Jump to content


carlfense

Members
  • Posts

    12,739
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by carlfense

  1. Is it difficult for you to continue claiming this given what you were forced to admit a few posts ago?
  2. Do you even read the links that you post before you post them?
  3. If by late term you mean 20 weeks, yes. Yes I do. Unequivocally. That's awfully totalitarian of you. Apparently you don't believe in freedom and personal responsibility.
  4. Actually, I think the record (and I'm not sure if it still stands) for the earliest survival of a fetus was closer to 22 weeks than to 21 weeks. It's not my decision to make regarding whether a 20 week fetus should be aborted but apparently you believe that it is your place to do so. Perhaps we can compromise . . . you can choose to not abort 20 week fetuses and you can allow others to follow their own beliefs.
  5. Not really. I'm not much of a Hillary fan. She's OK. Wait and see what happens, eh? I'll try to not drop too many "told ya so's." Did Happy Uncle Joe jump in with Obama's blessing yet? Is that still coming any day now? How long should we wait?
  6. IT CAN?! OH MY GOD. If you meant a 20 week fetus could you please show me an example where a 20 week fetus survived and lived a full life? This is just one example of a UK fetus surviving at 21 weeks. You can do a search and find many examples. Of course with any early deliveries, it will take weeks in the nic-u before going home, but technology and medical advances have made this possible. I find it alarming that the UK even has a legal abortion limit at 24 weeks, while in the US we don't have any limits. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html So you can't find an example where a 20 week fetus survived? Not even one? I suppose you need to revise your claims then, eh?
  7. IT CAN?! OH MY GOD. If you meant a 20 week fetus could you please show me an example where a 20 week fetus survived and lived a full life?
  8. It's unfortunate that nothing you've said is true. I'm following the narrative that has been going around here for years. Not my narrative, but whatever. And I'm on the record for saying that Bo needed to go. If you'd bother to inform yourself then you might just learn that most of the talking heads around these parts speak well of Riley and staff. I realize that you don't feel that people who have access to the program ( many who have played or coached the game at the highest levels) and relate their opinions over the air are as credible as a random message board poster who's never laced up a pair of cleats, but often times former NFLers know a little about the game. Sorry, In don't have an internet link for you, so I'm sure you won't buy into that theory. And to set the record, again, to form my opinion, I've simply checked out what this staff has done. Bill parcels said you are what your record says it is. The nice thing about that internet link that you mentioned is that people can go read it for themselves. Unfortunately for your argument, that also means that they can go read your past posts for themselves. The contradictions are undeniable. Anyways. Grind away at that axe and keep claiming that the people who played, coached, opined, and laced up their cleats agree with you . . . without ever bothering to demonstrate the same. I'm sure that people will find that more convincing than your radically different standards posted side-by-side.
  9. September, 2015 Yeah. Looks like excuses work for one guy . . . but the next guy needs to show IMMEDIATE production.I think that qualifies. It's called being consistent. They were supposedly excuses under the previous staff, so I'm being consistent with that narrative. Didn't fly then, didn't fly for Billy C. or Frank, shouldn't fly now. No, sir. What you're saying is the precise opposite of being consistent and your bald-faced claims to the contrary won't change that. Your feelings and your opinion are fine but for goodness sake please be honest about it. You think that Bo Pelini got a raw deal and that he is/was a better coach than Mike Riley. I have no doubt that you have your reasons (which probably include hours of sports talk radio) for thinking that. That said, don't pretend to be fair and balanced when you've made excuses for one and then insisted that there can be no excuses for the other. Own it.
  10. September, 2015 Yeah. Looks like excuses work for one guy . . . but the next guy needs to show IMMEDIATE production. I think that qualifies.
  11. It's true. The public opinion of her trustworthiness is her biggest weakness. That's why the e-mail thing will be ridden into the ground regardless of whether there is any "there" there. Again, we'll see. Could be that Hillary is imploding and Sanders/Biden/whoever is going to win the nomination. Then again . . . I doubt you or most people paying attention would make that bet.
  12. That's true . . . but these people aren't going to jump ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016 (For example, looks like HRC already has endorsements from all but about ten Democratic senators. Here's the GOP side if you'd like to see the contrast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016) I agree . . . but he'd have to offer something that she doesn't if he wants to beat her and I don't know what that would be.
  13. Which Hillary voters, and why? Sanders is a very liberal, self proclaimed socialist. That is only going to appeal to certain voters. To a certain extent, it's no different than the idiots claiming they support Trump. Those voters only want a certain type of candidate that appeals to their views. Someone like Hillary or Uncle Joe, appeal to a more broad Democratic voter. One who leans left but is looking for more of an established candidate. To an extent, Hillary is like Bush. We know what we get with them because they have been in politics for a long time. We are familiar with the families and any baggage the bring along. Trump and Sanders are wild cards that appeal to voters that don't want that "familiar" candidate. So, if/when Joe gets in the race, he is going to appeal to more of the Hillary voters than Sanders voters. And...he will be able to take some of Hillary's donations, endorsements...etc. But why would they support Joe over Hillary? Because he's "happy" like someone noted above? (And your last line sort of glosses over the fact that so many people have already endorsed Hillary, pledged those donations, etc. Even if Biden decides to enter the race he is starting with a diminished field of potential donors and supporters.)
  14. How so? My comment came from what the article is about. She is working hard to claim something that just isn't true. Bush's immigration views are not the same as Trumps. But, she is trying to tie the two together in an effort to discredit all Republican candidates based on what the idiot is saying. No need to claim something that is so blatantly not true unless she is actually concerned. No. She really doesn't. The GOP (when they aren't whining about a "coronation") desperately wants to make her appear weak by trumpeting every challenger. Nothing is more boring to the political media than a done deal . . . so they're desperately pretending that Hillary is in genuine danger of losing the primary. Think about the motivations behind the hot takes. Any Democratic candidate would leap at the chance to switch places with Hillary, and with good reason. Sure.....they would love to be in her shoes due to her leading for right now. However, Sanders has gained a lot of ground and continues to do so. And, Uncle Joe hasn't even gotten into the race yet. She has gone from around 65% in March to 45% recently. Meanwhile Sanders has gone from 0% to 22.5% pretty fast. Biden is sitting at 12-13% without even campaigning yet. LINK It's not just her poll numbers that show the magnitude of her lead. It's her fundraising. It's her endorsements. Etc. She might be the strongest non-incumbent frontrunner at this point in the race in the past ~decade+. Of course she's going to try to tie Jeb W. to Trump. If it works it weakens her most likely general election opponent. Does the constant sniping at Hillary by the GOP candidates show how concerned they are at her strength or their own weakness? I'd say no . . . it shows that they know what most of us know . . . she is going to win the nomination.
  15. Not really. I'm not much of a Hillary fan. She's OK. Wait and see what happens, eh? I'll try to not drop too many "told ya so's."
  16. How so? No. She really doesn't. The GOP (when they aren't whining about a "coronation") desperately wants to make her appear weak by trumpeting every challenger. Nothing is more boring to the political media than a done deal . . . so they're desperately pretending that Hillary is in genuine danger of losing the primary. Think about the motivations behind the hot takes. Any Democratic candidate would leap at the chance to switch places with Hillary, and with good reason.
  17. He accurately pointed out that Republicans and Iranian hardliners are taking the same position. What is there to disapprove of? If you don't like that comparison then you should take it up with the GOP and their Iranian allies.
  18. Walker is so popular he had to face a recall in his state. I am sure the rest of America will love him though. That and the cognitive dissonance required to tout a 2016 candidate who also ran in 2012 . . . while simultaneously claiming that there were no other good candidates in 2012 other than Romney.
  19. Wildly popular Rick Perry's presidential campaign is ending. Again.
×
×
  • Create New...