User

Duplicity: You support ensuring that one side doesn't have more help and firepower. Wars are not fought and won on a stats spreadsheet. Ukraine is not out of soldiers or arms. In this instance: "LOL, you are the one pushing Russian propaganda to support their proxy war in the Donbas before their full invasion. "

He stood on the corner to protest as he is allowed to do. He did not "accost" women in that he approached them to stop them or interfere with them, which would have been a violation of the FACE act. Remember, that is the issue here. The government vindictively went after him for violating the FACE act. That fact that you are here mocking Houck and cheering this on is EXACTLY why I cheer on Trump doing the same thing to the political left. You all clearly need a lesson. No dodge at all. The goon was not merely talking to them, assault IS threatening behavior and fighting words. When he continued to try to approach his son, that can be considered assault. You trying to characterize what the goon did as merely talking to them is pure dishonest spin. I am not claiming he violated federal law or any specific PA law, only using the generic description of what constitutes assault. So here you are cheering on some goon saying trash to a child, all because how dare his dad think it is wrong to kill babies. Just like you support "protestors" violating the laws out in the streets, do not be surprise then when you cheer on a goon doing this to a 12 year old when the father stops them. That doesn't make him the bully here. No, that is not how the FACE act works at all. The goon doesn't get to go instigate crap as if he has some immunity. The FACE act doesn't protect him, it protects the access to the abortion provider. Once the goon goes out of his way to go instigate crap, that is on him. Where are you getting your information on the Jury? "Now the family’s ordeal is finally put to rest after the jury took about an hour to find him not guilty. " https://www.foxnews.com/media/pro-life-activist-mark-houck-shocking-planned-parenthood-encounter-acquittal Yes, clearly we need a debate here that merely shoving the goon who came over to instigate crap was not a violation of the FACE act. That did nothing to stop or interfere with any women getting access to an abortion nor was it intended to. You have yet to explain how it did and the government clearly failed to do so either. The FBI doesn't tell anything specific at all, they only vaguely deny the characterizations of the arrest. They do not deny or confirm how many agents they sent, or if they had their guns drawn or not... The fact is that he had long volunteered to turn himself in to them. There was no need for such a show of force for an arrest other than the fact that the DOJ was vindictively sending a message. The process is the punishment. Yet again, you cheer this on as you do, is EXACTLY why I cheer on Trump doing the same vindictive crap to the left. Again, the issue isn't if you think it is OK to shove some goon who is accosting a child or not... it is that such actions have nothing to do with the FACE act. Such actions were already investigated by local authorities and they did not find enough evidence to say it was illegal to push him because he was the one instigating something with a child. The issue is the governments vindictive use of force here to go after someone with the FACE act. Turn about is fair play and I hope Trump unleashes the DOJ on the left.

I may be argumentative, but I will always try to focus on the merits of the post and not make things personal to the best of my ability. I am not perfect. Unless someone is taking potshots at me, I may return fire, but I will try to do so in more indirect ways.

So... they are not "rigging" anything. They are following lawful practices to try to win. *GASP* The Horror.

LOL, I do not care for these silly threats on a public forum. Ignore me, or don't. My comment here was regarding more than this discussion, you pull this silly schtick in several other discussions we have been in. You are making public comments on a public forum, and you should expect to receive responses from the public.

I keep repeating what you keep ignoring. They are working.

LOL, you are plenty interested in fighting up to the point where your arguments get picked apart, then you usually take the emergency exit and play this game where you fake not being interested....

I don't think that is what I was arguing... my point was that the process does have some politics, but your suggestion would only make it worse. There may be trouble either way... nothing is perfect and there are Pros/Cons, but there are what can be considered more optimal solutions. Some trouble, either way, does not mean equal trouble either way.

How so?

You are a broken record repeating yourself now. No, I have no issues with him having a rich friend who takes him on vacations. Why should I? No, my response was not to say why it is Thomas fault he has is nose in the trough, I was clearly answering your question that: "Why do you think the SCOTUS approval level is below 30% and your country has become a laughing stock?"

Where did I say that? Not thinking that having a rich friend who takes you on vacations is some kind of ethical problem != no standards. I already answered this: "When the left wing pushes a narrative to destroy the SCOTUS reputation backed by their left-wing media campaign to do so... in conjunction with their overturning one of the worst decisions the SCOTUS ever made regarding one of the most politically contentious issues, it is no surprise that their polling is suffering. "

I was not around to screen capture the front pages of all of those news outlets that reported on this... but yeah, lets keep pretending that it was not up on the front page of any of them or that you are not here downplaying what is quite obvious and easily looked up as I just did for you. You are sea lioning. And that is just this one story among the many that have been popping up.

We do not have unlimited access to guns. There are thousands of firearms regulations and restrictions. We have a Second Amendment right to gun ownership, and that is not changing anytime soon. So, lawful gun ownership is a reality. I choose to live in reality. Children get massacred in schools around the world with or without guns. I choose to want to see them protected not just from this but from other forms of school violence as well.

OK, now you are just sea lioning... This was widely reported on at the time: https://www.google.com/search?q=The+view+host+caitlin+clark+white+privilege&sca_esv=da41e541bad3f3b5&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS797US797&ei=RbZnZtD6IerHp84P29iG4AU&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiQsfunwNKGAxXq48kDHVusAVw4ChDx0wN6BAgCEAI&biw=1447&bih=855&dpr=1

I don't think having a wealthy friend who likes to take you on vacations is an ethical issue. You can't actually articulate how this was bad or wrong or impacted anything he was doing professionally.

Yes, I appear to be wrong about crossing the street, but it was still the goon who went out of his way to accost Mike and his son. You completely ignore the main point being made here. That is not false at all. You seem to be one of the many people who don't grasp the difference between assault and battery. Battery is the typical legal term for physically harming someone. You do not need to harm someone to assault them physically. You can find many links to lawyers explaining this: https://www.lomtl.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-assault-and-battery/ It was the goon who went over to them, repeatedly. He instigated this. That is on the video. Houck was standing on the corner, it was the goon who went over to them to instigate this and repeatedly did so. It was only after he kept coming back to try to keep accosting his son was he shoved. If you say crap to someones child, accosting them, you don't get to pretend like you are the victim when a parent protects their child. I am not interested in your sick defense of killing 900,000 babies every year. That is pretty shitty. Yes, assault can be a federal offense depending on who you are assaulting and under what circumstances... he was not charged with assault. He was being vindictively prosecuted for a violation of the FACE act. Yes, all of what you cited has to do with interfering with access to an abortion provider. Which... he was not doing. The goon had to walk over to them and keep coming back to them, that has nothing to do with trying to interfere with someones access to an abortion. That is the point. That is the point you keep ignoring here. That is the only point that matters in why this was a vindictive prosecution. Where was Houck violating the FACE act? He was not. The DOJ had to stretch this to try to get him which is why it took the jury something like an hour to find him innocent. I am not pretending anything. He was the victim. The DOJ sent armed guns drawn FBI agents to arrest him at his home, when they knew he would willingly turn himself in. It was a vindictive show of force. He was never charged for assaulting that goon because all the local investigations watched what happened and seen that it was the goon who instigated this. The DOJ was not going after him for assault, they were going after him for violating the FACE act, which he clearly didn't do.

Of course there is some politics around elected politicians appointing them... but you would make it even more so. That is the point. It is already a consideration people can make in voting for someone. There are constantly judge appointments opening up. You don't need to know an exact date. And? How is he abusing his position now? He has a rich friend who takes him on vacations. That is the summary of what his so-called "abuse" is.

LOL, you are the one pushing Russian propaganda to support their proxy war in the Donbas before their full invasion.

I value spelling. Is being a good speller a plot of the devil now?!

Not necessarily at all. Any Judge worth their salt will be a voracious reader and writer. Every ruling will come down to researching the law and legal precedent. The entire concept of precedent is that there is not change... it is a precedent. The law is the law, it doesn't change based on societies views. It changes when society elects politicians who change it. The law is static and inflexible. Judges interpret the law, and legislators change it. You are mixing them up here. The judiciary is supposed to be above political games like this, which is why it is a life tenure.

Who is feeble-minded? There is a process to remove justices if it comes to such obviousness, and the "life tenure" also comes down to good behavior. They are not supposed to be making laws; they are interpreting them.

You are just obfuscating now. Ukraine has more leverage with NATO/US support, which you oppose. Again, the point being: " you support it ending in the most beneficial way to Russia, on their terms, leaving Ukraine high and dry. "

And you are upset about it... Oh... and what is this injustice you are upset about? Try to follow along.

This is not hard. It is not a black-or-white, 100% good-or-bad question, nor are they 100% equal. In this war, Ukraine is the good, and Russia is the bad. Russia and Ukraine are not equally bad here. Russia is the one who started this war, started all this killing, that you seem to pretend to be so upset about. You are so in the tank for Russia that you can't even admit that, even to a slight degree of difference, Russia is worse. Yet again, you continue to dodge the fact that you don't support giving Ukraine any leverage here. It is not some absurd far fetched position that Russia gives up and completely leaves all territory as you keep building a strawman to argue against. As I said and you keep ignoring: " you support it ending in the most beneficial way to Russia, on their terms, leaving Ukraine high and dry. "

LOL, when confronted with the facts of what they did, you turn to "obligation" I don't care what you think is their "obligation" here or not, it isn't the point. The point is that they did in fact interfere and and provide aid to Biden by all of a sudden deciding not to share factual information to social media when they had been doing so before and were in a meeting with them for that very purpose when asked about this. Wow, talk about a Strawman. They were not being asked to endorse Giuliani or his claims. The narrative that was falsely being pushed was that the entire thing was Russian disinformation, the FBI sat on correcting that lie which in fact did provide support to the Biden campaign.