ewsieg

You're spot on with everything you posted, i'm only singling this portion out, not because you're wrong, but just a point I want to make. I may be off a bit, but i'm pretty confident the last time I read about when abortions happened, 99% of abortions occur by the mid-way point of the second trimester. So your point above is well taken. But that brings me back to this past week when if the dems only put in a ban in the third trimester outside of the health of the mother, you might have seen it pass. So to me, the Dems are willing to allow what we know is likely inevitable to happen, in the hopes that they only get beat a little bit in the mid-terms. Instead of doing something that their voters want, they are once again choosing to use it as a campaign issue. How did that work out for them with Garland? I don't get it.

https://www.covid.gov/tests You can order some more free covid tests. Just had to use another yesterday as I have several symptoms, guessing just the flu for me though.

Well, I'm sure that is the case with some issues, but it's not the case with all. We treat our pets more humanely at end of life than we do our own grandparents, but that's just my opinion. Additionally, it's tough to say 'medical fact'. What is true today in medicine, doesn't mean it's true tomorrow. Most people do not support abortions through the third trimester. My opinion on that is most start to look at the baby bump on a mom as a baby, not a fetus, at that point. Add in the fact that fetus' can survive without their mother as early as late 2nd trimester and it adds to the argument that they are separate human beings at that point. My sister was the smallest baby to survive in Michigan at the time she was born, now babies born 2-3 weeks earlier than her still have over a 50% chance of survival. Still though, your point you're making on the opposition is spot on, there is no change for a legitimate debate with folks that are extreme. In the end, I'm with Bill Clinton, I want abortions to be safe, legal, and rare.

There is a fact though that we need a legal standing, not just a medical one. Most states have laws on the books which add charges for killing an fetus during a felony. Even in blue states, democrats have conceded that a wanted baby is worthy of having the hands of justice defend it. There is no medical book out there that will say there is a medical difference between a wanted or unwanted fetus. I'm not sure what the answer should be, but playing politics with this issue isn't benefiting the country. I think the Dems could have codified abortion after a set period and/or after the case of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Instead, it lives to play it's part in the 2022 election. To note - pretty much all of the outrage towards the GOP I've read in the last few pages is justified as well.

That's an interesting point, although my guess is, people are getting sick with the variant that is around them period. Add to the fact that vaccines/boosters do still show effectiveness in in the current variants. As such, my guess is, if you were in close contact with a vaccinated person or an unvaccinated person, with the same variant in both cases, the unvaccinated person is more likely to have more symptoms which may not be as noticeable to you at the time, but more likely to infect you. I suspect much of this is the reason why we didn't see vast amounts of spread in schools, kids simply don't get as sick, have less symptoms, and as such, don't spread it amongst themselves as easily as others.

I had a feeling he wasn't white based on the reporting. Not that I saw any reporting initially say what he was, it was just missing from the story. That's odd.

The way he talks is a way I could see him pulling away Trump voters that aren't necessarily Republicans. In short, blue collar union employees that have felt the Democratic party left them and regardless how crass Trump was, at least he spoke (at) to them. He's one of the few democratic voices i've heard in the last year that really seems to be for that blue collar worker. On top of that, imagine Oz trying to say he looks weak on a subject, GTFO. The 'strong man' ideology that Trump has installed within his voters is going to peak interest in him come voting day.

A senator/rep looking like an idiot during their questioning of a witness? Tubberville obviously is an exception as I've never heard any other senator/rep ask stupid questions before.

From someone who recently switched from Outlook to Gmail at work, I absolutely believe this is happening along with the suppression of mails from your boss, calendar invites, peers, etc. And if you don't catch it immediately and have to search for it....forget about it.

20 bucks your doctor is following Oz because she was tired of getting blindsided by something stupid he said on his 'doctors' show and used it to be prepared to handle questions from her patients.

Vindman is right to be upset at Esper for holding this info for personal gain, but while infuriating, we definitely should care about it and need everyone in that administration to come out with their stories.

So, back to serious, but this does bring up a question that I honestly think isn't just something the right asks. My wife and I wanted our kids and let's say she was robbed and assaulted and we lost our baby over it, I know personally I would want murder charges. Is that right? I don't know. I know there are some states that do charge like that though. Sounds like Alabama is one of them. If the pregnant mother was the one committing the felony, from a law stance, I think it opens up to the fact that she would be responsible. I can only assume she wanted to have this baby and likely any charge pales in comparison to what she is already going through, so i'm not going to say it serves the greater good of the community, but it doesn't seem as far fetched as Reason makes it out to be IMO.

Definitely a joke, unless we can get the right messenger to make it. I mean, Trump says this and within months of Roe v Wade being overturned, the GOP would be pushing through a bill that effectively subsidizes and ensures access to abortion across the entire country, just because Trumpee's would look at it as 'owning the libs'.

There are solutions to this folks, i'm not sure why everyone thinks it's a big deal. A compromise can be reached, but it'll take some blinders. For my left leaning friends here. (Right leaning, move to the next paragraph without reading this) Publicly say abortion isn't a good thing, you don't even have to say bad, just say it's not a good thing, no one wants it, etc. Then accept a 'penalty' against the person that gets the procedure. Because it's not desired, it needs to be well regulated, like Pot. You have to go to a federal approved site to have it done, that'll ensure you pay the penalty. In looking it up, it says the average abortion is $750 but less in some states, let's just say $500 is the cost of the 'fine'. We're actually subsidizing it, but shush, be quiet. Please stop reading now. Hey my right leaning friends. We all know abortion is really bad, but c'mon, who gets abortions? Yeah, you're right, people that go around having sex or allowing themselves to get raped or molested. Do we really want those people being mom's? So let's have a federal legal ban on abortion but for those that are going to do it anyway, like those stupid hippies smoking their 'reefer', we'll punish them with a tax penalty of $500 bucks everytime they do it. That'll show them and help them lead life without hopping into bed outside of marriage (to a man of course, amirite?!?!?) Good God fearing women would never break the law, so this will help save them from a horrible sin that the devil currently tempts them with. Plus all the tax money we get out of this ,we can put towards cops to protect us from those babies that liberals end up not aborting due to this.

I know you've been trained to expect false flags, but don't go crazy into thinking every possible thing that happens is a false flag. My guess is we have a slew of legitimate reasons for some of the things we've seen out of Russia, some of which could possibly be false flags.

I'm certainly no Lions slappy, but I do always get excited heading into the draft and usually spend the following week trying to convince myself that I should be happy about the draft. This one is different for me, which scares me. I don't want to start believing Holmes is building something good here because when it all falls apart, that would just means it hurts more. Possibly Jacksonville forced us into this position, but I feel like we got a guy that could be in pro-bowl consideration every year and has an incredibly high floor. With Williams, i'm not that concerned about the ACL, seems like that's becoming the equivalent of Tommy John in baseball, where players can come back just as good, if not better. Paschal, i'm just looking at the production we got out of Flowers. Sounds like he can be a 3 down guy that is a better on the run side than the pass side, but overall, am I out of line to say he might be wash for Flowers as soon as his first year? James Mitchell - Another ACL guy, but decent hands and can block. Guess i'm a little more leery of a big guy with an ACL, but again it doesn't appear to be as bad of an injury as it once was. Kerby Joseph / Malcolm Rodriquez - I love what i'm reading about these guys, but the fact they are undersized is concerning. Sounds like Kerby has the speed to make up for his size. Malcolm is the type of guy that I think the fans of Detroit will love if he can find a way to contribute to this team. I saw one mockup that had Malcolm as the 109th best prospect in this draft. I feel like these guys can contribute, but the defense needs to be setup in a way to account for their limitations.

Yes, I remember Arab Spring.

Another one of those 'big if true' things. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10770541/Putin-cancer-operation-near-future-hand-power-hardline-ex-KGB-chief.html If there has been talks about going against Putin, they might see this as an oppurtunity.

Based on the absolute shock i'm seeing on twitter, I suspect this may be the case.

Not really sure I see what it stated in the article as evidence he might be backing out as all that convincing. He didn't join the board as he wanted to go for full ownership. While he definitely could throw away a billion dollars and be fine, I also doubt he would put that amount on the line just to balk a few days later.

Silver lining for the current Twitter employees is that the current board and CEO didn't appear to know how to run it either so it probably won't get worse. Musk reminds me of a mixture of Jobs and Wozniak. He may not be able to outsell Jobs or out brain Wozniak, but he's strong in both suits. Tesla definitely reminds me of a young Apple corporation. They had some niche things they could do well, but they were lucky to have an extremely dedicated customer base. I still remember an old boss that would claim the only fix action on a mac was to reboot it. If that didn't work, his follow up would be to ask how old it was and if it was over 3 years old "oh wow, yeah, that's your problem. You need to get another one". Tesla is likely going to correct a lot of those issues before most people move to e-vehicles. If you want to break down the last few iphones to a comparable galaxy, the galaxy will win each time, but for the vast majority of folks and what they use their phones for, there is no considerable difference. This is the key for Tesla, to get to that point by the time the majority of folks are buying e-vehicles, otherwise the Big 3, Honda, and Toyota are going to knock them down considerably.

Exactly, who would have thought that policy you would have expected out of a progressive liberal candidate years before would be so detrimental.

Dem's aren't putting up a candidate to run against Mike Lee. Great move by them. https://www.businessinsider.com/utah-democrats-support-evan-mcmullin-independent-senate-mike-lee-2022-4

I disagree with nothing you have stated here, but you're responding based on what you know now, not what was happening at the time this reporter apparently told another reporter that there was no comparison between the economic plans of the two 2016 candidates. Hillary did not have any grand plan either. The obvious differences, Hillary probably said she would raise taxes on the wealthy where Trump said everyone needed a tax cut. They probably both said investment in energy was needed, where Hillary pushed for more green energy and Trump said we should continue to drill. Hillary was basically running a status quo campaign as she was riding the coattails of Obama. So while she probably said 'infrastructure' and 'jobs', I don't remember any specifics in what she'd do outside of 'make everything better'.