ThreePointTakedown

Do you think everyone in Hamas willingly joined? I don't. These groups there are always some that either join young and grow out of it or are forced by outside pressure. I'll bet you can name a group that had people charged and executed for war crimes that said, 'I was just following orders' Do you have any idea what happens to a body during a pregnancy? Those health related restrictions/complications, I'm sure you'll define in detail in the future, ARE pregnancy. A person's body is never the same after going through 9+ months of gestation. It's dangerous to the pregnant person and the fetus. The list of health related restrictions to getting an abortion should be begin and end with: Pregnancy. If you want to keep people from using it as contraception or whatever you really mean, because you have refused to go into detail as to what you mean by that. You're just trying to punish people for not having the same ethics or morals as you. I wish you could just come out and say it. Because your reason makes no sense, as it stands right now. But if you want to define in explicit detail what you mean by 'abortion as contraception', I'll bet you won't, then we can actually have a conversation about that. Until you state your position, you have no position. I'll wait for you to take offense at something I wrote so you can avoid answering the question you've dodged several times.

Putin is the leader of Russia. There is plenty of evidence that showed in 2016 Russian interests, for which Putin is the leader(where does the buck stop?), paid for commercials on FB and other platforms to dissuade Hilary voters in swing states. Kushner admits it happened. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24/716374421/fact-check-russian-interference-went-far-beyond-facebook-ads-kushner-described

"I don't believe he would do it." is what 45 said after being asked if/why Russia/Putin meddled in the election to help get them elected. Of course an intelligence officer wants a weak minded moron that fawns all over him, to be in the oval office(talking about 45, now). Any chance Putin waited for an opportune time so they could effect our politics more and get the person they wanted in the oval. 'Putin didn't invade Ukraine.' I hope that was a typo. Because they did. twice. 'I don't believe... proxy war.' I'm glad you think you're right and everyone else is wrong. However, if you don't have evidence, and I haven't seen any that should be compelling, you have no reason to hold that belief. 'Peace through strength' is this V for Vendetta. Not everyone is our enemy and should be treated as such. I'm sure you understand that most people just want to be left alone and not hassled. People in Gaza were being hassled for decades. I don't agree with their tactics but when you get squeezed there is always a breaking point. Lets listen to conservatives talking about 2nd amendment solutions. They feel they are being squeezed. Are they, really? No. Not to the extent that people in Gaza have/were/are. They just have that victim card their religion has programmed them to play every time someone pushes back against their dumbass ideas. Like 'Peace through strength'. I'm pretty sure a long haired hippie from Jerusalem would have issues with that statement.

What is your definition of terrorist? Because what I suggested is talking before it gets to that point. Are you against that too? Does everyone in Hamas think that way? Is there anyway to know the answer? I would guess they don't all believe the same thing as we know in similar organizations that some people feel trapped and afraid for their lives. Follow orders but do not believe the entire ideology or the organization. So right there you are painting everyone, again, with a broad brush. Labeling them evil and making it easier for yourself to wish/hope for their deaths. Negotiations save innocent lives. As much as you might want to bomb everyone because you feel they tacitly support the organization in question. You would probably, I could be wrong, also say that one abortion is too many. My question: why the double standard?

Other than 'just trust me', do you have evidence of this? 2016 Putin/Russia worked really hard to get 45 elected. Your turn.

And thus probably not going to get a conviction. So Hur wouldn't be able to convince a jury, so they dropped it. Because, they know if they tried and failed, which they admit would happen, they would have no career afterwards. Rationalization abounds. Keep trying.

Trivial occurrence not reported by all of MSM except for the one org that has a financial incentive to keep them relevant. Can't wait to see that headline.

Seems anyone posing that question would have cultivated a not-in-favor-of-Pride algorithm by now. Are you getting an above average number of e-vites to Drag-Time Story Hours? Its good to be proactive, ounce of prevention and whatnot... Keep at it.

great question

Or are they just set in their ways unable or unwilling to sit down and talk with someone they view as an enemy?

Or try to convince them that persuasion is a better tactic than IEDs?

No need to engage diplomatically to try to mitigate any further efforts to kill non-believers?

Doesn't Putin want 45 to back in there? DPRK leader met with and likes 45 quite a bit, huh? Bibi likes GOP administrations. Not sure about Orban, that'd be a good bell-weather. Erdogan too. I'd be interested to know their opinion. Why is it good that our 'enemies' want a convicted felon to lead?

So the trial was serious with serious charges?

That those other previous organizations grew in numbers, influence, and effect. Became too big that they needed to be 'dealt' with. Were 'dealt' with. Not eliminated, as you admitted. Yet other organizations with similar motivations and tactics, have since grown and started the cycle again.

No thought as to whether the 'crippling' of the former has led to strengthening of the latter? And so on and so on...

Still no word? Who is interviewing? Any one get an offer?

How do you figure?

Mudding the water won't help. Please point out my errors?

The evidence I would start with are your next few sentences. You want them eliminated and their efforts. Won't happen in this scenario based on all previous similar scenarios. What will happen is the killing of innocent people. Do you see the non-Hamas people of Gaza as innocent? Should be a simple answer. As for what I was advocating for, was it 'nothing'? If your answer isn't 'no' then you need to go back and recheck. If you assume I meant 'nothing' you could just ask to be sure. This is not an 'if you're not with us you're against us' bs that y'all love to parade around.

What is the evidence that that strategy will achieve the goal? IRA, ISIS, Al Q, KKK, all were and still are around. Does this approach kill many of them and many civilians and work to promote similar organizations down the road? Yes. That you want an immediate result does not mean it is the right or best one.

You think the Judge is in on it too?

That is one take. Seems as if Nikki is tacitly endorsing that killing people is ok. I would think a former UN ambassador would lean to the side of peace. But that's just my take.

If half of all abortions are repeat. What is your point? It also says that most repeat abortions happen when the person is over 30 years old, has at least one other child and had used one or more means of contraception in the month they became pregnant. If your question is, 'are people using abortion as their only form of contraception?' The answer is no. But again, what is your point? Makes me think you skimmed a head line and didn't read the article that contradicts you position. Am I wrong? "Almost half of black women and about 40% of poor and low-income women have had at least one unintended birth." Not sure this is good. Maybe we should help people avoid having children if they don't intend to. How do we do this? Give them education and contraceptive care? Or is it morality issue? "Indeed, unintended births are as common among U.S. women as is abortion: Almost one-third of all women aged 15–44 report having had at least one unintended birth." What might be a common thread? Not sure. But we should find out, right? How pregnancy changes a body: https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/changes-in-your-body/body-changes-during-pregnancy/ We should read this to see what happens when a person goes through a pregnancy. I'm just going to keep copying and pasting bits from this article because its gold. Thanks JBT! Possible solutions: Clearly, more effective contraceptive use would help women reduce their risk of unintended pregnancy, which in turn would lead to fewer abortions (including fewer repeat abortions) and fewer unintended births. To improve contraceptive use, a woman first needs good counseling, which will increase her chances of selecting the contraceptive method that is right for her at that particular time in her life. Then she needs easy and affordable access to her chosen method and to the necessary services to support her choice over time. Although having good access to contraceptive services is important for all sexually active women, it seems especially important for women having abortions and women giving birth (whether intended or unintended), who constitute a self-selected group—perhaps a high-risk one at that. What people have done to make the problem worse. Lets read: From the time that the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, antiabortion activists inside and outside government turned their attention to making abortion services harder to obtain, rather than on making the unintended pregnancies that precede almost all abortions less likely. A central component of that effort, based on the notion that family planning clinics serve as funnels for abortion clinics, has been a doggedly pursued campaign to erect "walls of separation" between the two. At both the state and federal levels with varying degrees of success, antiabortion activists have sought to block organizations that receive public funds for family planning from providing problem pregnancy counseling that includes any discussion of the option of abortion, making abortion referrals even upon direct request, engaging in abortion rights advocacy and providing abortion services at all. Now lets read how Republican Presidents have tried their best to screw(pun intended) over the international community with their dumb ass policies: A spate of such separation requirements were enacted at the state level in the late 1970s but were blocked by the courts. With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981, activists turned to the federal government and set their sights first on U.S. foreign policy, over which the president is given significant discretion. In 1984, the Reagan administration unveiled the "Mexico City" policy (named for the location of the international population conference at which it was first announced), which did not require congressional approval or even authority. The policy disqualifies indigenous organizations in developing countries from eligibility for U.S. family planning aid if they use other, non–U.S. government funds to provide abortions or abortion-related counseling, referrals or advocacy. In 1993, President Clinton rescinded the policy, which has come to be widely known as the global gag rule, but President Bush reimposed it in 2001. Thanks again JBT. If you would have read this before posting I never would have found this. Clinton wasn't great but had their moments: Having successfully restricted international family planning programs, the Reagan administration in 1987 issued a similar gag rule for the Title X domestic family planning program. That regulation banned the "nondirective" problem pregnancy counseling that had been required in Title X programs, as well as abortion referrals for women who request them; it also called for physical and financial separation between a federally funded contraceptive services program and any privately funded abortion service. The courts blocked the domestic gag rule from going into effect until the U.S. Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 1991. The policy, however, was never fully implemented, and on his first day in office in January 1993, Clinton cancelled it (along with its international counterpart). Reason some have repeat abortions, if you were curious: Basically, free-standing clinics are not comprehensive reproductive health care providers because of the lack of demand from their clients and because the existing providers, for better or worse, are doing all they can to keep up with the demand for abortion services. According to Rachel Falls, who directs NAF's abortion hotline, "a woman may be very pleased with the care she receives at the abortion clinic, but she is not there to build a relationship." Certainly, the stigma many women feel about having an abortion—emanating from family, friends, church, society at large or even themselves—can be a significant impediment to their wanting to return more than necessary. I wonder how much farther some people have to travel now?: Compounding the problem is the fact that the declining number of abortion providers has meant increasing numbers of women must travel longer distances to find one. For example, in the case of the free-standing Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois, more than half of the clients travel over 50 miles for abortion services, according to executive director Sally Burgess. The further a woman must travel (or for confidentiality reasons chooses to travel) to reach an abortion provider, the less practical it would be for her to consider that clinic for her regular source of reproductive health care. Reagan-era regulation put a wall between abortion care and contraceptive care. Making it hard for people who need an abortion from getting help to get contraceptive care. Increasing the likelihood of a repeat abortion: Like the many Planned Parenthoods that both offer abortion services and operate Title X family planning programs, Boulder Valley has a strong commitment to overcoming political obstacles to make the system work for women as much as possible. Participating in the Title X program, however, does carry a cost. Levy notes, for example, that women who obtain an abortion at her agency must have a separate chart if they later return for ongoing, Title X–funded contraceptive services. The agency must scrupulously segregate the funds it uses for its abortion services and its Title X program. I look forward to any an all opinions on the subject. Enjoy.

That could be a way of looking at it. But I'd like to see an instance where I dismiss an example without reason. I don't claim it. I point out why and how they are not or that the sources of info/data are bias or outright lies. Also, I do answer questions. Several threads have responses filled with dozens of questions that I answer thoroughly. Granted I might miss a few in the thread maze that some of these discussions turn into. With multiple posters posting multiple posts. One fish, two fish. In this thread I have asked for examples of a phenomenon and how we can tell it is happening enough to be concerned. In your opinion, was it too much for me to ask, instead of giving a misinformed answer to an incredibly vague question?