movielover said:

---

Nancy Pelosi stock picker.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C1nm_oYurQ3/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

---

Nice of her husband to let her use his money for gambling, er, I mean investing in highly risky growth stocks. Oh wait, you mean she has 5 million of her own money just laying around to gamble on individual stocks at the age of 80? 5 million on a public servant salary? Wow, must be frugal and a good saver. Good for her.

She shops at the Dollar Store.

A large number of former high ranking City officials now live mostly or permanently out of the City. Newsom immediately bolted to Ross. Angela and Michela (fake city residence?) Alioto. Nancy Pelosi. Jerry Brown no longer lives in Oakland. They flee the consequences of their policies.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

movielover said:

---

Nancy Pelosi stock picker.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C1nm_oYurQ3/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

---

Nice of her husband to let her use his money for gambling, er, I mean investing in highly risky growth stocks. Oh wait, you mean she has 5 million of her own money just laying around to gamble on individual stocks at the age of 80? 5 million on a public servant salary? Wow, must be frugal and a good saver. Good for her.

---

This is a problem on both sides and something that Congress can but refuses to address (including Pelosi but also some Republicans). Instead they resort to some bull**** rationalization that their spouse or trust controls the decisions as if we are to believe that spouses don't talk even through the SEC treats all other folks as insider trading when trades are made by spouses or children of insiders.

So, when folks like these talk about corruption by Trump, Biden or others, we just have to laugh.

There is no way an American is in charge of our immigration policies. It’s now 100% obvious the goal is destruction.

Whatever is going here on is not coming from inside the house. That needs to be the working assumption.

— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) January 5, 2024

movielover said:

---

She shops at the Dollar Store.

A large number of former high ranking City officials now live mostly or permanently out of the City. Newsom immediately bolted to Ross. Angela and Michela (fake city residence?) Alioto. Nancy Pelosi. Jerry Brown no longer lives in Oakland. They flee the consequences of their policies.

---

Most of those people are out of office and free to live wherever they want. Last I checked, Ross was still in California, so Newsom is good. As for Pelosi, I remember the gleeful right wingers around here (some still here) posting pics of Pelosi's home being vandalized and in one case, a bowel movement was left in her driveway. Then there's the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi. It could be the home just had too many painful memories for Paul Pelosi, so they moved for that reason alone.

blungld said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Republicans are principled...

---

So you think that being pro woman's health and right to choose is not a principle? What an ego centric and uninformed point of view. If the majority of people disagree with you, just say they don't have a principle?

The abortion restriction position is manufactured. It's not actually a moral or religious position. It is not Biblical. It is an invented wedge issue. It is not pro life. The mother is alive, the collection of cells is not a baby. It is not logically consistent. If you assign personhood to a fetus to POTENTIAL life, then all sorts of things have to follow:

Abortion should be prosecuted as murder, with mother, father, doctor, and nurses all accessory to murder?

Is masturbation or any birth control also murder of potential life?

What special right are you granting to a fetus that it has access to another body? Can I take your blood or kidney without your consent?

The state should have numerous commitments to the baby and care of the baby if they are forcing birth.

The personhood of a fetus has legal implications.

The so called pro-life position is programmed emotional illogical and not at all what it claims to be. It is a control of female sexuality and a way to try and use pretend religiosity (by voters and politicians) for the purposes of political power. This position on abortion is not historical, it is a hysteric creation in the 60-70s. Completely made up to try and access southern churches and establish a sheepish "moral majority" for GOP gains. Not a sincere belief by the people who sold it to you and others.

The American people DO NOT WANT to lose a Constitutional right for the first time ever and to have the government do their family planning and make the biggest decision in the lives of actual living humans who "we" trust to decide what is best for themselves and in turn making society better.

The country doesn't agree with you. Get over it. Our principles are real, better, moral, empathetic, and much more pro life than yours.

---

I find what you wrote to be very offensive.

You have distorted what I said, totally distorted my meaning, to the point of lying. You have made up all sorts of ideas which you present as my beliefs, when in fact, I never made any such statements. Show me where I did. Then you proceed to argue against all the thoughts of mine which you yourself made up. In essence, you argue by having a debate with yourself, not with me, or my thoughts. Because you have no idea what my thoughts are. This is known as a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, a very common disingenuous rhetorical device used to win arguments, especially by the leftists on this forum, without having to debate your opponent. Effective, but only if you convince your audience of the lie.

You completely cherry-picked my post, and responded only to one statement - my statement that "Republicans have principles". You go on to imply that I must have all sorts of other thoughts or opinions, and you name several. You are implying that I feel the only group who have principles are Republicans. Democrats have principles. Lots of principles, and one is unrestricted abortion or very close to it. Communists have principles, too, lots of them, and theirs include that the Communist State can mandate abortions to control population. I just happen to believe that over the years, Democratic Party principles have become more Leftist and less liberal. In the debate on abortion, Democrats have the principle which supports abortions in general.

You made a lot of statements in your post about my stance on abortion. How the hell would you know what my stance on abortion is? I have taken no stance. If I had a vote right now, I would abstain. I can see very deeply held opinions on both sides of this debate, and unlike you, I respect both sides. Both sides are Americans, both sides strongly feel they have, for the most part, the right motives, good motives.

I have known a number of women who have had abortions. It is a very tough decision in many cases. For some, it is no big deal. I've known women who have had several abortions, and it was nothing more than any other medical procedure. I've known other women who have had one abortion, and it troubled them the rest of their lives. An extreme Leftist friend of mine, who is a staunch supporter of abortion rights, once told me, "But having an abortion can do terrible psychological things to a woman."

I can support abortion in some situations, health of the woman or child, rape and incest, etc. but when it comes to the abortion which is needed just because the female or the male was negligent in using some protection, the decision to allow all of those would bother me. Those situations are where one or both parties are acting irresponsibly, desiring increased sexual gratification, while at the same time, often acting knowingly irresponsible. It is a self-centered decision, with little regard for the consequences beforehand, or in the passion of the moment. One or both parties may be at fault. I have no statistics, and I could be totally wrong, but I'd guess women asking for abortions are very often cases when one or the other or both consenting parties knowingly used no contraception. I remember years ago, when the pill arrived, a young woman said to me, "Now I can F….. free." No it is not naturally meant to be free. In many situations in life, there is a penalty to be paid for irresponsible behavior. In abortion, the fetus pays one price, with his or her life, and the woman's mind and heart pays a price. The man often may pay some, but less, only with the stress to his conscience. While attending Cal years ago, I had a very close friend whose girlfriend became pregnant, and he asked me for advice. This was in a period when abortion was illegal. I was very young, and had never faced a situation like this. Both my friend and his girlfriend loved each other very much, and they were greatly stressed by having this unexpected news, I asked a much older woman friend for advice. She offered to help find an adoption service so the mother could have the child and then put the child up for adoption. I suggested it to my friends, but eventually they chose to go to Mexico, and have the abortion. Not long after, they got married, and eventually had three fine children. I really think all requests for abortion should be decided on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the laws of society, whatever they may be and not be a one size fits all solution.

When the two sides of this debate lose respect for either "the health rights of a woman" or "the life of a fetus", then they have lost their humanity and when they lose that, they begin to lose the very foundation of this nation. For me, it is a sad commentary on a civilization which kills its young. I may sound undecided on this issue, which I still am, but I don't appreciate you using a cheap rhetorical trick, making up my thoughts or beliefs, and then ridiculing these thoughts to make me look like I belong to the side of this issue which is unpopular on this forum.

Pssssst. SFCity. . .

SFCityBear said:

---

blungld said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Republicans are principled...

---

So you think that being pro woman's health and right to choose is not a principle? What an ego centric and uninformed point of view. If the majority of people disagree with you, just say they don't have a principle?

The abortion restriction position is manufactured. It's not actually a moral or religious position. It is not Biblical. It is an invented wedge issue. It is not pro life. The mother is alive, the collection of cells is not a baby. It is not logically consistent. If you assign personhood to a fetus to POTENTIAL life, then all sorts of things have to follow:

Abortion should be prosecuted as murder, with mother, father, doctor, and nurses all accessory to murder?

Is masturbation or any birth control also murder of potential life?

What special right are you granting to a fetus that it has access to another body? Can I take your blood or kidney without your consent?

The state should have numerous commitments to the baby and care of the baby if they are forcing birth.

The personhood of a fetus has legal implications.

The so called pro-life position is programmed emotional illogical and not at all what it claims to be. It is a control of female sexuality and a way to try and use pretend religiosity (by voters and politicians) for the purposes of political power. This position on abortion is not historical, it is a hysteric creation in the 60-70s. Completely made up to try and access southern churches and establish a sheepish "moral majority" for GOP gains. Not a sincere belief by the people who sold it to you and others.

The American people DO NOT WANT to lose a Constitutional right for the first time ever and to have the government do their family planning and make the biggest decision in the lives of actual living humans who "we" trust to decide what is best for themselves and in turn making society better.

The country doesn't agree with you. Get over it. Our principles are real, better, moral, empathetic, and much more pro life than yours.

---

I find what you wrote to be very offensive.

You have distorted what I said, totally distorted my meaning, to the point of lying. You have made up all sorts of ideas which you present as my beliefs, when in fact, I never made any such statements. Show me where I did. Then you proceed to argue against all the thoughts of mine which you yourself made up. In essence, you argue by having a debate with yourself, not with me, or my thoughts. Because you have no idea what my thoughts are. This is known as a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, a very common disingenuous rhetorical device used to win arguments, especially by the leftists on this forum, without having to debate your opponent. Effective, but only if you convince your audience of the lie.

You completely cherry-picked my post, and responded only to one statement - my statement that "Republicans have principles". You go on to imply that I must have all sorts of other thoughts or opinions, and you name several. You are implying that I feel the only group who have principles are Republicans. Democrats have principles. Lots of principles, and one is unrestricted abortion or very close to it. Communists have principles, too, lots of them, and theirs include that the Communist State can mandate abortions to control population. I just happen to believe that over the years, Democratic Party principles have become more Leftist and less liberal. In the debate on abortion, Democrats have the principle which supports abortions in general.

You made a lot of statements in your post about my stance on abortion. How the hell would you know what my stance on abortion is? I have taken no stance. If I had a vote right now, I would abstain. I can see very deeply held opinions on both sides of this debate, and unlike you, I respect both sides. Both sides are Americans, both sides strongly feel they have, for the most part, the right motives, good motives.

I have known a number of women who have had abortions. It is a very tough decision in many cases. For some, it is no big deal. I've known women who have had several abortions, and it was nothing more than any other medical procedure. I've known other women who have had one abortion, and it troubled them the rest of their lives. An extreme Leftist friend of mine, who is a staunch supporter of abortion rights, once told me, "But having an abortion can do terrible psychological things to a woman."

I can support abortion in some situations, health of the woman or child, rape and incest, etc. but when it comes to the abortion which is needed just because the female or the male was negligent in using some protection, the decision to allow all of those would bother me. Those situations are where one or both parties are acting irresponsibly, desiring increased sexual gratification, while at the same time, often acting knowingly irresponsible. It is a self-centered decision, with little regard for the consequences beforehand, or in the passion of the moment. One or both parties may be at fault. I have no statistics, and I could be totally wrong, but I'd guess women asking for abortions are very often cases when one or the other or both consenting parties knowingly used no contraception. I remember years ago, when the pill arrived, a young woman said to me, "Now I can F….. free." No it is not naturally meant to be free. In many situations in life, there is a penalty to be paid for irresponsible behavior. In abortion, the fetus pays one price, with his or her life, and the woman's mind and heart pays a price. The man often may pay some, but less, only with the stress to his conscience. While attending Cal years ago, I had a very close friend whose girlfriend became pregnant, and he asked me for advice. This was in a period when abortion was illegal. I was very young, and had never faced a situation like this. Both my friend and his girlfriend loved each other very much, and they were greatly stressed by having this unexpected news, I asked a much older woman friend for advice. She offered to help find an adoption service so the mother could have the child and then put the child up for adoption. I suggested it to my friends, but eventually they chose to go to Mexico, and have the abortion. Not long after, they got married, and eventually had three fine children. I really think all requests for abortion should be decided on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the laws of society, whatever they may be and not be a one size fits all solution.

When the two sides of this debate lose respect for either "the health rights of a woman" or "the life of a fetus", then they have lost their humanity and when they lose that, they begin to lose the very foundation of this nation. For me, it is a sad commentary on a civilization which kills its young. I may sound undecided on this issue, which I still am, but I don't appreciate you using a cheap rhetorical trick, making up my thoughts or beliefs, and then ridiculing these thoughts to make me look like I belong to the side of this issue which is unpopular on this forum.

---

In order to be a hero of one's story, one needs to create a villain. I think that's part of the problem with divisive politics. It almost doesn't matter what one actually writes. Others are so eager to make up some narrative so that they can be an internet superhero fighting evil conservative villains.

SFCityBear said:

---

blungld said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Republicans are principled...

---

So you think that being pro woman's health and right to choose is not a principle? What an ego centric and uninformed point of view. If the majority of people disagree with you, just say they don't have a principle?

The abortion restriction position is manufactured. It's not actually a moral or religious position. It is not Biblical. It is an invented wedge issue. It is not pro life. The mother is alive, the collection of cells is not a baby. It is not logically consistent. If you assign personhood to a fetus to POTENTIAL life, then all sorts of things have to follow:

Abortion should be prosecuted as murder, with mother, father, doctor, and nurses all accessory to murder?

Is masturbation or any birth control also murder of potential life?

What special right are you granting to a fetus that it has access to another body? Can I take your blood or kidney without your consent?

The state should have numerous commitments to the baby and care of the baby if they are forcing birth.

The personhood of a fetus has legal implications.

The so called pro-life position is programmed emotional illogical and not at all what it claims to be. It is a control of female sexuality and a way to try and use pretend religiosity (by voters and politicians) for the purposes of political power. This position on abortion is not historical, it is a hysteric creation in the 60-70s. Completely made up to try and access southern churches and establish a sheepish "moral majority" for GOP gains. Not a sincere belief by the people who sold it to you and others.

The American people DO NOT WANT to lose a Constitutional right for the first time ever and to have the government do their family planning and make the biggest decision in the lives of actual living humans who "we" trust to decide what is best for themselves and in turn making society better.

The country doesn't agree with you. Get over it. Our principles are real, better, moral, empathetic, and much more pro life than yours.

---

I find what you wrote to be very offensive.

You have distorted what I said, totally distorted my meaning, to the point of lying. You have made up all sorts of ideas which you present as my beliefs, when in fact, I never made any such statements. Show me where I did. Then you proceed to argue against all the thoughts of mine which you yourself made up. In essence, you argue by having a debate with yourself, not with me, or my thoughts. Because you have no idea what my thoughts are. This is known as a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, a very common disingenuous rhetorical device used to win arguments, especially by the leftists on this forum, without having to debate your opponent. Effective, but only if you convince your audience of the lie.

You completely cherry-picked my post, and responded only to one statement - my statement that "Republicans have principles". You go on to imply that I must have all sorts of other thoughts or opinions, and you name several. You are implying that I feel the only group who have principles are Republicans. Democrats have principles. Lots of principles, and one is unrestricted abortion or very close to it. Communists have principles, too, lots of them, and theirs include that the Communist State can mandate abortions to control population. I just happen to believe that over the years, Democratic Party principles have become more Leftist and less liberal. In the debate on abortion, Democrats have the principle which supports abortions in general.

You made a lot of statements in your post about my stance on abortion. How the hell would you know what my stance on abortion is? I have taken no stance. If I had a vote right now, I would abstain. I can see very deeply held opinions on both sides of this debate, and unlike you, I respect both sides. Both sides are Americans, both sides strongly feel they have, for the most part, the right motives, good motives.

I have known a number of women who have had abortions. It is a very tough decision in many cases. For some, it is no big deal. I've known women who have had several abortions, and it was nothing more than any other medical procedure. I've known other women who have had one abortion, and it troubled them the rest of their lives. An extreme Leftist friend of mine, who is a staunch supporter of abortion rights, once told me, "But having an abortion can do terrible psychological things to a woman."

I can support abortion in some situations, health of the woman or child, rape and incest, etc. but when it comes to the abortion which is needed just because the female or the male was negligent in using some protection, the decision to allow all of those would bother me. Those situations are where one or both parties are acting irresponsibly, desiring increased sexual gratification, while at the same time, often acting knowingly irresponsible. It is a self-centered decision, with little regard for the consequences beforehand, or in the passion of the moment. One or both parties may be at fault. I have no statistics, and I could be totally wrong, but I'd guess women asking for abortions are very often cases when one or the other or both consenting parties knowingly used no contraception. I remember years ago, when the pill arrived, a young woman said to me, "Now I can F….. free." No it is not naturally meant to be free. In many situations in life, there is a penalty to be paid for irresponsible behavior. In abortion, the fetus pays one price, with his or her life, and the woman's mind and heart pays a price. The man often may pay some, but less, only with the stress to his conscience. While attending Cal years ago, I had a very close friend whose girlfriend became pregnant, and he asked me for advice. This was in a period when abortion was illegal. I was very young, and had never faced a situation like this. Both my friend and his girlfriend loved each other very much, and they were greatly stressed by having this unexpected news, I asked a much older woman friend for advice. She offered to help find an adoption service so the mother could have the child and then put the child up for adoption. I suggested it to my friends, but eventually they chose to go to Mexico, and have the abortion. Not long after, they got married, and eventually had three fine children. I really think all requests for abortion should be decided on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the laws of society, whatever they may be and not be a one size fits all solution.

When the two sides of this debate lose respect for either "the health rights of a woman" or "the life of a fetus", then they have lost their humanity and when they lose that, they begin to lose the very foundation of this nation. For me, it is a sad commentary on a civilization which kills its young. I may sound undecided on this issue, which I still am, but I don't appreciate you using a cheap rhetorical trick, making up my thoughts or beliefs, and then ridiculing these thoughts to make me look like I belong to the side of this issue which is unpopular on this forum.

---

I think what you wrote here is all quite sensible. Sure, I could nitpick this or that. Your whole straw man explanation makes sense, happens all the time here.

I thought I'd comment on this part:

Quote:

---

but when it comes to the abortion which is needed just because the female or the male was negligent in using some protection, the decision to allow all of those would bother me. Those situations are where one or both parties are acting irresponsibly, desiring increased sexual gratification, while at the same time, often acting knowingly irresponsible. It is a self-centered decision, with little regard for the consequences beforehand, or in the passion of the moment. One or both parties may be at fault. I have no statistics, and I could be totally wrong, but I'd guess women asking for abortions are very often cases when one or the other or both consenting parties knowingly used no contraception.

---

As you know, I have 5 daughters. We thought before to have a large family, 4, and on the 5th we just screwed up with the spermicide application, I guess. That said, I was thrilled to get a bonus baby. My wife, who bears the toll, was less thrilled. Having watched her bear and nurse five, beautifully, I can appreciate her reluctance.

So, I don't jive with your interpretation of irresponsibility and seeking sexual gratification. These things happen to responsible people who do not lead sexually unrestrained lives. I'll put our morality up against anyone's here! So the broad generalization is rejected by me.


I've watched five children grow from conception to humanity, and I've come to some conclusions, for me.

Humanity (that which the Catholic Church declares as "Life!", or what I'll call a "soul") certainly does not instantly happen upon sperm entering egg.

Nor does it happen a few days later when blastocyst embeds into uterine wall.

Nor does it happen when….

At these early stages, this is just a collection of cells that are responding to a sequence of chemical reactions. They have no sense of self awareness! No sense of the past, present or future.

We must ask - or at least, this is how I view it - what is lost if this sequence of chemical reactions is stopped? Does the entity have any history that is being taken away? Sure, there is the *potential* for something to come in the future. But that does not happen in a vacuum or free from costs borne by others, namely the mother.

We are animals, and sexual satisfaction is not just a "thrill", it's something that drives psychological health, or unhealth.

These are not easy matters, and I hear you acknowledging that.

I was raised with the hard-fast logic that abortion after conception is wrong. I've lived life snd experience tells me that my babies grew into their humanity, even after they were born. Thus, I have zero problem (other than early programming, which is somebody else's logic, not mine) with the morning after pill (up to 5 days after) or even the Plan B pills (10 weeks). And, these things terminate all the time: miscarriage - the entity has no clue. It's just like when I went for surgery and they put me under. No pain, no awareness. And for the fetus that has nothing, what is lost?
Potential? Yes, at the expense of others. And the entity didn't even know about this potential gain, long time down the road.

At how many weeks do I draw the line? I dunno. But the GOP hardliners are draconian! Screw them!

concordtom said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

movielover said:

---

Nancy Pelosi stock picker.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C1nm_oYurQ3/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

---

Nice of her husband to let her use his money for gambling, er, I mean investing in highly risky growth stocks. Oh wait, you mean she has 5 million of her own money just laying around to gamble on individual stocks at the age of 80? 5 million on a public servant salary? Wow, must be frugal and a good saver. Good for her.

---

Your presumption is just weak.
I guess you or your family never made much, or invested in stocks or CA real estate over the last yay-many years.

Do you not know appreciation charts over the course of your adult life, let alone Pelosi's?

Please…..

---

I know how it works. I also know how insider trading works and how certain folks have access to corporate information that the rest of us don't. Apparently, you don't have a problem with what Pelosi did. I'll make another assumption, I bet you're in the minority.

Proving with every post that morons may leave the GOP, but they often remain morons.

Where's Biden? Austin? Kamala? I know Kamala checks in once in a while to see if Biden's alive. Is Austin alive? Do we have Chinese communist spy ballons flying over the country?

Some are now arguing this proves these departments are running their own show - i.e., Biden and Kamala are out of the loop. Bureaucrats run wild.