No, that was you taking something I said and making it into an excuse to constantly express your suppressed desires.

Which we now know was predicated on a pile of evidence that was manufactured.

#11 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

No, you don't "know" that you f^*%ing idiot.

Because it's not real.

Attack the source is all any of you have.

#8 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

It's funny how you always get so mad at us for calling your giant piles of s%^* giant piles of s%*.

Whoah not sure what happened there.

#26 what an idiot. Always with the repressed ---- desires.

tell us you want to go back to the economic good old days of biden economy -I'll wait.

#23 | POSTED BY MSGT

You mean the economy Trump inherited that was terrible until Trump was in charge and performing worse, then it was the greatest economy ever?

tell us you want to go back to the economic good old days of biden economy -I'll wait.

#23 | POSTED BY MSGT

You mean the economy Trump inherited that was terrible until Trump was in charge and performing worse, then it was the greatest economy ever?

tell us you want to go back to the economic good old days of biden economy -I'll wait.

#23 | POSTED BY MSGT

You mean the economy Trump inherited that was terrible until Trump was in charge and performing worse, then it was the greatest economy ever?

tell us you want to go back to the economic good old days of biden economy -I'll wait.

#23 | POSTED BY MSGT

You mean the economy Trump inherited that was terrible until Trump was in charge and performing worse, then it was the greatest economy ever?

tell us you want to go back to the economic good old days of biden economy -I'll wait.

#23 | POSTED BY MSGT

You mean the economy Trump inherited that was terrible until Trump was in charge and performing worse, then it was the greatest economy ever?

tell us you want to go back to the economic good old days of biden economy -I'll wait.

#23 | POSTED BY MSGT

You mean the economy Trump inherited that was terrible until Trump was in charge and performing worse, then it was the greatest economy ever?

Dips^%#s showing they can only think in shallow temporal associations.

Figured it was some brain dead nonsense when I saw "posted by lfthndcuck."

#46 duuuhhhh BoOsTeRz!!

Idiot.

So when are the righties going to take issue with the federal government forcing its way into local matters in such heavy handed, authoritarian ways?

I would have thought, based on y'all's past statements, that a POTUS unilaterally making changes at a local level by decree would have been a big no no...

Given the current demographics, what Trump did was a historic landslide.

More cherry picking, fact free bulls^*% from this stupid mitherf^*%er.

he goes on a historic landslide victory just 4 years later.

Historic?

Hysterical.

Look up Reagan, 1984.

That's historic.

#10 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Look up any election in the last 40 years except W or Trump.

Only a stupid s^*%bag like that a%^hole would call it historic or a landslide.

JPW can't be bothered with caring about women whose lives don't affect him.

Prioritizing other issues over abortion means I don't care about women.

Huh.

News to me.

He regularly speaks out against liberal policies.
#35 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I typically have a more tempered view and am willing to walk away when I think something has gone too far.

That doesn't by any means mean I'm all for GOP policy.

It should be. If they can make you carry a rapists baby inside you they can make you do anything.

#27 | Posted by snoofy

It's too myopic for me. There's a broader umbrella of simply leaving people alone if their actions aren't a danger or threat to others. Then again, I'm a rare breed in politics by being a lefty small L libertarian.

Personally, I think the incessant drumbeat over abortion turns a lot of middle voters off who are all about staying out of people's business but find the fervor of the abortion crowd a little ghoulish.

While it's fun discussing your canned talking points about abortion, that was only a tangential mention in the article. The bigger issue is probably mentioned too far down for you to have read it...

While the task force will still be there in name, its credibility"based on both the vigorous vetting process of its members and the detailed, rigorous review of evidence that takes years to complete"will be shot. As with ACIP, the new members are unlikely to go through any real selection process, and as with the recent ACIP recommendations on vaccines press their own opinions as recommendations against scientific fact.

More worrisome is that these charlatans will now have their thumbs on the scales of what gets paid for by insurers in the United States. Think of someone like RFK Jr. adviser Calley Means, who rails against the "corrupt" US healthcare system while hawking dietary supplements, herbal remedies, and other wellness products on the side. Imagine him or any number of similar people in RFK Jr.'s orbit on the USPSTF. The grift is strong with these people.

While I'm looking forward to my insurance covering Himalayan salt lamps, resonating crystals and all manner of unregulated ground up [insert dubious plant here], I prefer real medicine and real experts making these decisions.

When Democrats had a chance to do what they knew they needed to do to protect abortion, they did nothing, and you kept voting for them.

a. They're better than your s*&^bag team.
b. Abortion isn't that high on my list of priorities.

You have nothing but spoon-fed assumptions of what "democrats" believe or should believe.

It's a bargaining chip and always has been "oh look, they're going to take away abortion if we don't win the house, senate" or what ever federal election is coming up.

You'll get no argument out of me.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't have a seat at any table in any room of any debate that requires an IQ over 70.

LOL

#8 | Posted by lfthndthrds

I hate to break it to you, but you don't have a seat at any table in any room of any debate that requires morality.

Can the constitutional scholar please point to the part of the constitution that guarantees anyone a right to abortion?

#2 | Posted by lfthndthrds

No, but I can point to the part where you're a stupid f(*& who thinks things have to be explicitly mentioned.

Because otherwise, none of what we say here would be covered under the first amendment. Bans on gun parts/upgrades wouldn't hold up because they're not explicitly mentioned in the 2A.

In any case, that's not the point of the thread, dumbs*&^.

Putting a bunch of grifting "wellness" folks in charge of determining what insurers have to cover ... what could possibly go wrong?

Testimony is always leaked when the deep state wants it to be. Not that Democrats need evidence to make an accusation.

#10 | Posted by visitor_

Duhhhhhh DeEp StAtEz!!!

What a ---- idiot.

Your potato-brained, pedo was president from 2021 to 2024 and did nothing with this 'data' - which suggests it does not exist or they would have used it.

#57 | Posted by ScottS

Or, more likely, you're such a stupid pile of s*&^ that you're unaware of how unusual Trump's forced involvement with DoJ is.

You Democrats are dumber than a bucket of pig ----.

#51 | Posted by ScottS

Says the stupid pile of s(*& who's argument boils down to 'everyone isn't as big a corrupt piece of s*&^ as myself or Trump, so it can't be true!'