ThreePointTakedown

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?

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?