How many of us will admit it?

[Jimmy Snacks]

27 minutes ago, Bontz said:

Agreed on both accounts.  That said, it will be interesting to see what his net worth becomes in another year or two.  The dude isn't a millionaire .... yet.   Which is probably why his family let him stay in the race? 

More than likely the reason…SMH.🤬

[SkisNH]

5 hours ago, 1jkw said:

He was asked a simple yes or no question on a national abortion ban 3 times, and he never said yes or no, he just said it wasn't a federal issue. Didn't he also state it was still murder? Given the lies  told by the recent SC justice appointees, you can see how people were skeptical.  

First of all no lies were told by the SCOTUS...Nobody answers a question that they might have to rule on. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/10/ads-distort-ozs-position-on-abortion-taxes-and-social-security/

 

This is from a liberal funded site.

Edited November 15, 2022 by SkisNH

[Snake]

5 hours ago, 1jkw said:

He was asked a simple yes or no question on a national abortion ban 3 times, and he never said yes or no, he just said it wasn't a federal issue. Didn't he also state it was still murder? Given the lies  told by the recent SC justice appointees, you can see how people were skeptical.  

 

5 hours ago, Snake said:

Unless the question was: "What is a woman".....

 

4 hours ago, 1jkw said:

Wow edgy, isn't that what you always say?

 

[1jkw]

44 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

First of all no lies were told by the SCOTUS...Nobody answers a question that they might have to rule on. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/10/ads-distort-ozs-position-on-abortion-taxes-and-social-security/

 

This is from a liberal funded site.

Actually saying it was settled law and then voting the other way is lying, polish the turd anyway you want.  

I saw and heard Oz not give a yes or no answer to the question, like it or not it hurt his chances.  

You probably weren't here but it sure was a different story when Hillary ran for senate after moving to NY.

[1jkw]

46 minutes ago, Snake said:

 

 

 

And this has what to do with saying something is settled law?

[SkisNH]

2 hours ago, 1jkw said:

Actually saying it was settled law and then voting the other way is lying, polish the turd anyway you want.  

I saw and heard Oz not give a yes or no answer to the question, like it or not it hurt his chances.  

You probably weren't here but it sure was a different story when Hillary ran for senate after moving to NY.

Did RBG think it was settled law?

[1jkw]

25 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

Did RBG think it was settled law?

Not sure what relevance her opinion was to the statements made by the other appointees, if they didn't think it was, they should have stated such. Keep polishing that turd though.

[SkisNH]

40 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

Not sure what relevance her opinion was to the statements made by the other appointees, if they didn't think it was, they should have stated such. Keep polishing that turd though.

Well as a sitting SCOTUS she believed the original ruling was problematic. It clearly is a 10th ammendment issue. 

I bet you are still jerking off over Merit Garland who has proven himself to be a partisan hack. 

[1jkw]

2 hours ago, SkisNH said:

Well as a sitting SCOTUS she believed the original ruling was problematic. It clearly is a 10th ammendment issue. 

I bet you are still jerking off over Merit Garland who has proven himself to be a partisan hack. 

And all of this what about this or that has zero to do with what was said, had they said that it was problematic and not settled law it would be different.  

We got our first snow tonight, that has about as much to do with the topic as Garland. You drunk or high or something?

[SkisNH]

8 hours ago, 1jkw said:

And all of this what about this or that has zero to do with what was said, had they said that it was problematic and not settled law it would be different.  

We got our first snow tonight, that has about as much to do with the topic as Garland. You drunk or high or something?

Well show me where in the constitution you find the right to an abortion and then you can claim settled law....show me where the "right" was legislated. 

Do you feel the same way about gay marriage?  Clearly with your current argument you don't believe that the "settled law" should have been over turned. 

I bet you believe the "science is settled" settled as well. 

And my other comments are what we analogous..and add perspective to an argument.  You are stuck on a lie and a fallacious attack on the SCOTUS. It's the way you are stuck on OZs abortion stance when I proved you wrong. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by SkisNH

[1jkw]

2 hours ago, SkisNH said:

Well show me where in the constitution you find the right to an abortion and then you can claim settled law....show me where the "right" was legislated. 

Do you feel the same way about gay marriage?  Clearly with your current argument you don't believe that the "settled law" should have been over turned. 

I bet you believe the "science is settled" settled as well. 

And my other comments are what we analogous..and add perspective to an argument.  You are stuck on a lie and a fallacious attack on the SCOTUS. It's the way you are stuck on OZs abortion stance when I proved you wrong. 

I heard with my own ears and saw with my own eyes the SCOTUS appointees state it was settled law as did millions of other Americans, again no amount of spin you try to put forth will change those facts.  

I believe that all Americans should be granted "equal protection under the law".  Clearly the appointees should have said that it wasn't settled law, that is the point, had they stated that and then overturned it so be it.  

I believe some science is basically settled like water freezing at 32* much of science is fluid as new technology becomes available that can disprove previously held beliefs.  

As stated before, I am stuck on what they actually said.  Again and for the last time Oz was asked 3 times during the debate if he would support a federal ban on abortion, a simple no instead of a word salad would have put the issue to rest, in fact he had 3 opportunities to say no, while he stated he did give exceptions his refusal to answer a simple yes or no question didn't help him, spin away though.

[SkisNH]

47 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

I heard with my own ears and saw with my own eyes the SCOTUS appointees state it was settled law as did millions of other Americans, again no amount of spin you try to put forth will change those facts.  

I believe that all Americans should be granted "equal protection under the law".  Clearly the appointees should have said that it wasn't settled law, that is the point, had they stated that and then overturned it so be it.  

I believe some science is basically settled like water freezing at 32* much of science is fluid as new technology becomes available that can disprove previously held beliefs.  

As stated before, I am stuck on what they actually said.  Again and for the last time Oz was asked 3 times during the debate if he would support a federal ban on abortion, a simple no instead of a word salad would have put the issue to rest, in fact he had 3 opportunities to say no, while he stated he did give exceptions his refusal to answer a simple yes or no question didn't help him, spin away though.

What did fetterman say....mumble mumble stumble inaudible stutter stutter. I heard that with my own ears.

[1jkw]

2 hours ago, SkisNH said:

What did fetterman say....mumble mumble stumble inaudible stutter stutter. I heard that with my own ears.

Pretty much what you just said for the few sound bites I saw of the debate.

[ViperGTS/Z1]

3 hours ago, SkisNH said:

What did fetterman say....mumble mumble stumble inaudible stutter stutter. I heard that with my own ears.

 

[Jimmy Snacks]

3 hours ago, SkisNH said:

What did fetterman say....mumble mumble stumble inaudible stutter stutter. I heard that with my own ears.

Well Fetterman had a stroke and who the fuck wanted him anyhow other than R’s apparently because they put up the carpet bagging Jersey charlatan.

[Jimmy Snacks]

Just now, ViperGTS/Z1 said:

 

And they both won…doesn’t say much for the R’s now does it.🤔😂

[SkisNH]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

And they both won…doesn’t say much for the R’s now does it.🤔😂

Doesn't day much for the Dims now does it.

[Jimmy Snacks]

8 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

Doesn't day much for the Dims now does it.

I never claimed it did…you’re the one running your flaps…FFS they all suck.

[SkisNH]

Just now, Jimmy Snacks said:

I never claimed it did…you’re the one running your flaps…FFS they all suck.

I do believe the whole point of the website is to run flaps...yours included. 

Can we all just admit that oz even though a carpet bagger is by far the intellectual superior to Fetterman...and the vote was either pure tribalism or fraud. Take your pick. 

[Jimmy Snacks]

Just now, SkisNH said:

I do believe the whole point of the website is to run flaps...yours included. 

Can we all just admit that oz even though a carpet bagger is by far the intellectual superior to Fetterman...and the vote was either pure tribalism or fraud. Take your pick. 

Intellectual superior…when the fuck has that ever mattered in elections.😂

[1jkw]

5 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

I do believe the whole point of the website is to run flaps...yours included. 

Can we all just admit that oz even though a carpet bagger is by far the intellectual superior to Fetterman...and the vote was either pure tribalism or fraud. Take your pick. 

The vote was about abortion mostly, being a carpet bagger didn't help, neither did having Trumps backing, Mastriano was a huge Trumper and he didn't do as well as Oz in my area.