to mitigate and come up with better solutions...new technological breakthru...
The current projections is for 30 years away.
We still don’t have a good understanding of long term climate variability.
All the current models are incomplete at best and tends to err on the hih side. I wonder why?
I don't either. I also feel that no woman should endure an unwanted pregnancy. It is damaging to her physically, mentally, emotionally, & even psychically. It is more humane to have an abortion than it is to have an unwanted child which will be subject to abuse. I agree w/you, PP.
According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, abortions after 21 weeks make up less than 1.3% of all abortions in the United States. This means that abortions that occur beyond 24 weeks make up less than 1% of all procedures.
Appalled, sickened, disgusted, disappointed and scared for humankind.
Huh. I have a hard time understanding this. We all know that late-term abortions can only be done in certain very stringent circumstances, at least some of which you seem to agree with. Trump 's statement was a deliberate false framing of the issue to elicit a visceral emotional response from people who might not fully understand why he would be saying it. Do you expect intelligent women to play into that craven emotional manipulation? I am proud they didn't.
Is "feeling anxious" a very stringent circumstance? It can be used. It's a mental condition.
This has gone far beyond stringent circumstances, you can pretend all day that it hasn't, that will not change the fact.
I expect intelligent women to give a damn about human life.
Do you have evidence that "feeling anxious" can be used as a valid reason for a late-term abortion?
Sure, I did ask for evidence. Why would you doubt I actually want it?
Right and I'll give you my Social Security number while I am at it, because we know each other so very well.
Before judging 'late-term abortion,' understand what it means, doctors say
-Dr. Barbara Levy: The phrase "late-term abortion" is medically inaccurate and has no clinical meaning. In science and medicine, it's essential to use language precisely. In pregnancy, to be "late term" means to be past 41 weeks gestation, or past a patient's due date. Abortions do not occur in this time period, so the phrase is contradictory.
-It's important to note, if a woman's health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion.
-If a person needs to end their pregnancy after 24 weeks, there are a limited number of places in the country where they can do that, and the approval process for that procedure is scrupulous.
-For women who need abortion care in the third trimester, there are very few places across the country where this care is accessible, and it is very rarely covered by insurance. Typically, these procedures would cost in the thousands of dollars. Moreover, many women would have to travel by plane to reach these providers, so in addition to the cost of the care, they are incurring the cost of travel and lodging.
-Abortion later in pregnancy is not used as an alternative to delivering healthy women's full-term, viable pregnancies.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/heal … index.html
Why do you feel the need to bash those women by implying some nefarious intent for which there is no evidence?
It's so dishonest.
Oh...and you shouldn't have supported that bailout for the farmers either that Trump caused.
Not talking about humane nor capital improvement programs but talking about excessive social programs such as welfare & institutionalized government healthcare, not to mention other inane social welfare programs, THANK YOU!!!!! By the way, we PAY into social security so it isn't assistance- one would say that it is a savings plan!
Sorry, but you need to learn about the concept of socialism. It deals with something called economics. Socialism seeks to control the source of production in a society. All those things you mentioned such as roads, medicare, public schools etc. are paid for by tax revenue created by capitalism. In order to understand this concept I suggest you read a book called "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. It was written in 1776, but the concepts are being used right now. Do I need to explain the concept of "source of production?" Your meme only shows a total and complete lack of understanding when it comes to socialism and economy.
Alright, where in America does the state seek to control the means of production?
The so called classic definition of socialism.
Exactly. The United States is a hugely successful capitalistic country. I was responding to the meme above. All government programs in the United States are funded from taxes resulting from economic capitalism. Socialism destroys countries because under that system the government does control the means of production. People's freedom to succeed to the best of their abilities is taken away.
And you need to learn about Democratic socialism since your side clearly doesn't understand the differences between the two and only calls it socialism out of fear. The meme I posted aimed to amplify what Democratic socialists believe, that the government can use it's tax revenue resources to directly assist in the well-being of its citizenry.
In the present day, "Democratic socialist" and "socialist" are often treated as interchangeable terms, which can be confusing given Democratic socialists don't necessarily think the government should take control of all aspects of the economy.
Democratic socialists also believe strongly in democracy and democratic principles. They are by no means proponents of authoritarian government systems many Americans associate socialism with.
Am I sold on its principles? No. But it gets tiring hearing every single conservative, including Trump, mislabel it and only use Venezuela as the one example. When the reality is that countries like Sweden, Bolivia, Denmark, Canada, and Norway, who rank much higher than the US in many major categories, have functional models of government rooted in socialist principles.
Valeant, "the well-being of our citizenry" was mapped out long ago, designed to last, via our founding documents.
Promote the general welfare...
You need to read it once in a while to refresh your memory. Some of us was taught this but apparently, they don’t teach it any more.
I am always surprised to find politicians and even judges who have little understanding of our Constitution.
Except that to "promote the general welfare" does not mean "improve the circumstances of specific individuals", which is what we see so much of today.
Apparently with Trump's tax breaks to the already filthy rich, promoting the general welfare doesn't mean the poor or middle classes.
Except that those same tax breaks went to nearly everyone paying taxes. Why is it that you leave out that tidbit of information?
That is a lie. His tax cut help 80% of taxpayers, including you. That is so disingenuous of you.
The tax cut means giving back to people who paid. If 50% of the public does not pay any income tax, how can they recieve a tax cut? Tell me, since you are so smart...
"If 50% of the public does not pay any income tax, how csn they recieve a tax cut?"
Easy. Get a "refund" of more than was paid in. It's called EIC, where the rich are forced to give money to the poorer. Or "charity", take your pick.
Oh but "filthy rich" has such a leftist talking point ring to it!
Randy is a socialist. They believe the lie that all corp. are evil and greedy and out to get the little guy. What they fail to understand is if you get rid of them ot tax them out of existence, all the people suffer like they are in Venezuela...
If exxon stop drilling tomorrow, where are you going to get the gas for your car, so you can go to work?
Irrelevant. The rich are happy to have us take what they built for themselves, and will never take steps to protect themselves from our greed. Steps like moving wealth off-shore or lobbying Congress. Not even by hiring tax experts to keep control of what they have.
They believe the lie that all corp. are evil and greedy and out to get the little guy.
Firm federal regulation will keep the Corporate Fox out of the chicken coup
I agree. That is why we can’t have Goldman Sach people in and out of government and writing laws that control the finance industry...and donating to political parties...you know who...
So, you have picked up on this, I am pleasantly surprised but again you did tell me that you have a problem with "crony Capitalism", and the financial markets are culprit number 1.
They donate to both parties, but I have to note that recently the unanimous vote of the captains of Wall Street were that the Democrats could not nominate Warren or Sanders as they say that they are disruptive and not "centrist". As if I really care who they do or do not support. All the other Democratic hopefuls Wall Street is sure can be co-opted and manipulated to just play along with a corrupt system.
You want to know something? Warren gets my support because the Wall Street gurus know that she means business and are justifiably afraid. Imagine, instead of walking around with placards and signs like Occupy Wall Street, I get to vote for a leader that will do something about their entrenched power.
Elizabeth Warren will not make it as the nominee for 2020. Her baggage is too great. Her claim of Indian heritage will not stand the smell test.
I will consider Howard Schultz for 2020. He seem like the moderate that the whole country can support.
Don't know much about Howard Schulz isn't he some CEO for a corporate firm?
I am not interested in "businessmen" , TRUMP AS AN EXAMPLE IS ALL THAT I CAN STOMACH. Why bring a "wolf into the fold"?
This Pocahontas stuff will blow over, and attacking Wall Street And its entrenched financial interests gets a lot of mileage with everybody excepting the very wealthy. She is the only one with a track of going after them with all guns blazing and that is what I need and what I want. So, Warren claimed to have Native American ancestry, so what? Many of us do, even if we are not officially recognized as a tribal member. In 1986, before DNA, the only way we knew who we were is by what our parents told us, is that not right?
If she were hiding something why answer Trump at all and make public the result of her DNA? Conservative are so afraid of diversity and minority groups, if you're not 100 percent white, you are a part of the so called "identity politics". I am not interested in GOP light for a candidate, I will stick with Warren.
She used her indian status to gain advantage thru out her career and in Harvard...faculty.
Howard Schultz was the CEO and founder of Starbucks. Read up in his background. He came from a poor background, and made his fortune but also gave back to the community and his employees... he is one of the most progressive business leaders.
He is running as an independent that is why the Democrats turned on him.
I would give him a chance...
"Why bring a "wolf into the fold"
Because our politicians are no longer able or willing to run the country.
"attacking Wall Street And its entrenched financial interests gets a lot of mileage with everybody excepting the very wealthy."
True. If one wants emotional "arguments" rather than rational ones it is effective. Which is a part of why our politicians are not running the country - that is all they have to offer anymore.
"if you're not 100 percent white, you are a part of the so called "identity politics"
That has to be one of the bigger "misstatements" of the year. Fits with the second answer pretty well, though.
Conservatives always identify progressive ideas as emotional, while I see them as cowtowing to entrenched power within our government and economic institutions.
To each your own, this article is a Wall Street Publication that highlights Warren's position where I concur with her far more often than not.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/el … at-to-know
"Conservatives always identify progressive ideas as emotional, while I see them as cowtowing to entrenched power within our government and economic institutions."
You are very often right - progressive ides are often just cowtowing to entrenched power. But that does not mean they are not often emotional arguments without real reason behind them at the same time.
And the conservatives are the rational, reasonable ones? That is from your point of view, more than half the country voted Democratic. You would not have the temerity to propose that over half the nation is addled in judgement while you and the rightwing class are geniuses?
I hope not.
Your points may be valid ones Cred, but I don't think Warren has a chance getting through the primaries. If you think it is only the Republicans that are making hay from this, wait until you see what her Democratic primary opponents do with it.
I don't think the "Pocahontas" thing will "blow over."
I respectfully disagree, GA. When I look at 2016, the Dems lost because it dissed Sanders and he represented the populist left that Hillary Clinton completely ignored. Warren has a lot of friends and many of us trust her to do what the mainstreamers will not.
I will bet you a virtual bottle of beer that she is head and shoulders above all the rest of the Democratic contenders. Remind me afterwards that we had this little discussion
Such an optimist you are Cred. I am too. I am not dissing Warren. I do like some of her financial markets positions. I just don't think her American Indian heritage missteps will allow her to get through the primaries.
It's a bet bud, except that it will be martinis if I win, beer if you do. Hell, I might even drive down to Florida to collect. ;-)
Seriously, if you are in the vicinity drop by and let me gloat in person....
You know I would. I used to make a yearly, (or more), Florida trip, this just might be the excuse to go again.
If you take I-75, you go through my farm, GA.
If I remember correctly, we always took I95 all the way down. One of the bummers of the trip was that we also always drove straight through, and after 14 hours, (or so), of driving it was great to finally see that Florida State sign - we made it!
Quickly followed by an oh Buggers, we still had another 6 to 8 hours to go. (destinations were usually Ft. Lauderdale or Key West)
It is a good time, GA, to fly south for the Winter. Temps have been in the upper 60s and low eighties, perfect weather. Best time of year.
Gee, no global warming? And no flooding like Al Gore’s documentary?
Jack, I am not an authority on the subject, but I am cogent enough to recognize that my enjoying good weather neither proves nor disproves global warming theories. But, I tend to believe the preponderance of the scientific community over the scholarship of, say, the Russ Limbaugh class.
Florida is so mundane fellows. Fiji is an excellent destination.
I don't have the option of living outside the US because of certain infrastructure realities.
I have thought of Portugal as a low cost living area in Europe without the hassle of lack of amenities found in so many developing societies. We are still pondering, as there are many things to consider with any choice of action.
I ask for specifics and you provide none.
If 'some of us was taught' something, perhaps not well enough since it's some of us 'were' taught. It's always fun when someone brags about their understanding of things while misusing the English language. It's very Trump of them.
What specifics? The Constitution is not like a law...
It was designed to be a general guiding principle. Do you know the difference?
Anyone wanting specifics, tells me you are clueless about civics?
Tell me how many words are in the Constitution? Roughly.
Tell me how many words are in the ACA bill? All 2000 plus pages?
Details are in the ACA more than anyone wants to know.
The Constitution is only 8000+ words, and that includes all the Amendments. How detail can you get with 8000 words.
Gime a break.
It is just like you, criticize my grammer, and missing the big point.
I teach civics... you know little about civics.
Why don’t you read the document once and see what it actually say?
This is why I suggest you avoid me. You jump into a civil discussion AB and I were having where I wonder what she is referring to when she says that the well-being of our country was mapped out in the founding documents, as it pertains to capitalism vs. democratic socialism.
You proceed to insult me by intimating I have no understanding of the Constitution because I asked her for specific examples of what she meant by her statement. Don't be surprised when you get insulted back for claiming some intellectual superiority when you don't even have a solid grasp on the English language.
As for your point about civics, you have no idea of my academic background and it shows every time you open your mouth. Seriously, avoid me. All we do is devolve into insulting each other.
Sure suit yourselves.
Your lack of temperament and willingness to engage in debate says more about you than me.
I don’t need to know your education background. You words and ideology speaks loudly.
Have a great day.
Debate is fine. Engaging with someone who attempts to hijack a conversation while slinging insults around is just immaturity which I prefer to avoid.
I thought this is an open forum. How is any conversation restricted?
If that is the case, this is the first I hear of it. I’ve been on hubpages forum a long time. Is this an unwritten rule that somehow I violated.
If so, I apologize. I have plenty of discussions where people from all corners jump in and out...without fanfare.
I will take that into consideration in the future.
Fundamentally, restraining the abuses and excesses inherent in a capitalist form of economy is labeled by conservatives as "socialist".
Fundamentally, redistribution of wealth in an effort to improve the life of individuals rather than "promote the general welfare" of the nation is labeled by conservatives as "socialist".
Sweden, Bolivia, Denmark, Canada? Bolivia? How well do you think any of these countries would do without the United States as a trading partner? NONE of them are even close to having the economy of the United States. Proof that the more the government stays away from the means of production the more successful an economy. China has the second largest economy because it started using principles of capitalism in their economy. When it was a straight communist/socialist country, it was a third world country.
China is a good case in point. Even Russia, with it's limited capitalism, found it very advantageous to allow more private business.
Yeah, I don't think many people in the world would choose to use the economic utopia of Bolivia as an model for an economy. I may be wrong...but....
...with a 4.2% growth in GDP and 3.1% unemployment rate, there are some things that make their economy work better than ours.
Come talk to me when they can do better than the 93rd largest economy in the world. Seriously...Bolivia? They still get billions of foreign aid from the United States and the World Bank. It is known as a "dependent" economy.
I agree. It does have some relevance, but the largest and strongest economies in the world function under capitalism. It has helped countries leave intense poverty. Look at how wealthy India has become by utilizing capitalistic principles.
At least you admit it was dishonest.
Their wearing of white had nothing to do with socialism at all, of course. It makes you appear to be not only dishonest but ignorant.
The women in white works to draw attention to the more diverse Democrat party as compared to the GOP with primarily white men in gray flannel suits. What a contrast!!
I also want a LIMITED government, VERY LIMITED. I believe that people have to be RESPONSIBLE for their health, housing, education, & other amenities in life. I believe that people should be free regarding their reproductive choices & health but that is ON THEM, not the government. I want social & welfare programs reduced to AT LEAST 85%- get people WORKING & RESPONSIBLE. That is ALL I ask. Since the disaster known as the Great Society was implemented, the middle class(my parents & then I) paid the BRUNT of the taxes to these inane social & welfare programs. Time to CUT THE FAT...…….CUT THAT FAT!
All those Democrats in white remind me of something. Oh yeah, they created the KKK.
Correct at the time, afterwards the parties reversed in their treatment of ex-slaves and the values of their parties.
Wrong as usual, the Democrats have never been on the side of civil rights and still struggle with the concept of equal protection under the law. They want special rights for special interest groups, just as they always have. Same party, same strategy.
The irony of anyone who supports or defends Trump saying Elizabeth Warren has too much baggage is just so damned funny.
I just read through today's comments, and let me just say I am already sick of the stupid and erroneous "he/she is a socialist" crap, the stupid and erroneous "no one but me understands the constitution" crap, and the "if you think the rich need to be taxed more it means you hate them and think they're evil" crap.
Gawd, it's going to be a long primary season.
Speaking of "irony" and to bring this back to where it started...just caught some of the Whitaker Hearing while on my lunch break.
Am I really expected to take Democratic women, such as Ms. Jayapal, seriously when she uses words such as, “horrors”, “ripped apart from their children”, “zero humanity policy”, with her holier-than-thou tone, when speaking of separating illegal families at the border, when we all just witnessed her stone-faced death stare, sitting on her hands (in solidarity with other Dem women) during the S.O.T.U., when the President spoke of eliminating the “horiffic” act of late term destruction of babies?
I completely agree with you abwilliams - regarding the Whitaker hearings.
But, unfortunately for us, it would have been the same sad showing if it were the Republicans sitting where the Democrats were. We have seen this show before. From both parties.
No argument from me, we’ve seen plenty of showboating from both sides over the years! But....that woman, attempting to work up a cry and make a scene “for the children”, over a necessary policy, which has been in place to PROTECT the children.....after her despicable behavior during the S.O.T.U., when the topic was ending the practice of killing full-term babies, was a bit much for me to handle.
I must say though, Whitaker is quite the character, he was certainly getting under the skin of the inquisitors....“Um Mr. Chairman, I see that your five minutes is up.” Love it.
So AB, how many of your children have you had ripped from your arms? You must've had this experience as you speak so knowledgeable about the subject, right?
And Whitaker made a fool of himself with his remark to the majority leader by not knowing the rules of the oversight committee. But then....you love him for it.
You do realize Randy that this portion of border policy is in place to make sure children are with family members or people who have their best interest at heart?
Also, in your eagerness to play Inquisitor...you've entirely missed my point.
As for Whitaker, I was impressed that he could keep his cool and his sense of humor with that crowd.
Would that be none? "You've entirely missed to my" question. And you would be impressed by him, no doubt!
Anyone showing up at the border, especially with children, MUST be properly vetted, because we have a huge human trafficking problem in this Country.
There's nothing funny about any of that!
So yes, there is a separation process which doesn't involve any "ripping" apart, so dramatically described by Ms. Jayapal in her performance.
So, you still haven't answered my query, AB? What is YOUR personal experience with having a child ripped away from you? Answer, since you seem to think you know something we don't....
Randy, it is just common sense. You don’t have to experience it first hand to know something. Or are you of the opinion, no president can lead us to war unless he was a member of the military...? Just one example... of your childish attitude.
But there's such a thing as uncommon sense as well, Jack. No, I'm not of the opinion any POTUS has to be a former military vet to be effective as a leader, but I don't want a draft dodger to run the country either. What a bout you?
And your answer doesn't mean AB cannot answer for herself and you've not experienced having a child ripped from your arms either. No way can someone understand by simply hearing about it. Common sense...
I need a drink, is it 5:00 somewhere? I think we've covered just about everything ya'll!
Have a great weekend!
Looks like there's crap enough to go around now.
Deep breaths.....I should probably listen to smooth jazz instead!
My husband and I are planning a trip to Florida along with a Caribbean cruise. We were originally going to D.C., but....
Florida is great, no income tax, low cost of living, great weather, and friendly people...No wonder, so many people from NY and NJ are relocating there...
Good choice. The weather here in Florida is picture perfect right now!
We just might. We are still looking at different.options and that's oncluded. Gorgeous!
One of my best Navy stories happened in Old San Juan. But that was before your time.
My beautiful Viejo San Juan. Care to share?
Ha! The story is a bit raunchy, and a lot young dumb sailor, with a sardonic and humorous touch of irony. But sure, I will share, (the Statute of Limitations has long passed ;-) )
But be forewarned, it involves the typical male attitudes, (in particular male sailors), of 1972. Which would doom me to banishment if displayed in today's world.
To set the stage: I was an unmarried 19-year-old sailor from Small Town U.S.A. and Puerto Rico was a Port of Call on my first overseas deployment. I had just finished 18 months of Boot Camp in San Diago, and A-school training in Illinois. (in the winter cold of Illinois)
So back to Puerto Rico. My very first Port of Call. And, I had just gotten my first Petty Officer's stripe on my sleeve. As the old saying goes, I was young, dumb, and full of piss & vinegar
(that is not me, but it is a good representation of the attitude)
When that kind of sailor hits a port after being at sea for an extended time there are two things on his mind. Getting drunk, and getting laid. The better things, like; sight-seeing, exploring different cultures, finding souvenirs and meeting different people are a bit further down the list of priorities.
An older sailor that had been to San Juan before said he knew just the place to go. So at about 10 am, off we went. Into the heat of San Juan dressed in those Summer Whites
Our destination was a government controlled whore house!
But not one like any whore house image that typically comes to mind. This one was a walled single-story compound, with a gated entrance manned by government officials in brown police-type uniforms.
The image below isn't the compound, it is just somewhat representative of the interior of the compound. Three sides with single or multi-room segments. Sort of like those old roadside motels. And a circular cantina in the center of a dirt courtyard.
That is the stage, here is the story.
I entered those gates like a kid going to Disney Land. I could legally drink here, and I could legally ...
Our first stop was the main meet & greet cantina, under-roof against the back wall of the compound. Took seats at a table in a darkened room, ordered rum, and smiled as the girls came over to entice us to pick them. Some even used the unfair tactic of lap dances!
Damn, life was good! But, my experienced friend said not to rush things. Have a few drinks, enjoy the scenery, (and the lap dances), just enjoy the morning before rushing into anything.
Sounded good to me. So a few more rounds of rum & cokes it was. (very strong rum and cokes)
(I bet you can see what's coming can't you?)
It wasn't long before I was feeling so good I decided to take a stroll to that open cantina in the courtyard before committing myself to an inside choice.
That cantina had ice cream! Glory be, I bought a couple ice cream sandwiches and took them, (and my rum & coke), out to sit in the sun on the cantina steps. That was the best ice cream I ever rented.
Before long both ice cream sandwiches and those rum and cokes were in a puddle on the ground in front of me. I barely remember my buddies stuffing me in a cab at the front gate, but I do remember stumbling back up the ship gangplank just as the mess call for lunch was sounding.
I slept until they woke me for the mid-watch, and we left port the next morning. At least I accomplished one of those Port of Call goals.
Fortunately, I had two other Puerto Rico port calls. I behaved myself and took scooter excursions to see the island and do a little legal gambling. One compound visit in a lifetime was enough.
(Yes, it was before my time. ) But now I'm interested in the name and place of that building.
*On a side note... That kind of architecture is characteristic of the Spanish Colonial era, the use of interior courtyards as a source of ventilation and light.
Oook was an expected reply. ;-)
That was just a representative picture I pulled off the net. The compound of the story was similar in layout, but it was all brown-walled. The dirt courtyard was as in the original compound.
I am not certain, but I think the story's compound was in or around a place called La Perla.
I tried a little digging around to find the name of the original compound but had no success.
Do you remember if it was close to the forts? (Btw, La Perla is in that same street. AlsoI, in that street used to be a famous brothel but it was in the early 1900s)
I know of a couple of places that used to be brothels in Old San Juan, but I'm not sure if they fit the description.
(I know. I can't help myself. The historian in me.)
Can't help you anymore Islandbites. All I remember is that it was in Old San Juan. The La Perla reference was drawn from info I stumbled across as I searched for information too.
Remember, this was 45+ years ago. ;-)
plus, jackclee says I have to get back on topic. I don't think any of the women in my story were women in white so I better move on.
That's ok. (I guess it wasn't. You'd remember the forts, Im sure.)
I know. So, let's get back to women in white.
GA, that is quite a story. You should consider writing a hub and not posting it in a forum. It will get much more audience.
You are also getting off topic...
Of course it was on topic.
"Women in White," "Sailors in White"
"Women celebrating" "Sailors celebrating"
... and I could go on. ;-)
ps. I have published personal stories like that, and like poetry, there is very little traffic. See for yourself. Google "Pop Cliff Series" I think they are great stories, but no audience for them. (now I am really off-topic)
And you didn't get laid that day? Bummer!
Nope, and yes. But look at the silver lining ... a good story to tell.
The ending was rather...….anticlimactic! Is that the proper word to describe your experience?
I don't know Randy, it might be said that the ejection of that ice cream and those rum & cokes amounted to a shuddering climax of my day.
yeah, I know. There was a line there. I did hesitate, but Randy made me do it.
Damn appropriate gif. You do have a talent for retorts.
Try Negril, Jamaica for a less expensive trip than Florida and a lot more exotic and beautiful. We once went every year and can vacation there for much less than a trip to Fla, including the flights.
We will check it out. My husband is from Florida so he wants to visit old friends and old stomping grounds. Me, I love to travel so I'm happy wherever we go.
FL to PR is cheap and no passport needed.
(Yeah, Im not getting paid for the promo...Buy you all should visit!)
I would like to voice support in visiting Puerto Rico. I have been in many places in the world and Isla Verde beach is one of the most beautiful I've ever experienced. There are also some very nice beaches, restaurants and more. I have a friend who lives there, so I've been more than once. I would suggest speaking with the locals to know what areas to avoid as there are some areas, as in all places, that need to be avoided. If you go there to enjoy the beaches, eat at nice places and have a good time, expect to have a great time.
No...thank you! Puerto Rico has always been a great place to visit. My friend's wife make the best asopao. I'm sure we can agree it's good to avoid La Perla. Always have a good time when I go there.
Okay, you keep telling yourself abortion only happens when a woman's life is in danger and that the wording in all of these new bills is only about protecting women in danger, as a result of the pregnancy.
Are you referring to the ones that were brought here sick Randy?
Do not patronize me Valeant. I know very well what is going on with these laws
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't. What I hear you saying is that you do not care about the lives of women when the pregnancy puts them in danger. That's some pro-life definition you have.
by Beth Perry 6 years ago
Do you think JFK would recognize today's Democratic Party?Is it fundamentally the same Party as when JFK was in office, or has it changed into something quite different?
by Onusonus 6 years ago
This is an actual plaque hanging at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. The excuses given from the Liberals who made this are a wide stretch of the imagination.
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with the last statement, I won't go so far as calling it a win. Instead, I call...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 weeks ago
There is a division within the Democratic Party. There are the moderate, even centrist Democrats while there is the new, ultraliberal, even leftist Democrats. Of course, there is the non-extreme liberal Democrats. To the former, has the Democratic Party become more...
by Charles James 7 years ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come about?
by Scott Belford 2 hours ago
Now that the Trumplicans in the Senate abdicated on their duty to hold a fair trial and voted to let Donald Trump remain in office, did that mark the end of our democracy as we know it?Consider:1. There isn't a thing a president can do that will warrant removal if the Senate is made up of a...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|