International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Upchurch 11th July 2022 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849667)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13849601)
Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done.

Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never.

Source?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13852989)
I didn't say it's done. I said some extremists WANT it to be legal. Really, learn to read.

Oh.

Well.

This is awkward.

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13852893)
No it is not actually done, ever.

Let me elaborate more on this bit, since you cut rather important context, namely what "it" actually is. By quoting me but leaving out what I was responding to, you make it seem like I'm saying abortion immediately before birth happens, but that's not what I said. So let's include what I was responding to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849667)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13849601)
Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done.

Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never.

None of your sources actually contradict me on this. And like I said, you can pretend all you want to that Kermit Gosnell doesn't exist, but he does. And he did abortions at all stages of pregnancy, including third trimester, for reasons other than protecting the health of the mother. Now, maybe most abortion providers aren't willing to do that, but I see no reason to think he's the only one who did.

Oh, and as for performing abortions immediately before birth, Gosnell did the equivalent. He induced labor, delivered babies, and then murdered them.

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13853004)
Source?

For example:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130415...ensmedical.pdf

"Gosnell and his employees performed abortions long after the legal limit. The doctor’s unorthodox methods, especially with late second-trimester and third-trimester pregnancies, virtually mandated the premature delivery of live babies – whose spinal cords he would then routinely slit. These practices persisted for many years without interruption by any regulatory body."

This isn't the norm, and I never claimed it was. But you would be naive to believe Gosnell is the only abortion doctor in the whole country willing to do late elective abortions.

The Great Zaganza 11th July 2022 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853019)
For example:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130415...ensmedical.pdf

"Gosnell and his employees performed abortions long after the legal limit. The doctor’s unorthodox methods, especially with late second-trimester and third-trimester pregnancies, virtually mandated the premature delivery of live babies – whose spinal cords he would then routinely slit. These practices persisted for many years without interruption by any regulatory body."

This isn't the norm, and I never claimed it was. But you would be naive to believe Gosnell is the only abortion doctor in the whole country willing to do late elective abortions.

sounds like the law of Roe, if enforced, would have been perfectly adequate in this case.

Upchurch 11th July 2022 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853016)
Let me elaborate more on this bit, since you cut rather important context, namely what "it" actually is. By quoting me but leaving out what I was responding to, you make it seem like I'm saying abortion immediately before birth happens, but that's not what I said. So let's include what I was responding to:

The funny part is that your highlight is missing the rather important context of what SG saying, namely 3rd trimester abortion at the whim of the mother isn't done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853016)
None of your sources actually contradict me on this.

It isn't her burden to support your claim. Are you now withdrawing it since it was "out of context"?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853016)
And like I said, you can pretend all you want to that Kermit Gosnell doesn't exist, but he does. And he did abortions at all stages of pregnancy, including third trimester, for reasons other than protecting the health of the mother. Now, maybe most abortion providers aren't willing to do that, but I see no reason to think he's the only one who did.

Oh, and as for performing abortions immediately before birth, Gosnell did the equivalent. He induced labor, delivered babies, and then murdered them.

You're referring to the convicted serial killer as if he were merely an abortion provider acting on the whims of his patients? Is John Wayne Gacy merely a clown who gave people the show they were demanding, too?

Zig, this is ridiculous. You're talking about a serial killer as evidence of 3rd trimester abortions at the whim of the mother. Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim?

cosmicaug 11th July 2022 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13852989)
I didn't say it's done. I said some extremists WANT it to be legal. Really, learn to read.

No. What you said is that third trimester abortions on the whim of the mother are done. Like... today I thought I might dye my hair purple but after a coffee I decided on a third trimester abortion instead.

Upchurch 11th July 2022 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853019)
For example:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130415...ensmedical.pdf

"Gosnell and his employees performed abortions long after the legal limit. The doctor’s unorthodox methods, especially with late second-trimester and third-trimester pregnancies, virtually mandated the premature delivery of live babies – whose spinal cords he would then routinely slit. These practices persisted for many years without interruption by any regulatory body."

This isn't the norm, and I never claimed it was. But you would be naive to believe Gosnell is the only abortion doctor in the whole country willing to do late elective abortions.

It doesn't support your claim, unless you are now amending it. No one ever said that late 3rd trimester abortions never happened. They're saying it was out of medical necessity, not on the whim of the mother. Do you have any evidence of that?

cosmicaug 11th July 2022 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853016)
And like I said, you can pretend all you want to that Kermit Gosnell doesn't exist, but he does. And he did abortions at all stages of pregnancy, including third trimester, for reasons other than protecting the health of the mother. Now, maybe most abortion providers aren't willing to do that, but I see no reason to think he's the only one who did.

Oh, and as for performing abortions immediately before birth, Gosnell did the equivalent. He induced labor, delivered babies, and then murdered them.

I would think that bringing up the one who did the thing to point out how doing the thing is a problem when they are serving a life term for doing the thing might not be as convincing as you think.

bruto 11th July 2022 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13852989)
I didn't say it's done. I said some extremists WANT it to be legal. Really, learn to read.

I realize it's fashionable these days to argue about just about anything, but I never thought the meaning of that admonition was one of them.

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13853021)
sounds like the law of Roe, if enforced, would have been perfectly adequate in this case.

I'm not saying it wasn't. And again, if you trace our exchange back, my point from the beginning was that wanting to legalize very late elective abortions is a fringe position, with little support. But it is a real position some people take.

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13853025)
The funny part is that your highlight is missing the rather important context of what SG saying, namely 3rd trimester abortion at the whim of the mother isn't done.

Except I just showed you documented evidence of cases where it was.

Quote:

You're referring to the convicted serial killer as if he were merely an abortion provider acting on the whims of his patients?
What, you think he was kidnapping women off the streets and forcing abortions on them?

No. His patients wanted abortions. They primarily went to him specifically because he was willing to do very late elective abortions when other providers were not.

Gosnell may be unique in his heartlessness and carelessness (although even that I wouldn't guarantee, given how long he practiced). But I have no reason to believe he's the only abortion provider willing to skirt the law. Had he done his job competently, he never would have been caught. You would be a fool to believe he's the only doctor in the country who performed elective third trimester abortions, and that his patients were the only patients who wanted them.

Upchurch 11th July 2022 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853049)
I'm not saying it wasn't. And again, if you trace our exchange back, my point from the beginning was that wanting to legalize very late elective abortions is a fringe position, with little support. But it is a real position some people take.

Source?

ponderingturtle 11th July 2022 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13853056)
Source?

Alex Jones.

Upchurch 11th July 2022 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853053)
What, you think he was kidnapping women off the streets and forcing abortions on them?

Not the kidnapping, but yes, the article I linked to mentions at lest one involuntary late term abortion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853053)
No. His patients wanted abortions. They primarily went to him specifically because he was willing to do very late elective abortions when other providers were not.

You’re making assumptions without evidence. Is that the basis of your entire argument?


ETA: but this is off topic. The claim is that there is a fringe that wants to make elective late-term abortions legal. Nothing Gosnell did had anything to do with making late term abortion legal, any more than Gacy was trying to make rape, torture, and murder legal.

ZiprHead 11th July 2022 08:22 AM

Michigan activists submit signatures to put abortion rights on the ballot in November
The initiative, if certified and passed, could enshrine the right to procedure in the state’s constitution.

Skeptic Ginger 11th July 2022 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13852989)
I didn't say it's done. I said some extremists WANT it to be legal. Really, learn to read.

:rolleyes:

Zig: "Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never."


I can read just fine.

JoeMorgue 11th July 2022 09:36 AM

Which SCOTUS would then find a way to overturn or cut the legs out from under.

Upchurch 11th July 2022 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13853143)
Which SCOTUS would then find a way to overturn or cut the legs out from under.

I suspect a Federal abortion ban is more likely, assuming the GOP gets their hands on both Congress and the White House. I suppose it'd be a race to see which one they could get into place first.

Skeptic Ginger 11th July 2022 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853016)
Let me elaborate more on this bit, since you cut rather important context, namely what "it" actually is. By quoting me but leaving out what I was responding to, you make it seem like I'm saying abortion immediately before birth happens, but that's not what I said. So let's include what I was responding to:



None of your sources actually contradict me on this. And like I said, you can pretend all you want to that Kermit Gosnell doesn't exist, but he does. And he did abortions at all stages of pregnancy, including third trimester, for reasons other than protecting the health of the mother. Now, maybe most abortion providers aren't willing to do that, but I see no reason to think he's the only one who did.

Oh, and as for performing abortions immediately before birth, Gosnell did the equivalent. He induced labor, delivered babies, and then murdered them.

SG: "Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done."

Zig: "Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never."

I don't see any link supporting your baby murderer but I looked him up. Wiki says he was a convicted serial killer. Kermit Gosnell


That's your excuse for supposedly not being wrong? Oh brother.:rolleyes:

Bob001 11th July 2022 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853053)
.....
Gosnell may be unique in his heartlessness and carelessness (although even that I wouldn't guarantee, given how long he practiced). But I have no reason to believe he's the only abortion provider willing to skirt the law. Had he done his job competently, he never would have been caught. You would be a fool to believe he's the only doctor in the country who performed elective third trimester abortions, and that his patients were the only patients who wanted them.

Gossnell was convicted of multiple murders. That should be proof enough that what he did was not a standard medical procedure. Where is your actual evidence (not just your speculation) that third-trimester abortions are performed in any except the most extreme circumstances?

ETA: For reference:
Quote:

Levy: Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother. Some fetal development problems or genetic anomalies do not show up or develop until later in pregnancy. Some examples might include anencephaly (described above) or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity. With conditions like these, the fetus cannot survive out of the uterus.

Likewise, when conditions progress or appear that severely compromise a woman’s health or life, abortion may be the safest, medically indicated procedure. These conditions can also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. They might include premature rupture of membranes (where the fluid surrounding the fetus is lost before labor), uterine infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption and placenta accreta. Women under these circumstances may have extensive blood loss or septic shock that can be fatal.

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.
....
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.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/healt...ner/index.html

JoeMorgue 11th July 2022 10:02 AM

"Why does your argument only work is you're not actually making an honest argument?"

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13853157)
Gossnell was convicted of multiple murders. That should be proof enough that what he did was not a standard medical procedure.

I never said it was standard. I specifically said it was rare. But rare isn't non-existent.

And again, do you think his patients are the only people in the country who want elective third-term abortions? That stretches credulity. He made a lot of money precisely because there is, in fact, a demand for that. A small fraction of the total demand for abortions, to be sure, but I said from the start it was rare.

And Gosnell isn't alone. There are almost certainly other doctors in other cities who will also perform elective third trimester abortions, but more carefully. And why wouldn't there be? There's a lot of money to be made off of demand that other people don't want to meet. A doctor who performs elective third trimester abortions competently is never going to get in trouble with authorities, even if it's not legal. Gosnell only ever was because he didn't perform them competently.

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13853148)
I don't see any link supporting your baby murderer but I looked him up. Wiki says he was a convicted serial killer. Kermit Gosnell

Yes. And also an abortionist. Did you think these things were mutually exclusive? :confused:

Quote:

That's your excuse for supposedly not being wrong? Oh brother.:rolleyes:
You have yet to show that I'm wrong.

bruto 11th July 2022 11:00 AM

The argument about late versus early abortions reminds me a bit of the old story about George Bernard Shaw. Arguing that someone would do anything for money, he got a woman to say she might sell herself for a million pounds. He then asked if she'd do it for ten shillings. She replied indignantly something to the effect of "what do you think I am, a prostitute?" To which he replied that that was already known, and the issue now was only the price.

It is undoubtedly true that, just as there's likely a great difference between a million pound prostitute and a ten shilling one, there is also a great difference between an early abortion and a late one, and no doubt one can raise many issues, moral, medical, and practical about it. But the basic question of who owns the decision has been made regardless. Early or late, wise or unwise, sinful or not sinful, once the decision is made that the government owns a woman's reproductive choice, the rest of the argument is not about rights, but about what the government is willing to concede.

JoeMorgue 11th July 2022 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853196)
I never said it was standard. I specifically said it was rare. But rare isn't non-existent.

Who cares? What's your point?

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13853142)
:rolleyes:

Zig: "Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never."


I can read just fine.

Again, you are playing games with what "it" is. "It" doesn't refer to the same thing in these two sentences. The "it" that I never claimed was done was abortions immediately before birth. The "it" that I claimed was done was elective abortions in the third trimester. These two "its" are not the same thing, and your quotes from me are not contradictory claims because those are not the same.

And no, you cannot read just fine. Or if you can, then that means you are deliberately lying. Which... OK, maybe you can read just fine.

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13853204)
Who cares?

Evidently the people who object to me saying that.

Quote:

What's your point?
It's an example of a restriction on abortion that most people, including most people who want abortion to be legal, are in favor of.

JoeMorgue 11th July 2022 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853209)
Evidently the people who object to me saying that.

It's an example of a restriction on abortion that most people, including most people who want abortion to be legal, are in favor of.

Because it's a red herring that happens about as often as you making an honest argument, that is rare enough to not actually have to worry about.

wareyin 11th July 2022 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853196)
I never said it was standard. I specifically said it was rare. But rare isn't non-existent.

And again, do you think his patients are the only people in the country who want elective third-term abortions? That stretches credulity. He made a lot of money precisely because there is, in fact, a demand for that. A small fraction of the total demand for abortions, to be sure, but I said from the start it was rare.

And Gosnell isn't alone. There are almost certainly other doctors in other cities who will also perform elective third trimester abortions, but more carefully. And why wouldn't there be? There's a lot of money to be made off of demand that other people don't want to meet. A doctor who performs elective third trimester abortions competently is never going to get in trouble with authorities, even if it's not legal. Gosnell only ever was because he didn't perform them competently.

You know what's missing from the Gosnell case regarding your usage that it proves late term abortions are performed solely at the will of the mother? Evidence that any of the abortions he performed were solely at the will of the mother. Like...we know that a 15 yr old testified that he performed an abortion on her against her will, but we do not know if a single late term abortion he performed had no medical reason to be done.

So, if you could actually provide that, you could use this to prove your point. Failing that, you still haven't provided anything but your own say so that this happens.

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13853211)
Because it's a red herring that happens about as often as you making an honest argument, that is rare enough to not actually have to worry about.

Rarity may matter in terms of what's worth doing about a problem, but rarity doesn't make a problem not a problem. Serial killers are rare. But we still worry about them. The fact that YOU feel no concern doesn't mean other people's concerns are unjustified. That isn't how any of this works. You didn't dismiss the alleged 10 year old pregnant girl needing an abortion because that's rare, did you?

Segnosaur 11th July 2022 11:16 AM

Re: making it illegal to travel to another state for an abortion...
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13852598)
No, they cannot. States have no jurisdiction over what happens in another state. No state has the authority to criminalize any action that takes place outside its borders..

They wouldn't be "criminalizing what happens in another state". They would criminalize the aspects that occur in the person's home state. After all a person won't just magically appear in another state and decide "oh, I somehow teleported to NY/California. While I'm here I might as well have this abortion I need". They will plan their trip, possibly arrange transportation, etc. And it is that aspect that will be criminalized.

The only reason why the supreme court MIGHT try to stop such a law is not because "the constitution says it", but because they might realize "rich people will want to travel for abortions and we only want to hurt poor people".

Quote:

Quote:

Your naïveté is adorable. You are just so determined to ignore the damage Trump and Co. did to American institutions. These things can only not happen if someone steps up and stops them from happening. The GOP has spent decades eroding those people away and Trump nearly wiped out the last of them.
This kind of paranoia must be exhausting.
A decade or 2 ago, if someone would have said "the republican party will become a puppet of the Russians", people would have thought you were crazy. Yet the republicans not only received Russian help in the 2016 election, Stubby McBonespurs also decided to give them secret information, and took Putin's assurances over those of American intelligence agencies.

If someone would have suggested that a supreme court nominee would have credible sexual assault allegations against them and still be welcomed on the bench people thought you were nuts. But Drunky McRapeface is a justice, deciding on cases that involve women's rights.

If someone said that Roe V. Wade would be overturned people wouldn't have believed you. (After all, Roe v. Wade was originally decided in part by republican-appointed judges, and it was reaffirmed.) But here we are, with women now without control over their own bodies. (And the decision was made in part by referring to someone who has been dead for 2 centuries, but who once prosecuted witches)

If someone said "the republicans will take billions from the military to build a useless border wall" you would have thought "that's dumb... republicans love the military".

If someone would have said that an ex-president would try to stage a violent coup to retain power, and that the majority of the republican party would continue to embrace him, people would have called you paranoid. But Trump continues to enjoy widespread support, and most republicans rejected a call to impeach him.

MTG (Jewish space lasers and all) continues to have more support in the republican party than Liz Cheney (who strongly supported Trump's agenda for years but dared to think "we shouldn't have a violent coup".)

I think we are well past the point where we can dismiss the worst-possible scenarios as "paranoia". The republicans have shown time and time again that if you expect the worst, well, the republicans have already beat you to it.

JoeMorgue 11th July 2022 11:24 AM

As long as they keep telling us "We're being dramatic" they can keep making things worse and worse and, in their heads, be right.

ponderingturtle 11th July 2022 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13853211)
Because it's a red herring that happens about as often as you making an honest argument, that is rare enough to not actually have to worry about.

Also as shown by his example, already illegal.

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13853224)
They wouldn't be "criminalizing what happens in another state". They would criminalize the aspects that occur in the person's home state. After all a person won't just magically appear in another state and decide "oh, I somehow teleported to NY/California. While I'm here I might as well have this abortion I need". They will plan their trip, possibly arrange transportation, etc. And it is that aspect that will be criminalized.

States cannot restrict inter-state travel. That's not a close call. And Kavanaugh, whom you badmouth, even made that explicit in his Dobbs concurrence.

Quote:

The only reason why the supreme court MIGHT try to stop such a law is not because "the constitution says it", but because they might realize "rich people will want to travel for abortions and we only want to hurt poor people".
No. They WILL stop any such law because allowing it basically destroys inter-state travel, and opens the door to states trying to regulate what goes on in other states across basically all areas of law, not just abortion.

Quote:

A decade or 2 ago, if someone would have said "the republican party will become a puppet of the Russians", people would have thought you were crazy.
Uh... people who think that are still crazy.

Quote:

If someone would have suggested that a supreme court nominee would have credible sexual assault allegations against them and still be welcomed on the bench people thought you were nuts. But Drunky McRapeface is a justice, deciding on cases that involve women's rights.
"Credible".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...89896f40fe.jpg

Quote:

If someone said that Roe V. Wade would be overturned people wouldn't have believed you.
I didn't expect it to happen just because of cultural momentum, but legally speaking it's really not much of a shock. The original decision wasn't really very well founded, legally speaking. Hell, even RBG knew that. It was always revered for its policy effect, not its reasoning.

Quote:

If someone would have said that an ex-president would try to stage a violent coup to retain power, and that the majority of the republican party would continue to embrace him, people would have called you paranoid.
And they would be right, since that's not what happened.

Quote:

I think we are well past the point where we can dismiss the worst-possible scenarios as "paranoia". The republicans have shown time and time again that if you expect the worst, well, the republicans have already beat you to it.
You really don't know how to persuade someone who doesn't already agree with you.

JoeMorgue 11th July 2022 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853239)
States cannot restrict inter-state travel.

Since when has rules stopped Republicans?

Or is this just another thing that will never happened until it happens and then "oops well know it's too late to do anything about."

Ziggurat 11th July 2022 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13853248)
Since when has rules stopped Republicans?

Quite often. On a pretty regular basis. As they also stop Democrats.

The sky has not fallen. Doom is not upon us.

Upchurch 11th July 2022 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853239)
No. They WILL stop any such law because allowing it basically destroys inter-state travel, and opens the door to states trying to regulate what goes on in other states across basically all areas of law, not just abortion.

"'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party."

First of all, what on Earth makes you think they consider the consequences of striking down law? Reversing Roe basically destroys bodily autonomy which opens the door to all sorts of other personal and privacy rights. They clearly have not cared about consequences this session, why would they do it in the future?

Second, isn't the whole deal that judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench? If they are going to be consistent (HA!), shouldn't they be leaving that to the legislatures?

Third, and completely honest questions here, who is going to hold SCOTUS to account if they fail to stop such a law? For that matter, who is going to hold anyone to account if such a law is pushed through? I genuinely want to know who you think would be able to stop this if no one is held accountable.

The Great Zaganza 11th July 2022 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853261)
Quite often. On a pretty regular basis. As they also stop Democrats.

The sky has not fallen. Doom is not upon us.

not for you.

Upchurch 11th July 2022 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853261)
Quite often. On a pretty regular basis. As they also stop Democrats.

The sky has not fallen. Doom is not upon us.

Because Pence was too scared to follow Trump's orders. The one time his cowardice worked in the US's favor.

JoeMorgue 11th July 2022 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13853228)
As long as they keep telling us "We're being dramatic" they can keep making things worse and worse and, in their heads, be right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13853261)
The sky has not fallen. Doom is not upon us.

Could you maybe wait more than 3 posts before doing exactly what people are pointing out you are doing?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.