ForumGarden

What fun next year's election is going to be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... _headlines

We appear to have a dumbed-down version of Dubya on our hands. Who'duh thunk it.

Don't quote me out of context, okay?

It's not fun for me at all. Nope. : < (

Ya gotta laugh.

It lessens the pain.

spot;1485085 wrote: What fun next year's election is going to be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... _headlines

We appear to have a dumbed-down version of Dubya on our hands. Who'duh thunk it.

Don't quote me out of context, okay?


He should learn from that guy, Trump.

Never apologize.

Jeb Bush: ‘People need to work longer hours’ means they need full-time, not part-time work

Gee whizz, that was a hard one to figure out.

Many of us go on and beyond full time, meaning 40hr wk. Many wage slaves lust for the time & half, and beyond.

I said many, but consider the number one thing we need are jobs, something this country lacks. That should have been Bush's focus.

‘phase out’ Medicare

In principle, I agree, but I really know nothing of what he proposes. In the same sense, we should get rid of Social Security and move on to better systems. Like one that works.

What Jeb Bush’s ‘gaffe’ on women’s health really tells us

“We should, and the next president should defund Planned Parenthood. I have the benefit of having been governor, and we did defund Planned Parenthood when I was governor. We tried to create a culture of life across the board. The argument against this is, ‘Well, women’s health issues are going to be — you’re attacking, it’s a war on women, and you’re attacking women’s health issues.’ You could take dollar for dollar — although I’m not sure we need a half a billion dollars for women’s health issues — but if you took dollar for dollar, there are many extraordinarily fine organizations, community health organizations that exist, federally sponsored community health organizations to provide quality care for women on a wide variety of health issues. But abortion should not be funded by the government, any government in my mind.


I would add, it is despicable we add to the profits of an organizaion which sells human body parts.

LarsMac;1485103 wrote: Ya gotta laugh.

It lessens the pain.


Yup. It amuses me to think that a year from now the same candidates will be claiming they never said what is on the video and that they are being taken out of context, as they claim to be moderate wingers or compassionate conservatives.

Apologies, but I'm just trying to cause certain threads to 'drop out of the bottom of the list' !

G#Gill;1485173 wrote: Apologies, but I'm just trying to cause certain threads to 'drop out of the bottom of the list' !


Admire & will assist in your brave attempts.

TD: "I would add, it is despicable we add to the profits of an organizaion which sells human body parts."

They are doing Nothing Illegal, are not profiting from it; & if any research gleans good results which you need you will be first in line to use it. Same goes for Social Security & Medicare. You are a hypocrite.

Thank you Anne. Mind you, you are defeating my objective to a certain extent, by posting in those religious threads and thus taking them to the top of the list ! It just seems unfair to have one subject saturating a site like that, don't you think ?

G#Gill;1485200 wrote: Thank you Anne. Mind you, you are defeating my objective to a certain extent, by posting in those religious threads and thus taking them to the top of the list ! It just seems unfair to have one subject saturating a site like that, don't you think ?


Well, I see your point but they were discussing Donald (yuck) Trump & any hint of him being spiritual was just too much & too surreal. The man is totally untrustworthy.

Gill, if you're trying to keep those threads from the top of the new posts page, you are going to be disappointed. Anytime anyone posts to a thread, it will be there, until you, yourself mark that one as read. I don't think we can post enough to keep all those threads off the first page of new posts.

You're better off setting you bookmark to the home screen so you first arrive at that page. Then go look at what's new.

AnneBoleyn;1485199 wrote: TD: "I would add, it is despicable we add to the profits of an organizaion which sells human body parts."

They are doing Nothing Illegal, are not profiting from it; & if any research gleans good results which you need you will be first in line to use it. Same goes for Social Security & Medicare. You are a hypocrite.


Selling human body parts, to me is a sad commentary.

tude dog;1485520 wrote: Selling human body parts, to me is a sad commentary.


Those videos are fake

AnneBoleyn;1485199 wrote: TD: "I would add, it is despicable we add to the profits of an organizaion which sells human body parts."

They are doing Nothing Illegal, are not profiting from it; & if any research gleans good results which you need you will be first in line to use it. Same goes for Social Security & Medicare. You are a hypocrite.


Bad enough, not only baby's are cut apart for sale, but are traded like a pound of beef.

LarsMac;1485525 wrote: Those videos are fake


Does Planned Parent sell body parts or not?

tude dog;1485620 wrote: Bad enough, not only baby's are cut apart for sale, but are traded like a pound of beef.


It is for medical research. If the results would help you or your family, you would be grateful. Shut up & stop repeating yourself.

AnneBoleyn;1485623 wrote: It is for medical research. If the results would help you or your family, you would be grateful. Shut up & stop repeating yourself.


Uh, yea, I repeat myself, as you have nothing new to add to this discussion.

tude dog;1485632 wrote: Uh, yea, I repeat myself, as you have nothing new to add to this discussion.


There is no reason to keep responding to your whining. Nothing illegal here, helpful to medical science, disperse.

tude dog;1485620 wrote: Bad enough, not only baby's are cut apart for sale, but are traded like a pound of beef.


Fetus. Not a baby.

AnneBoleyn;1485646 wrote: Fetus. Not a baby.


Never got a chance.

Cut up and sold to the highest bidder.

The more mature the better.

LarsMac;1485525 wrote: Those videos are fake

How about the video where mama bush says there's been enough bush's as presidents and it's time for someone else 😂😂😂

Omni_Skittles;1485723 wrote: How about the video where mama bush says there's been enough bush's as presidents and it's time for someone else í*½í¸‚í*½í¸‚í*½í¸‚


Yup. She's the smartest Bush of the bunch.

She is? This is the woman whose comment on news coverage of the Iraq War was "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

There's something deeply unsavory about anyone capable of thinking that way. It would be an uphill task to persuade me she's not always been repellently, smugly, ignorantly selfish. And those were US casualties she was talking about, for goodness sake, it's not as though she was spitting on foreign victims. Just working-class Americans.

spot;1485731 wrote: She is? This is the woman whose comment on news coverage of the Iraq War was "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

There's something deeply unsavory about anyone capable of thinking that way. It would be an uphill task to persuade me she's not always been repellently, smugly, ignorantly selfish. And those were US casualties she was talking about, for goodness sake, it's not as though she was spitting on foreign victims. Just working-class Americans.no she didn't! That's so ridiculous and hey at least she's honest with her opinions lol

Omni_Skittles;1485732 wrote: no she didn't! That's so ridiculous and hey at least she's honest with her opinions lol


All we need do is agree who we both believe, it's easy really.

snopes.com: Barbara Bush 'Beautiful Mind' Quote

Your turn.

Are human fetus/baby parts sold for profit, or not?

If you are OK with killing and harvesting human bodies, for profit, so be it. For some reason, I have a problem with that.

tude dog;1485734 wrote: If you are OK with killing and harvesting human bodies, for profit, so be it. For some reason, I have a problem with that.


You put a twist in there.

They may be harvesting dead human bodies for profit - in the UK we also harvest dead human bodies, but it's from volunteers and the parts are to be given away free, not sold. We had a scandal a while back when it turned out some of the donated parts were being sold by health service hospitals to private hospitals, it shocked the country and it shouldn't have happened.

But what I definitely call a lie is your implication that any reasonable person is "OK with killing and harvesting human bodies, for profit". Who are you accusing of killing humans in order to profit from selling their parts? They may, in the case of humans, be killing and then selling parts for profit, but they're not killing for profit. They're killing, and then they have some dead people whose parts can be harvested and sold for profit, but the reason for the killing has nothing to do with the subsequent selling.

The reason for the killing is that it's a Constitutional Right, if I have that correct. There's a duty to kill. Selling the now-spare parts afterwards is just the tasteless American entrepreneurial spirit doing what it invariably does when it smells an opportunity.

tude dog;1485734 wrote: Are human fetus/baby parts sold for profit, or not?

If you are OK with killing and harvesting human bodies, for profit, so be it. For some reason, I have a problem with that.


There is not profit involved.

LarsMac;1485736 wrote: There is not profit involved.


I don't think anything short of a public judicial enquiry could be certain of that, though I do think it's up to those who claim it happens to produce evidence. Demanding someone prove a negative is always unacceptable. Has anyone produced written proof rather than mere accusations?

If I administer a US hospital and I need a kidney for an operation, would I expect to pay the company supplying it? That's a good starting question.

spot;1485738 wrote: I don't think anything short of a public judicial enquiry could be certain of that, though I do think it's up to those who claim it happens to produce evidence. Demanding someone prove a negative is always unacceptable. Has anyone produced written proof rather than mere accusations?

If I administer a US hospital and I need a kidney for an operation, would I expect to pay the company supplying it? That's a good starting question.


Well, actually, I suppose these guys are out to make some sort of profit.

But Planned Parenthood is a not-for-profit organization.

LarsMac;1485739 wrote: Well, actually, I suppose these guys are out to make some sort of profit.

But Planned Parenthood is a not-for-profit organization.


So what are they about, Planned Parenthood that is.

LarsMac;1485739 wrote: Well, actually, I suppose these guys are out to make some sort of profit.

But Planned Parenthood is a not-for-profit organization.


So what are they about, Planned Parenthood that is.

Why don't you ask them?

Most of the women in my family support the organization.

And not a one of them is in favor of abortion.

So they must be doing something right.

Are we not discussing Constitutional rights here?

I thought we were meant to support the Constitution, that's all. Or do we pick and choose.

spot;1485733 wrote: All we need do is agree who we both believe, it's easy really.

snopes.com: Barbara Bush 'Beautiful Mind' Quote

Your turn.


You should take note of that entire article, then, and give some context to that statement, at least.

The remark in question occurred early in the three-way conversation, following a line of query directed at Mrs. Bush regarding whether she found herself studying her son for verbal or visual signs of how well he was holding up under the pressure. (Sawyer: "As a mother, do you watch for strain on him?") Mrs. Bush replied that she looked for such indications in all five of her children and remarked on the family's propensity for having hair that turns white earlier than is the norm. An additional query about whether the senior Bushes, who do not normally watch a great deal of television, found themselves watching more TV during this period than was their usual custom fetched from Mrs. Bush the quote that has since earned a measure of notoriety:

I watch none. He [former President Bush] sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense, that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that. But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer.

Read within the context of the full interview, it is a tiny bit more clear that Mrs. Bush's "beautiful mind" statement referred to her desire not to become mesmerized by the pre-war media speculation of what such an invasion would mean, what sorts of weaponry and defenses U.S. troops might well be walking into, which troops would be committed and when they'd be deployed, how long the war would last, and how high the body count might be. Prior to the commencement of hostilities, such matters were the subject of endless supposition by various news pundits. While maybe not "90 percent" of what was filling the air waves was guesswork rather than hard news, Mrs. Bush's point that news of that moment was much more about what could or might happen rather than what was happening was valid. Her comment was not meant as a dismissal of actual deaths or suffering (troops had not yet been engaged at the time of her remark), but of news coverage that amounted to one expert after another making predictions about what they saw as likely to occur.

spot;1485762 wrote: Are we not discussing Constitutional rights here?

I thought we were meant to support the Constitution, that's all. Or do we pick and choose.


I am puzzled. This post of yours seems to be the only one that mentions the Constitution in this thread

LarsMac;1485764 wrote: You should take note of that entire article, then, and give some context to that statement, at least.


I'm fully aware of the context but I disagree with their conclusion. She may well have been saying she was sick of all the pundits surmising in advance of the invasion, but the words she used are utterly dismissive when it comes to the welfare of the grunts who are being speculated about. Completely dismissive. I'm up here, socially, my mind is different to their minds, I refuse to even think about death, I'm too elegant. I don't care so I won't look, merely knowing would disfigure me.

LarsMac;1485765 wrote: I am puzzled. This post of yours seems to be the only one that mentions the Constitution in this thread


Post 28: The reason for the killing is that it's a Constitutional Right, if I have that correct. There's a duty to kill. Selling the now-spare parts afterwards is just the tasteless American entrepreneurial spirit doing what it invariably does when it smells an opportunity.

My question is as to whether it's the harvesting of body parts / cells that you object to, or the exchange of money?

In the UK all body parts, both those for research & transplant, are donated anonymously & free of charge, yet in the US everything has its price. Which is more objectionable?

FourPart;1486023 wrote: Which is more objectionable?I'm on the donor register - how could anyone object to that?

But I've opted out of care.data and I'll keep opting out until the anonymised data is free to everyone, rather than government-copyright and only available for purchase.

LarsMac;1485765 wrote: I am puzzled. This post of yours seems to be the only one that mentions the Constitution in this thread


Why bring up the one of the most horrible decisions by the Supreme Court?

tude dog;1486079 wrote: Why bring up the one of the most horrible decisions by the Supreme Court?


You mean the Citizens United Decision?

tude dog, I found your posts motivational. Thank you.

Attached files

Daft as a brush. I always said you were. You can't just come in here and behave like that and get away with it.

Attached files

LarsMac;1486081 wrote: You mean the Citizens United Decision?


LOL

To be clear, I referred to a Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade

spot;1486085 wrote: Daft as a brush. I always said you were. You can't just come in here and behave like that and get away with it.


Yes spot, there's a website with every imaginable organization's email template that can be used for photoshopping your name on to look like a generous human being. Unfortunately, this one didn't work for you. Try a stormfront template next time, more believable.

Snooz;1486088 wrote: Yes spot, there's a website with every imaginable organization's email template that can be used for photoshopping your name on to look like a generous human being. Unfortunately, this one didn't work for you. Try a stormfront template next time, more believable.


I expect you're right snooze, you know the dark side of the web better than most. It would have been a lousy trick had I done that, though. Besides, mentioning Photoshop near anything I post is a bit insensitive after the riots it's caused in the past.

This screen capture would be trickier, if you check the detail.

Attached files

LarsMac;1486081 wrote: You mean the Citizens United Decision?


You really had to dignify his comment with that question, Lars? Should have been obvious, or perhaps you were joking?

spot;1485735 wrote: You put a twist in there.

They may be harvesting dead human bodies for profit - in the UK we also harvest dead human bodies, but it's from volunteers and the parts are to be given away free, not sold. We had a scandal a while back when it turned out some of the donated parts were being sold by health service hospitals to private hospitals, it shocked the country and it shouldn't have happened.

But what I definitely call a lie is your implication that any reasonable person is "OK with killing and harvesting human bodies, for profit". Who are you accusing of killing humans in order to profit from selling their parts? They may, in the case of humans, be killing and then selling parts for profit, but they're not killing for profit. They're killing, and then they have some dead people whose parts can be harvested and sold for profit, but the reason for the killing has nothing to do with the subsequent selling.

The reason for the killing is that it's a Constitutional Right, if I have that correct. There's a duty to kill. Selling the now-spare parts afterwards is just the tasteless American entrepreneurial spirit doing what it invariably does when it smells an opportunity.No, the reason for the exercising of that particular Constitutional right is the decision on the part of the pregnant person to terminate a pregnancy due to any number of reasons beyond your or my comprehension. A decision rarely taken lightly but the best one on the part of the individual who is faced either way with the reality of either carrying a pregnancy to term or not. They suffer either way. One thing is for sure though, and that is that in most cases it is the welfare of aborted that is taken into consideration most.

If people who oppose abortion rights want to step up and personally guarantee that said concerns of the pregnant person will be 100% non-issues and are willing to commit to that legally, in writing, then perhaps, you might have a starting point for a negotiation for some, but still not all. So, before accusing people who are faced with, and have the courage to make such decisions either way, of being killers and murderers, try some empathy instead.