Note to Democrats

[bigdog]

Democracy doesn't die when Democrats get voted out of office. That seems to
be the Democrats only selling point going into the midterms but the voters
aren't buying it. Democrats have lost control of one or both houses of Congress in the past and will again in the future but our government and our
way of life will be preserved. The voters have nothing to fear.

[Gronk]

bigdog wrote:
> Democracy doesn't die when Republicans get voted out of office. That seems to
> be the Republicans only selling point going into the midterms but the voters
> aren't buying it. Republicans have lost control of one or both houses of Congress in the past and will again in the future but our government and our

[bigdog]

What I wrote and you changed does apply equally to Republicans. One major party or the
other getting voted out of office isn't the death of democracy. It is democracy. When we get
pissed off at the party in power, we throw them out and give the other major party a chance.
Maybe someday we'll give other parties a chance too but I doubt I will live to see it. 2024
would be an opportunity for a third party candidate to do what Trump did in 2016 as a
Republican. Trump was essentially a third party candidate who appealed to rank and file
Republicans and Democrats who were disenchanted with the leadership of their parties.
Trump used that coalition to hijack the Republican Party and now it is his. This opens the
door for a wedge candidate to appeal to centrists in both parties. If there was a Ross Perot
to run in 2024, he/she might do very well. Perot might have actually done better in 1992 had
he not made the inexplicable move of dropping out of the race before getting back in. That
cost him a lot of votes because many people quit taking him seriously. Prior to that, he was
leading both Clinton and Bush in several polls. He ended up getting only 19% of the vote. If
not for that inexplicable move, he might have won some electoral votes, maybe even enough
to deny any candidate an electoral college majority which would have meant the House of
Representatives would have chosen the winner.

[Gronk]

bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:18:57 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> Democracy doesn't die when Republicans get voted out of office. That seems to
>>> be the Republicans only selling point going into the midterms but the voters
>>> aren't buying it. Republicans have lost control of one or both houses of Congress in the past and will again in the future but our government and our
>>> way of life will be preserved. The voters have nothing to fear.
>>>
> What I wrote and you changed does apply equally to Republicans. One major party or the

Yeah right. If that were true, you would have said so.

Now, go back to your bamboo ballots and other nonsense.

[Molly Bolt]

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:13:41 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:18:57 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
> > bigdog wrote:
> > > Democracy doesn't die when Republicans get voted out of office. That seems to
> > > be the Republicans only selling point going into the midterms but the voters
> > > aren't buying it. Republicans have lost control of one or both houses of Congress in the past and will again in the future but our government and our
> > > way of life will be preserved. The voters have nothing to fear.
> > >
> What I wrote and you changed does apply equally to Republicans. One major party or the
> other getting voted out of office isn't the death of democracy.

But the orange messiah getting its ass kicked in 2024 will be the end of trumptardation

[bigdog]

So your point is that anything I don't say can't be true. Weird.

[bigdog]

Who do the Dems have who can kick the Don's ass in 2024. Joe? Kamala? Pete Buttifucker?

Bring it on.

[Molly Bolt]

> Who do the Dems have who can kick the Don's ass in 2024?

this girl should do fine...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROjJL0rLqE4&t=135s

(too young to run but we can let her humiliate the orange messiah in debates)

>
> Bring it on.

more like sleep it on...

"‘Where Is Joe Biden?’ According to Some Strategists, Letting Trump Beat Himself."

https://www.vogue.com/article/where-is-joe-biden-presidential-campaign-trump-coronavirus

[bigdog]

Voters are going to remember the adage, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice,
shame on me.". Biden isn't going to be able to get reelected from his basement.

[bob user]

On 14 May 2022, bigdog <geowri...@gmail.com> posted some
news:f8cd98c6-aaf6-4e88...@googlegroups.com:

I'm still amazed that he got elected while hiding IN his basement.

[pothead]

The media got Biden elected.
Four years of 24x7 attacks on Trump to it's toll. And when Biden weaponized COVID to hide in his
basement the media didn't question it but instead literally ran his campaign for him.

And the entire campaign was bait and switch.
The Biden voters thought they were getting the 40 years in politics moderate Joe Biden and not the
radical far left nut he turned out to be.
They got conned.
We got fucked.


--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

[25.BX945]

Fair points ... but Trump helped defeat Trump as well.
He has a just overbearing, narcissistic, combative
personality with a pinch or two of meanness thrown
into the mix.

This is why I say "DE SANTIS 2024" instead. Trump
has his very useful place, but it's NOT in the WH
anymore.

[Molly Bolt]

Which is why intelligent voters won't vote for the orange baby.

--
As for trumptards, the adage is "fool me once, fool me again many times over"...

"Republicans Voting Against Their Own Interests: It's The Hatred, Stupid..."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-voting-against-their-own-interests-its_b_596cec66e4b07f87578e6ab7

[Molly Bolt]

In 2024, Biden will win sleeping on his bed

[jecorbe...@yahoo.com]

Why don't you bet your life savings on that? All $24.

[Harvey]

On 18 May 2022, "jecorbe...@yahoo.com" <jecorbe...@yahoo.com>
posted some news:803d8355-6739-42a8...@googlegroups.com:

$13 now after Grubhub.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 03:30:36 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Harvey
<lem...@cnn.com> wrote:


>> Why don't you bet your life savings on that? All $24.
>
>$13 now after Grubhub.

It wouldn't surprise me any should Joe choose not to run in 2024.
Methinks that Harris would be a poor choice for president; however,
the Donald is an *absolutely NOT*. I would *hope* people would
remember January 6th; however, GOPpers don't seem to care what he
does.

I voted for Clinton in '16 and Biden in '20 to vote against the
Donald. Given Harris or the Donald, I'd vote for Harris. Hell, I'd
vote for *anybody* before the Donald!

[Scout]

"Harvey" <lem...@cnn.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAE9BD0...@0.0.0.1...

>>> > >> "â?~Where Is Joe Biden?â?T According to Some Strategists

>> , Let
>>> > > ting Trump Beat Himself."
>>> > >>
>>> > >> https://www.vogue.com/article/where-is-joe-biden-presidential-cam
>>> > >> pai
>> gn
>>> > >> -tr
>>> > > ump-coronavirus
>>> > >
>>> > > Voters are going to remember the adage, "Fool me once, shame on
>>> > > you.
>>
>>> > > Fool me twice, shame on me.". Biden isn't going to be able to get
>>> > > reelected from his basement.
>>> > I'm still amazed that he got elected while hiding IN his basement.
>>> In 2024, Biden will win sleeping on his bed
>>
>> Why don't you bet your life savings on that? All $24.
>
> $13 now after Grubhub.

$6 after Bubba...

[Scout]

"Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:qttc8hlqibuh89pe2...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 19 May 2022 03:30:36 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Harvey
> <lem...@cnn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Why don't you bet your life savings on that? All $24.
>>
>>$13 now after Grubhub.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me any should Joe choose not to run in 2024.
> Methinks that Harris would be a poor choice for president; however,
> the Donald is an *absolutely NOT*.

I'm curious.. why exactly do you think Donald is an *absolute NOT*?

What specifically did he do or not do that you think warrants such a
position?

[jecorbe...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 1:08:39 PM UTC-4, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 03:30:36 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Harvey
> <lem...@cnn.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Why don't you bet your life savings on that? All $24.
> >
> >$13 now after Grubhub.
> It wouldn't surprise me any should Joe choose not to run in 2024.
> Methinks that Harris would be a poor choice for president; however,
> the Donald is an *absolutely NOT*. I would *hope* people would
> remember January 6th; however, GOPpers don't seem to care what he
> does.
>

Intelligent people don't give a shit about January 6. It was a protest that got out of hand.
Nothing more.

> I voted for Clinton in '16 and Biden in '20 to vote against the
> Donald. Given Harris or the Donald, I'd vote for Harris. Hell, I'd
> vote for *anybody* before the Donald!

You're even dumber than I thought.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:22:22 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
"jecorbe...@yahoo.com" <jecorbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Intelligent people don't give a shit about January 6. It was a protest that got out of hand.
>Nothing more.

Obviously, we have here a very intuitive mind. Tell us, please, about
"intelligent people".

I won't waste a lot of time with you because, since you didn't use
reason and evidence to arrive at your conclusion, you will be immune
to reason and evidence as a counter argument. Enjoy your easy life.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 18:41:39 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
wrote:

> since you didn't use
>reason and evidence to arrive at your conclusion,

BWAH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah a ha hah a ha ha


"Donations from private individuals mean almost zero to the NRA;
they're mainly funded by dues from individuals and corporations."
-Jones, providing loads of evidence for his non-sensical claim.

[jecorbe...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 7:41:41 PM UTC-4, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:22:22 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
> "jecorbe...@yahoo.com" <jecorbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Intelligent people don't give a shit about January 6. It was a protest that got out of hand.
> >Nothing more.
> Obviously, we have here a very intuitive mind. Tell us, please, about
> "intelligent people".
>

I'm one of them. You're the other guy.

[jecorbe...@yahoo.com]

I should have figured this asshole was a Jonesy sock puppet. It seem pretty obvious now
that you mention it.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 17:43:13 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns

"jecorbe...@yahoo.com" <jecorbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 7:41:41 PM UTC-4, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:22:22 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
>> "jecorbe...@yahoo.com" <jecorbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Intelligent people don't give a shit about January 6. It was a protest that got out of hand.
>> >Nothing more.
>> Obviously, we have here a very intuitive mind. Tell us, please, about
>> "intelligent people".
>>
>I'm one of them. You're the other guy.

Well, this branch of the thread has hit a dead end. Let's back up to:

"It wouldn't surprise me any should Joe choose not to run in 2024.
Methinks that Harris would be a poor choice for president; however,
the Donald is an *absolutely NOT*. I would *hope* people would
remember January 6th; however, GOPpers don't seem to care what he
does."

Now, the point is that January 6 was a clear attempt to block the
peaceful transfer of power... come on, they didn't *really* think they
were on a tour of the capitol. I suspect that many Republicans
believe that the Donald is a poor choice. I would vote for a moderate
Republican over Harris, but another Trump term is DOA.

[jecorbe...@yahoo.com]

Democrats tried to block the peaceful transfer of power in 2001, 2005, and 2017. But that
was OK because there are different rules for Democrats.

[Scout]

<jecorbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e4c94f3d-0a75-467e...@googlegroups.com...

All I can say is that watching months of riots, looting, destruction, arson
and so on.. a little disruption at the capital is meaningless.

So unless they are going to impose the same level of prosecution, and
punishment to the rioters.. then yea, a few people got a bit out of hand
that pales in comparison to the actions of the left wing protestors.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

The 2000 election was essentially a tie... as close to one as we've
ever had, anyway. I voted for Bush in 2000, BTW; I do not recall any
violence from the Democrats. They argued their case and SCOTUS ruled
Bush the winner. End of conversation. Other than the usual spate of
legal challenges, nobody tried to prevent Bush from taking office.

2004, as I recall, wasn't a real close contest. The Republicans were
just beginning their slide to the far right and I was losing any
respect for their leadership; however, I wasn't (yet) about to vote
for Kerry. The Democrats didn't storm the Capitol (... or, if they
did, I never heard about it.)

In 2016, I would have gladly eaten a bug before voting (as I did) for
Hillary, yet, Hillary clearly carried the popular vote by almost 3
million votes... and, yet, again, the Democrats did not smash their
way into the Capitol.

So... perhaps you could be a little bit more specific? You do not
need to reply to *me* in bumper-sticker prose. My attention is
capable of spanning multiple paragraphs. I.e.: you may develop your
position.

[jecorbe...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:44:58 PM UTC-4, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 04:11:17 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
> "jecorbe...@yahoo.com" <jecorbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Democrats tried to block the peaceful transfer of power in 2001, 2005, and 2017. But that
> >was OK because there are different rules for Democrats.
> The 2000 election was essentially a tie... as close to one as we've
> ever had, anyway. I voted for Bush in 2000, BTW; I do not recall any
> violence from the Democrats. They argued their case and SCOTUS ruled
> Bush the winner. End of conversation. Other than the usual spate of
> legal challenges, nobody tried to prevent Bush from taking office.
>

The Democrats tried to block the same electoral college certification process that was
disrupted during the January 6 riot. They did indeed try to block the peaceful transfer of
power.

> 2004, as I recall, wasn't a real close contest. The Republicans were
> just beginning their slide to the far right and I was losing any
> respect for their leadership; however, I wasn't (yet) about to vote
> for Kerry. The Democrats didn't storm the Capitol (... or, if they
> did, I never heard about it.)

You charged that the rioters tried to block the peaceful transfer of power on January 6.
Democrats tried to do the same thing during certification of the 2004 election. This time
several senators joined the effort forcing both houses of Congress to convene separately
to vote on the measure. In this case it was not an attempt to block the peaceful transfer of
power since Bush was already in the White House. It was an attempt to overturn the
election of 2004 and declare John Kerry the winner. Hillary Clinton was one of the senators
who took part in this attempt to overturn the election results.

>
> In 2016, I would have gladly eaten a bug before voting (as I did) for
> Hillary, yet, Hillary clearly carried the popular vote by almost 3
> million votes... and, yet, again, the Democrats did not smash their
> way into the Capitol.
>

For the third time in this century, congressional Democrats tried to overturn the election
and prevent the winner, Donald Trump, from being declared the victor. For the third time
they failed. The Republicans tried the same think in 2021 and also failed. If your keeping
score, that's three times the Democrats tried to overturn the results of the electoral college
to once for the Republicans.

> So... perhaps you could be a little bit more specific?

I just did.

> You do not
> need to reply to *me* in bumper-sticker prose. My attention is
> capable of spanning multiple paragraphs. I.e.: you may develop your
> position.

You're just a clown at a keyboard trying to pretend you're an intellectual, Jonesy.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Fri, 20 May 2022 18:12:22 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns

"jecorbe...@yahoo.com" <jecorbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >Democrats tried to block the peaceful transfer of power in 2001, 2005, and 2017. But that
>> >was OK because there are different rules for Democrats.
>> The 2000 election was essentially a tie... as close to one as we've
>> ever had, anyway. I voted for Bush in 2000, BTW; I do not recall any
>> violence from the Democrats. They argued their case and SCOTUS ruled
>> Bush the winner. End of conversation. Other than the usual spate of
>> legal challenges, nobody tried to prevent Bush from taking office.
>>
>The Democrats tried to block the same electoral college certification process that was
>disrupted during the January 6 riot. They did indeed try to block the peaceful transfer of
>power.

Oh, come on... I was a GOPper in those days and, the way I recall it,
the Dems objected. They argued their case in court... they lost. On
Dec 13, 2000, Al Gore conceded. That's like comparing a case of
flatuance to a gas chamber. You insult your readers' intelligence.

Jan 6, 2021 was like nothing that had ever happened before in United
States history... well, since the War Between the States, anyway.
Some suggest that it was a Southern Democratic contest to the 1860
election.

But if you're suggesting that the Donald actually won the 2020
election, I'll just exit the thread now. I don't argue with morons.

[jecorbe...@yahoo.com]

Talk about insulting the readers' intelligence. Comparing the January 6 protest turned riot to
the Civil War is really moronic. Compared to the BLM and Antifa riots of the previous year, it
was pretty tame. Some property damage. No one was killed by the rioters nor were their any
serious injuries inflicted by them. One rioter was killed by a Capitol cop. A couple more died
of apparent heart attacks. It's hilarious how the same people who called the deadly riots by
BLM and Antifa "mostly peaceful protests" will call the mild riot at the Capitol an insurrection.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

I don't like copying from textbooks; however, my old forensic logic
text explains it well: < QUOTE >"Tu quoque" means "you too," and
consists of responding to allegations of wrong doing by saying, in
essence, "you do the same thing." That response may be true, but it
doesn't deny or explain away the alleged wrongdoing. Tu quoque is also
known as the "you too" fallacy, and the "two wrongs make a right"
fallacy. < /QUOTE >

Now, your point would be valid should I be advocating the election of
"BLM and Antifa" (whoever that is) to a position of national
leadership; however, I don't believe I ever suggested any such thing.

I didn't compare the January 6 riot to the Civil War. I said that
January 6th was: "like nothing that had ever happened before in United
States history", to which I appended: "Well, the civil war..."
Seceding and shelling a Federal military post might be viewed as a
protest against a presidential election, I suppose. If you quote me,
please do so correctly.

Actually, I think we're closer to a societal implosion than most
people think. We have completely lost any ability to compromise.
From 2008 on, each subsequent administration's primary goal has been
tearing down anything accomplished by the previous administration;
only John McCain stood between our healthcare system and Trump's plan
to repeal it. As soon as it becomes an "all or nothing" game,
violence is the next step. Instead of apologizing for Trump and
Antifa, we should be seeking a middle ground... Manchin? McCain?


Reference:
The Power of Logic, 3th Edition. Howard-Snyder, F., Howard-Snyder, D.,
and Wasserman, R. (2013) McMillian (Currently, 6th Ed.)

[jecorbe...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 10:23:03 AM UTC-4, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2022 02:57:42 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
> "jecorbe...@yahoo.com" <jecorbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Talk about insulting the readers' intelligence. Comparing the January 6 protest turned riot to
> >the Civil War is really moronic. Compared to the BLM and Antifa riots of the previous year, it
> >was pretty tame. Some property damage. No one was killed by the rioters nor were their any
> >serious injuries inflicted by them. One rioter was killed by a Capitol cop. A couple more died
> >of apparent heart attacks. It's hilarious how the same people who called the deadly riots by
> >BLM and Antifa "mostly peaceful protests" will call the mild riot at the Capitol an insurrection.
> I don't like copying from textbooks; however, my old forensic logic
> text explains it well: < QUOTE >"Tu quoque" means "you too," and
> consists of responding to allegations of wrong doing by saying, in
> essence, "you do the same thing." That response may be true, but it
> doesn't deny or explain away the alleged wrongdoing. Tu quoque is also
> known as the "you too" fallacy, and the "two wrongs make a right"
> fallacy. < /QUOTE >

It wasn't my intention to explain away January 6, only to put it in context. I was also pointing
out the hypocrisy of the left with their selective outrage at Republicans trying overturn the
2020 election when they had attempted to do the same thing after ever Republican
presidential victory this century. They also failed to condemn the many riots by BLM and
Antifa which were far worse in terms of property damage and loss of life than what
happened on January 6.

>
> Now, your point would be valid should I be advocating the election of
> "BLM and Antifa" (whoever that is) to a position of national
> leadership; however, I don't believe I ever suggested any such thing.

So are you willing to acknowledge these are repulsive organizations are is your outrage
going to remain selective?

>
> I didn't compare the January 6 riot to the Civil War. I said that
> January 6th was: "like nothing that had ever happened before in United
> States history", to which I appended: "Well, the civil war..."
> Seceding and shelling a Federal military post might be viewed as a
> protest against a presidential election, I suppose. If you quote me,
> please do so correctly.
>

Sounds like you just compare January 6 to the Civil War......AGAIN!!!

> Actually, I think we're closer to a societal implosion than most
> people think.

That should be taken care of in November when some semblance of sanity is restored to
the federal government. I have less confidence of that happening any time soon in Democrat
run cities.

> We have completely lost any ability to compromise.

The left's idea of compromise is for the right to cave in on the left's demands. Build Back
Better was a perfect example. They probably could have gotten something passed had they
scaled back on the scope of it but the radical left refused to budge. They pretended to
compromise only by fudging the numbers, not by giving up anything on their wish list.

> From 2008 on, each subsequent administration's primary goal has been
> tearing down anything accomplished by the previous administration;
> only John McCain stood between our healthcare system and Trump's plan
> to repeal it.

Fuck him for that and for the rest of his political career. It's too bad the SAM that took down his jet didn't go up his ass. We never would have heard of John McCain and the country
would be better off.

> As soon as it becomes an "all or nothing" game,
> violence is the next step. Instead of apologizing for Trump and
> Antifa, we should be seeking a middle ground... Manchin? McCain?

Don't lump a great American like Manchin with a piece of shit like McCain.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Sat, 21 May 2022 08:18:26 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
"jecorbe...@yahoo.com" <jecorbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It wasn't my intention to explain away January 6, only to put it in context. I was also pointing
>out the hypocrisy of the left with their selective outrage at Republicans trying overturn the
>2020 election when they had attempted to do the same thing after ever Republican
>presidential victory this century. They also failed to condemn the many riots by BLM and
>Antifa which were far worse in terms of property damage and loss of life than what
>happened on January 6.

On January 6, the POTUS summoned his supporters and instructed them to
"go down there and fight like hell!" (Or words to that effect.)
Nobody is suggesting that the Republicans cannot challenge *anything*
in court. Nobody is saying that the left's shit don't stink.

The reason we should not consider Donald Trump for another term is
Jan. 6, 2021. If you were to point to some specific person who
encouraged and supported "the many riots by BLM and Antifa", then I
would certainly suggest that we should not elect that person, either.

I do not apologize for Antifa's misdeeds... but they're not running
for president. I'm looking at a possible presidential candidate. As
soon as an Antifa candidate announces his or her intent, I'll be happy
to listen to you bring up their statements and actions.

[jecorbe...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 11:41:43 AM UTC-4, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2022 08:18:26 -0700 (PDT), in talk.politics.guns
> "jecorbe...@yahoo.com" <jecorbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >It wasn't my intention to explain away January 6, only to put it in context. I was also pointing
> >out the hypocrisy of the left with their selective outrage at Republicans trying overturn the
> >2020 election when they had attempted to do the same thing after ever Republican
> >presidential victory this century. They also failed to condemn the many riots by BLM and
> >Antifa which were far worse in terms of property damage and loss of life than what
> >happened on January 6.
> On January 6, the POTUS summoned his supporters and instructed them to
> "go down there and fight like hell!" (Or words to that effect.)

He told them to protest peacefully. Funny how you left that part out.

> Nobody is suggesting that the Republicans cannot challenge *anything*
> in court. Nobody is saying that the left's shit don't stink.
>
> The reason we should not consider Donald Trump for another term is
> Jan. 6, 2021.

Because he told his supporters to protest peacefully?

> If you were to point to some specific person who
> encouraged and supported "the many riots by BLM and Antifa", then I
> would certainly suggest that we should not elect that person, either.

Because there were lots of people who encouraged them, I guess that makes it OK.

>
> I do not apologize for Antifa's misdeeds... but they're not running
> for president. I'm looking at a possible presidential candidate. As
> soon as an Antifa candidate announces his or her intent, I'll be happy
> to listen to you bring up their statements and actions.

And still you refuse to condemn Antifa or BLM for actions which were far more reprehensible
than anything that happened on January 6. Stick your selective outrage up your ass.

[Gronk]

bigdog wrote:

> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:56:35 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:18:57 AM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
>>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>>> Democracy doesn't die when Republicans get voted out of office. That seems to

>>>>> be the Republicans only selling point going into the midterms but the voters

>>>>> aren't buying it. Republicans have lost control of one or both houses of Congress in the past and will again in the future but our government and our
>>>>> way of life will be preserved. The voters have nothing to fear.
>>>>>

>>> What I wrote and you changed does apply equally to Republicans. One major party or the
>> Yeah right. If that were true, you would have said so.

And that still stands.

>> Now, go back to your bamboo ballots and other nonsense.
>
> So your point is that anything I don't say can't be true. Weird.
>

[Self-made queers]

On 18 May 2022, Molly Bolt <mollyth...@gmail.com> posted some
news:92d812a7-f2d3-4917...@googlegroups.com:

> The other element is Bisphenol A (BPA). Every time you faggots in
> waiting drink a Red Bull, you are killing your sperm and altering your
> hormones to be a bitch.

Male sperm count has fallen by more than 50% globally in the last 50
years, leaving researchers scrambling to understand why. Could it be
pollution, PFAS and other potential toxins in our food and water, an
increase in obesity and chronic disease, or even the ever-present mobile
phone?

A new study explored the role of cell phones and found men between the
ages of 18 and 22 who said they used their phones more than 20 times a
day had a 21% higher risk for a low overall sperm count. The men also
had a 30% higher risk for a low sperm concentration, a less important
measure of sperm count in a milliliter of semen. The study did not
specify whether the men called or texted or used their phones to do
both.

On the positive side, researchers found that as phone technology
improved over the 13 years of the study, the impact on sperm count began
to ease.

“I am intrigued by the observation that the biggest effect was
apparently seen with older 2G and 3G phones compared to modern 4G and 5G
versions. This is not something I am able to explain,” said Allan Pacey,
deputy vice president and deputy dean of the faculty of biology,
medicine and health at the University of Manchester in the United
Kingdom, in a statement. He was not involved in the study.

Another plus: There was no decline in the shape and motility of the
sperm, which refers to the way sperm swim to their destination,
according to the study.

“Whilst sperm numbers matter, the ability of sperm to swim, have healthy
intact DNA and be the right shape, is at least as important,” said
Alison Campbell, chief scientific officer of Care Fertility, a network
of fertility clinics, in a statement.

“This is a fascinating and novel study which should not cause alarm or
drastic changes in habits,” said Campbell, who was not involved in the
study. “Men looking to conceive, or wanting to improve their sperm
health should exercise (but not overheat in their groin area), eat a
balanced diet, maintain a healthy weight, avoid smoking and limit
alcohol and seek help if they are having problems conceiving.”

An electronic field
Mobile phones have become indispensable parts of our lives. However,
cell phones do emit low-level radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, or
RF-EMF. If those cell phones are emitting at maximum power, the study
said, surrounding tissue can be heated up to 0.5 degrees Celsius or
about 33 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Cell phones are constantly sending and receiving signals and they are
going to receive and send more intense signals when they’re in use,”
said Dr. Alexander Pastuszak, an assistant professor of surgery and
urology at The University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City.

“But especially with the modern cell phone, like that signal is going to
vary depending on whether you’re talking or whether you’re sending data,
said Pastuszak, who was not involved in the study.

Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are greatly reduced when texting
and highest when downloading large files, streaming audio or video, when
only one or two bars are displayed, and when in a fast-moving bus, car
or train, according to the California Department of Public Health.

The agency recommends keeping the phone away from the body and head —
use the speakerphone or headphones instead — and carry the phone in a
backpack in a backpack, briefcase or purse.

Whether those fields can actually damage male fertility, however, has
been a source of controversy and debate for years in the scientific
community.

Studies in mice have found RF-EMF fields at levels similar to cell
phones do lower male fertility and contribute to sperm death and changes
in the tissue of the testes. However, other animal studies have not
replicated those effects, and there are huge differences between humans
and mice in how sperm are created.

Observational studies in humans have also found that frequent use of
mobile phones was connected to a decline in sperm viability as well as
an impact on how the sperm swam. But those studies have been small and
short. And they didn’t necessarily control for factors such as smoking
and alcohol consumption, leaving many scientists unimpressed.

“I have been asked many times over the past decade whether there is any
link between mobile phones and male fertility. However, I have been
largely unconvinced by the data which has been published to date,” Pacey
said.

“However, (this) study is a little step forward in the debate because
this is a large epidemiological study which appears to have been very
well conducted,” he said. “It is a study in the real world — and that is
good in my opinion. However, we should be cautious about its
interpretation as it only shows an association between mobile phone use
and semen quality.”

Young military men
Men could choose whether they carried their cell phone in a trouser
pocket, breast pocket, belt carrier or elsewhere, but over 85% of them
placed their phones in their pants pocket when not in use.

Results showed that men who used their phones one to five times a day or
less than once a week had much higher sperm counts and concentration. As
cell phone usage climbed, sperm count dropped, with the lowest levels
among men using their phone 20 or more times a day.

Researchers also evaluated the impact of cell phones over different
periods of time. The greatest association between low sperm count and
concentration and phone use were between 2005 and 2007. As companies
moved from 2G up to 5G, the association weakened, in line with the
“corresponding decrease in the phone’s output power,” the study said.

“It’s very, very difficult to draw a definitive conclusion from this
type of study because it’s not controlled well enough to be able to do
that,” Pastuszak said. “They can’t control for the day-to-day exposures
of living in an urban environment, and those should not be understated.
Even stress levels can impact spermatogenesis and hormone production.”

As an infertility expert who works daily with couples trying to
conceive, Pastuszak points to the fascinating complexity of factors that
impact infertility, for which sperm count and concentration are minor
players.

“Total sperm count may not reflect actual decreases in fertility
potential,” he said. “I can’t look a patient in the eye and say, just
because you have 100 million sperm per milliliter with 50% motility and
a sperm count of 500 million, that you’re going to be fertile,” he said.

“It’s the quality of sperm that counts. If you have quality sperm there
is a good, decent or even great chance that you can have a child, even
if you have just a literal handful of sperm.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/health/mobile-phone-sperm-count-wellness?c
id=external-feeds_iluminar_msn