ThreePointTakedown

Can you give me a breakdown of how this article supports your suggestion? Just to make sure we're on the same page.

Stop copying me.

Agreed. Picking a side would be satisfying for us. But we, likely, know eff all about the myriad issues that surround this conflict. Pulling support from Israel will embolden those around them perhaps leading to a larger war with more casualties and global turmoil. Supporting Israel means Gaza is turned to rubble. Rock and a hard place for sure. Bibi is not secret about his preference for a Republican President. Especially one that is in as much if not more legal jeopardy as they are. (putting on my conspiracy theorist hat for a minute) Many have said it was a huge intelligence SNAFU that led to 10/7. In the lead up to an election year in the US. What would help Bibi more? A conflict this year that would put the sitting Dem President on their heels trying to balance support for Israel vs Gaza. Or letting his coalition dissolve and the court system(that Bibi all but tried to destroy last year) drag him through on the charges he faces. I think long after Bibi is gone we will find out the extent of their involvement with putting this all together or dragging it out for political survival.

Not getting what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborate?

A sking for examples and receiving none(from someone who isn't you, btw) is an example of me being too critical? That you've elected to step in to be a shield for a like minded poster is also telling. Having to read me dismantle someone with similar opinions and emotional defense mechanisms must bother you so. Rent free is the way to be. Your inferiority complex is getting the better of you here. If you would just step up with solid examples and evidence. Instead appealing to emotion. The thing you project on to your opponents. We wouldn't be in this mess. I'm sorry you are piss poor at critical thinking or holding to high standards. Biting the hand that tries to point that out will just leave you wallowing in the cesspool that you have made for yourself. You can't name call or phantom project your insecurities out of it. If you're embarrassed by the simple questions that I ask, that seem to rile you up so much. Have better answers or change your position. Or are you projecting that you don't think your examples(for which I've not asked you for any) are good enough to prove a point? ^You're telling on yourself. What this says is that you either have a horrible memory(possible, can't knock you for that), don't actually read my comments(also possible) which makes you a dishonest interlocutor(person who takes part in conversation or discussion), read them and agree but can't bring yourself to admit it(cognitive dissonance, likely), or just don't understand the nature of my objections(also possible). So, your whining that I'm too harsh. Then whine that I call you out for whining. Then whine about how I'm unfair in being as or more critical of your sources as you are. You sound like a sniveling toddler crying because no one lets them win. All because I asked someone else a question that triggered you so much you had to start this charade. Your side loves saying this, 'stay in your lane' Adults(at least I am) are talking.

Why do you say that?

Interesting take. Quite nuanced. How does it feel knowing exactly what people are thinking at all times? Not having to ask any questions or get any feedback from friends, family, colleagues, must be terribly efficient. And the future and all possible eventualities of a situation? The Gays and Trans line was good too. Seem a bit hostile towards those groups, am I reading that wrong? Hope so. Let me know.

That is incredibly telling. Having been away, I haven't asked 'constantly' for anything. But if I have issue with the examples you or anyone offers then why not address those issues. If the examples are worth their salt they should stand up to my scrutiny. If I am dishonest in critiquing them, I'm sure you'll be first to jump in and say so. But if you or anyone is going to say that a thing is 'happening' and you fail to offer up any examples of that thing or explain in more detail, when requested, the phenomenon you are siting, how are we to believe that it happens at all? What was the point of your comment if not a bad faith attempt to end a conversation? Was that your point? If so, just change the channel. What is your take on this situation(abortion as contraception)? Care to weigh in? Or chuck comments from the peanut gallery?

Argh. Why would I want to answer a question then need to go back and correct 106 things before we're even speaking about the same issue? I'm sorry but some of your questions are incredibly broad. If you want a legit answer, sometimes you need to distill them down a bit.

I'm sure there is. Refer to most recent post: do we have accurate numbers or any numbers that represent that fact? Please don't say, 'its common sense' because it isn't. I can think of that scenario but know of no one who has done it. Unless it is actually happening then it is just a story in your head. If it is, then how much is too much in your opinion?

No, people do not use abortion as 'contraception'. If you disagree, show me evidence. While we're at it, lets make a threshold. If you find some instances, which you feel it is being used as 'contraception' (which you still haven't defined, so you are free to use it however you like to support your position, which is dishonest, shocking) then we need to determine how many need to have happened before it is a phenomenon that 'happens' in your mind. Because 'happens' seems to me to mean its prevalent, more than the norm, or too much for comfort. How much is too much and why is it that number? But if you mean, it 'happens' one time and so therefore the whole practice needs to be taken off the table. I'm sorry, you and I don't seem to live in the same reality because that's not how things work.

Yes. I need more info of what you are referring to make an honest answer. Why is that controversial?

Why do we have to do this every time? Can you just give me more details of your opinion so I can answer the question?

Please elaborate? Done what? Break cloture to seat judges(except SCOTUS judges)? Yes. What did reps do after that THIS. Then stole two SCOTUS seats from Dem Presidents. So one side took a shot, the other took theirs and made it way bigger. Then took two more HUGE shots. So as far as dishonesty, Reps are up 3-1. Tell me how it ends? If your answer doesn't start with, letting dems even things up and then calling a truce, you're wrong or dishonest or both. Or I'd like to know where I'm wrong. If that is your response, how does it not come off as you saying, 'yes they will, because Dems will(or have) do something if they get the chance, so we will when we get the chance, first'? Which is a strikingly similar answer that 45 gave when asked directly. Previously said no, but decided to hedge instead of repeating an answer they had already given before. You should ask more of your representatives, is all.

So, based on three weeks of you taunting and calling me names for just not signing on and engaging, you expect me to come back, hat in hand to the dishonest mob of people that, quite easily could say the exact same thing you just suggested, on a daily basis. I have apologized for calling someone names. Admitted it was not conducive to a conversation. It was one of my first interactions with JBT. Did it make any difference in their approach? Not a bit. Are they still as dishonest and spiteful as they have ever been, hell bent on disrupting/destroying rather than building? In my opinion, yes. Do you actively jump in to pile on whenever you get the chance, with little more than 'I'm going to accuse them of the same things that I do before they can to me' as if it's a point at all? In my opinion, yes. Tell you what, if you do all you've suggested first, in a show of good faith, and apologize for participating the that was that thread about us, then yes, I'll do the same. But you get nothing until you move the goal posts back to where they started. Thank you for adding context. I do say things I would say to someone's face. If a bad idea is a bad idea or a bad take is a bad take or you have little to no evidence to hold your position, I'm going to tell you. Does that make me bad? No. It means I want a better opponent with better tools/skills to help me become better. Does that mean we can't be friends? Maybe. If you want to exercise you demons by saying and doing things you wouldn't otherwise do, go play call of duty. Granted we aren't going to change the world here. But having a good, honest conversation about things, important or not, is how that ball gets rolling down the hill. I am in favor of having serious or not, but honest conversations about things. Whataboutism and devil's advocate have their place but only in an honest environment. I have said that time and time again. I keep coming back to try to be civilized with you and the other three posters but are met with vitriol while being away and even after being away for weeks. Take a breath. Settle down or is the dopamine that big of a rush? Me asking you for evidence is not an attack on you. I'm trying to make you better so I can become better. I

Do go on?

'Finish them'? This is not exceptional. There is a small but very real chance she is the nominee for President when the presumptive one gets sentenced to jail. How is this ok?

It might seem simple to you. But your next sentence doesn't break anything down. Firstly, is this true? And how do we know it's true? Are the facts that you were given and passing along, reliable? How did you determine that? Let's say that they are: does this mean that these people are using abortion as contraception? I don't know. Each situation is different. Each person is different and you seem to be painting nuanced situations with a broad brush. Let's take a step back. You still did not define what you mean by 'contraception'. If you can do that before trying to have the conversation without me then we can have a conversation. Other wise we're always going to be going backward trying to correct things and never getting to the meat.

Not wrong but I feel the current President will allow for the experiment to continue. Where as the other guy just wants to stay out of prison and pay off his debts with campaign money and will do anything to make those happen.

In several states now, its not even an option. Because most, if not all, pregnant people find out they are pregnant beyond the point where they can have an abortion. So in those states, no. I'll address the question more thoroughly after I get more info about your question from my previous response.

In the situation of abortion what does 'contraception' mean to you? Can you give me a scenario?

I do believe it will come up. Yes. If conservatives gain control of three branches. They will vote to drop the filibuster and pass that law. They have before with judges. They're not against changing the rules if it benefits their objectives.

I was gone for nearly a month and you all needed to keep yourselves revved up by complaining about us to each other. I wonder if you all have the courage to think about and answer the questions below. Are we your enemies? Because it seems like the energy you're bringing here. Like you've vanquished a hated foe and celebrating it. You haven't. You won't. You can't. I hope you understand that. You will never win. Just explain your positions without being accidentally or purposefully dishonest(if you don't know the difference, that's fine). If you get frustrated or upset, take a breath. Is it validating, to you all, by treating people that disagree with you in the way you have on this board? If so, why do you think that is? If you don't want to write a response, I get it. It's difficult to introspect and harder to make it public. If you shrug this off as babble, I will know you don't care and that will tell me all I need to know and how interested you really are in arguing, hating, and dehumanizing your enemy. Which is toxic and dangerous. Versus trying to change someone's mind.

Should contraception remain available and legal for all persons? Why or why not?

What is 114-2-3?