Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
NO, it does not follow. It took live hearings to publicly bring out the evidence against Nixon. Watch history repeat.
Instead of about a cheap burglary and coverup this one will be about grand theft, and coverup.
You're fucking kidding, right? Trump is and has been a self-dealing, lying, POS for his entire professional life.
He had a 'proclivity' to pay off a porn star days before the election.
He had a proclivity to use a Sharpie to falsify a federal doc.
There are enough obstructions of justice in the Mueller report to provide one impeachment count alone.
YOU have proclivities toward self-delusion, hypocrisy, double standards, false equivalence and moral imbecility.
They didn't? LOL!
Donald Trump is a deeply stupid man who routinely gets his ass kicked on the world stage
Mirrored by his supporters who also have a case of the 'deep stupid'.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/9/15/1885047/-Donald-Trump-is-a-deeply-stupid-man-who-routinely-gets-his-ass-kicked-on-the-world-stage
Donald Trump is a deeply stupid man who routinely gets his ass kicked on the world stage
Laurence Lewis for Daily Kos
Sunday September 15, 2019 · 11:40 AM EDT
snip//
Republican presidents are dangerous to national and world security, but none more than Trump. By breaking the deal with Iran, Trump gave Iran the incentive to resume its arms program, which they have done. Which makes the world less safe. Because that's what Trump's ineptitude does: make the world less safe.
Trump's lickspittle Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was outraged that Iran was again ramping up its nuclear weapons program, nevermind why. And with tensions again rising, Trump did what he always does on the world stage: He got his ass kicked.
Now he's considering giving Iran $15 billion dollars in credit to get back in compliance with the deal with which it had always been in compliance—until Trump gave them the incentive not to be. That's Trump's artistry in making deals: getting his ass kicked.
snip//
Trump's trade war already has cost 300,000 American jobs. And every time he opens his mouth about China, the American stock markets get spooked. And then after threatening to escalate his trade war, Trump backed down, and now desperately wants to find a way out of yet another crisis that is entirely of his own making. Because he has no idea what he’s doing. Because he is a deeply stupid man who routinely gets his ass kicked on the world stage.
This would be funny if it weren't so serious. Trump's trade war could devastate the American economy. A nuclear armed Iran would be bad for everyone. A North Korea that is ramping up its nuclear program is bad for everyone. And that the guy who sits at the big desk in the Oval Office is a deeply stupid man who routinely gets his ass kicked on the world stage also is bad for everyone.
Except for those foreign leaders who routinely kick his ass.
Bullshit. There ARE Russian GRU personnel indicted, Trump associates lying about their contacts with Russians also indicted and Putin in Helsinki stating that he wanted Trump to win.
Also, the treasonous POS you support lost the popular vote by nearly 3M votes.
You mean the way that Putin and the Russians did?
'False accusations without recrimination' is a puzzler.
I guess Trump believes accusations, false or otherwise, deserve retaliatory accusations/tweets.
Definition of recrimination: a retaliatory accusation
Kabul Relieves Traffic Congestion By Creating Car Bomb Lane
Published 2 hours ago on September 15, 2019
By Jack S. McQuack
ABUL, Afghanistan — Residents of Kabul are enjoying shorter commute times on the Kandahar–Kabul Highway thanks to the recent completion of a designated car bomb toll lane, sources report.
“For over 18 years motorists had to endure expressways choked with vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), resulting in driver frustration, spilled coffee, and premature detonations due to excessive delays,” said Minster of Transportation and Civil Aviation Muhammad Hamid Tahmasi.
“Now,” continued Tahamsi, “with the patent-pending FastBlast® app, drivers can prepay their tolls and rest assured that they will reach their destination on-time and on-target.”
In addition to helping jihadists deliver their payloads in record time, the $2 billion project funded by the US Army Corps of Engineers is a surprising new stream of revenue for both the Afghan government and local businesses in the postwar draw down.
“We are definitely seeing a lot of new foreign investment in the fertilizer and ball bearing industries,” said Minister of Commerce and Industries Anwar ul-Haq Ahady. “Plus, we are providing generous electric car bomb incentives to help aspiring domestic terrorists ‘go green.'”
“Not to mention jobs in the local funeral industry are skyrocketing,” added Ahady. “Certainly a great time to not be alive!”
US officials applauded Afghanistan’s growing economy and voiced their commitment to its continued success by tentatively pledging billions of dollars to various local rebel factions for decades to come.
https://www.duffelblog.com/2019/09/kabul-relieves-traffic-congestion-by-creating-car-bomb-lane/
The last pic in particular. Quiet as mice pissing on cotton are GOPERS on the debt when they're running it the fuck sky high.
Why they've been known to wear tri-corner hats and completely lose their shit when there is no CHOICE but for the gov to spend to extricate us from the goddamned recessions they leave on the doorstep like a burning bag of shit for Dem presidents, like clockwork.
Remember the huge rush by GOPERS to condemn this guy with the 'wide stance'? Me neither.
Don't recall anyone here defending Avenatti after his crimes became apparent, which is very much unlike you idiots ignoring Trump's abundant crimes and stupidities and laughably, unsuccessfully, defending the indefensible.
My point stands.
Actually he hates what people do in the name of religion. He did a movie about it.
Ah, how quickly you dumb-ass righties extract something you like from a liberal while ignoring his copious rips of conservatism.
Anti-Trump tshirt
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212464604
Will you post his comments when he rips the shit out of Trump, as he has and will again?
You should stop and think before you post remarks from people you loathe, they will always come back to disappoint you.
So if Trump actually refuses to quit after losing the 2020 election — what happens then?
It's a nightmare scenario: His defeat was "fake news," and Trump tries to stay in power. Would democracy survive?
I like option #4 below. Let get the Joint Chiefs on the record about where they stand on this potential issue. You KNOW they're discussing it amongst themselves. "Let's hope the civilians dick around with this so that we can roll those tanks up PA Avenue for a purpose that Cadet Bone Spur never envisioned".
https://www.salon.com/2019/06/23/so-if-trump-actually-refuses-to-quit-after-losing-the-2020-election-what-happens-then/
A February editorial for CNN by Joshua A. Geltzer, the executive director and visiting professor of law at Georgetown Law Center's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, offered some clues as to how our institutions might come through.
Geltzer argued that there were four ways in which the mechanisms of American democracy could save the day.
First he brought up the Electoral College, arguing that both parties could require anyone seeking to be an elector to promise not to delay, withhold or alter their vote based on the objections of a candidate. Then he suggested that members of Congress (and candidates) could make a similar pledge, since it's their job to count the electoral votes.
Geltzer also suggested that Congress could "pledge to hold public hearings with intelligence community leaders should those officials or any candidate suggest that vote counts were influenced by foreign election interference or for any other reason. That unvarnished testimony by intelligence professionals could debunk any claims by Trump (or any other candidate) that the final vote count shouldn't be honored."
Next Geltzer speculated that America's 50 governors — 39 of whom won't be up for reelection in 2020 — could vow to stand behind whoever the rightful winner is, regardless of whether they supported that candidate in the election.
Finally and perhaps most disturbingly, he suggested that the military could save democracy, writing that if Trump loses "the military would no longer owe its loyalty to Donald Trump as of noon on January 20, 2021. And it's worth asking the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as they testify before Congress in coming months, to affirm that they understand that and would act consistently with it."
There is one more possibility that Geltzer did not take into consideration. If Trump contests the election results through the judicial system, the election could wind up being decided in the Supreme Court. This is not just conceivable but entirely plausible, since it happened before with the Bush v. Gore decision of 2000. But there could be a crucial difference. Al Gore clearly disagreed with the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that put Bush in the White House, but he accepted it without question.
By contrast, one would expect Donald Trump to refuse to accept any Supreme Court ruling that goes against him, eagerly citing the words of any dissenting opinion to support his claims. Chief Justice John Roberts might then find himself in a position not unlike that of Chief Justice Earl Warren nearly 70 years ago.
When the Warren court decided the fate of segregation in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, Warren understood that the ruling had to be unanimous. Warren himself was firmly against racial discrimination, but knew that defenders of racism would seize upon even a single dissenting vote as justification for defiance and confrontation.
Roberts, although a conservative, is well-known as an advocate for judicial nonpartisanship. One theory holds that he voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act mostly because he didn't want the Supreme Court to be viewed as a wing of the Republican Party, and may make the same choice in a vote on whether to overturn Roe v. Wade.
As Warren did, Roberts would need to convince the other judges to unanimously reject any spurious election claims by Trump — if only to ensure that the court retains some vague claims to impartiality. It wouldn't be enough for Roberts to side with more liberal judges in a 5-4 or 6-3 decision.
He'd somehow have to convince Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas to set aside their obvious political preferences and go along with a 9-0 ruling on the legitimacy of the election results. How likely does that sound to you?
It's also possible, of course, that things will never reach that stage. Famed civil liberties attorney and former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz insists that concerns about Trump not stepping down are exaggerated. "No president will refuse to step down if his opponent is elected in his place," Dershowitz told Salon. "It just will not happen, and the American public would never tolerate it." Dershowitz is known to have spoken out in Trump's defense on the question of impeachment and related topics, so perhaps he knows something the rest of us don't.
Not surprised that your memory is failing. If Obama did nothing OTHER than prevent the fucked up economy, handed to him by another GOPER tax cut and spend like a drunken sailor nitwit, from sliding into a Depression, it was enough.
Doesn't matter if you don't agree with any of it, it's far more than the one term disaster will ever be able to claim.
https://www.good.is/articles/obamas-achievements-in-office
1 – Rescued the country from the Great Recession, cutting the unemployment rate from 10% to 4.7% over six years
2 – Signed the Affordable Care Act which provided health insurance to over 20 million uninsured Americans
3 – Ended the war in Iraq
4 – Ordered for the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden
5 – Passed the $787 billion America Recovery and Reinvestment Act to spur economic growth during the Great Recession
6 – Supported the LGBT community’s fight for marriage equality
7 – Commuted the sentences of nearly 1200 drug offenders to reverse “unjust and outdated prison sentences”
8 – Saved the U.S. auto industry
9 – Helped put the U.S. ontrack for energy independence by 2020
10 – Began the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan
11 – Signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals allowing as many as 5 million people living in the U.S. illegally to avoid deportation and receive work permits
12 –Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to re-regulate the financial sector
13 – Dropped the veteran homeless rate by 50 percent
14 – Reversed Bush-era torture policies
15 – Began the process of normalizing relations with Cuba
16 – Increased Department of Veteran Affairs funding
17 – Signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act
18 – Boosted fuel efficiency standards for cars
19 – Improved school nutrition with the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act
20 – Repealed the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy
21 – Signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, making it a federal crime to assault anyone based on sexual or gender identification
22 – Helped negotiate the landmark Iran Nuclear Deal
23 – He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to combat pay discrimination against women
24 – Nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, making her the first Hispanic ever to serve as a justice
25 – Supported veterans through a $78 billion tuition assistance GI bill
26 – Won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”
27 – Launched My Brother’s Keeper, a White House initiative designed to help young minorities achieve their full potential
28 – Expanded embryonic stem cell research leading to groundbreaking work in areas including spinal injury treatment and cancer
After patriotism 'your mom's basement' is the 2nd to last refuge of a scoundrel and the first refuge of an idiot with no imagination or originality.
Bullshit, you've seen the videos of him saying he wouldn't have time for golf. Everything the asshole does is done to excess.
And of course he ripped Obama for golfing and presidentin' without a birth certificate.
The man has no honor, no integrity, no character, no brains and no balls.
Trump IS the enemy of the people, s'why so many people hold him up to ridicule, show him contempt, indicate they won't be fooled again.
As soon as you apologize for Trump's far more numerous and far more costly self dealings at taxpayer expense, asshole.
Fuel bills for all of that golfing he swore he wouldn't have time for would be a good start.
Only a moral imbecile demands apology for a mistake while not demanding same, many times over, from President Used Urinal Cake.
While you're at it apologize for Sharpiegate too, dimwit
Colonel Sanders' original fried chicken recipe was stolen from a black woman named Miss Childress.
Finger Lickin' Perplexin'?
Rating
Unproven
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colonel-sanders-kfc-miss-childress/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Debunker%20-%20Saturday%20September%2014%202019%20-%20Did%20Col%20Sanders%20Steal%20the%20Recipe%20for%20KFC%20-%20recrAQIwLvxgNbcQS&utm_content=Daily%20Debunker%20-%20Saturday%20September%2014%202019%20-%20Did%20Col%20Sanders%20Steal%20the%20Recipe%20for%20KFC%20-%20recrAQIwLvxgNbcQS+CID_27bbcb2a4ec039998846887ba6eae8e4&utm_source=CampaignMonitor&utm_term=Read%20more
Origin
In September 2019, we received multiple inquiries from readers regarding an old story about the origins of the famous KFC original recipe — the blend of herbs and spices that went into creating “Colonel” Harland Sanders’ original Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The African Diaspora Facebook page wrote: “Meet Mrs. Childress. Colonel Sanders Stole His Famous Fried Chicken Recipe From A Black Woman Named Mrs. Childress. He later paid her $1,200 for her recipe. KFC is worth 15 Billion Dollars today.” That text was accompanied by the following image:
On Sept. 3, a Facebook account with the name Glenn Dickens wrote, “In case you didn’t know. Meet Miss Childress, she died in poverty. She is the woman behind the original #KFC recipe. He took all her profits and made us think it was his recipe.”
In recent years, this story has appeared in many other social media posts, memes, and articles, all of them claiming that the recipe that made Sanders rich and gave rise to one of the most popular fast-food chains in American history was initially stolen from a black woman (sometimes named “Mrs. Childress,” sometimes “Miss Childress,” and in some instances not named).
Many iterations of the story hold that Sanders later handed over the relatively meager amount of $1,200 after getting pressured by the woman’s family, and most posts include an image of an African American woman preparing fried chicken in a kitchen, describing her as “Miss Childress.”
In reality, the image was taken from a 1920s magazine advertisement for Snowdrift shortening, one that played on racist and painfully outdated stereotypes of that era, and depicted the woman (named only as “Sarah”) as an exemplar of the racist “mammy” caricature — a cheerful, black, female domestic servant to white families, especially in the segregation-era American South.
Source: University of Illinois
It’s possible the image is a photograph, but it is perhaps more likely a painting, since the norm for popular American magazines in the 1920s — such as Ladies’ Home Journal, where the “Sarah” advertisement was published — was for photographs to be printed in black and white, with illustrations presented in color. It’s not clear who the woman depicted in the advertisement was or on whom she was modeled, so we cannot rule out the possibility that she was the “Miss Childress” described in the KFC memes.
Also, evidence is lacking in support of the main claim — that Sanders stole his famous original fried chicken recipe from a black woman named Miss Childress. A 2010 blog post claimed that: “Ron Douglas in ‘America’s Most Wanted Recipes’ says that Sanders took his secret recipe from a black woman, one Miss Childress of Kentucky, whose family he paid $1,200 when they complained.” However, Douglas’ book does not, in fact, make any such claim.
We found no evidence to support the “Miss Childress” story in a newspaper archive that stretches back more than 100 years, and the prominent food writer Joshua Ozersky made no mention of Sanders’ having stolen the recipe from a specific black woman, in his widely cited 2003 biography “Colonel Sanders and the American Dream.”
The version of events presented there by Ozersky is the conventionally accepted one: Sanders set up a gas station in Corbin, Kentucky, during the 1930s, then began serving food there, including fried chicken. His food and hospitality garnered the gas station a good reputation among passing travelers, and he eventually converted the business into a restaurant and motel.
Sanders settled upon a blend of 11 herbs and spices that went into making his fried chicken, but according to Ozersky, the real key to its success was Sanders’ innovation of using a pressure cooker rather than a deep pan. In later years, Sanders franchised out the use of his recipe to restaurants across the United States, and from there the iconic brand emerged.
While Ozersky cited no specific act of intellectual property theft on the part of Sanders, he did allude to the racial tensions and cultural appropriation involved in the development of fried chicken in the early 20th century American South, writing that Sanders embodied the following “paradox”:
“Anyone who knew anything of the South knew that no Kentucky colonel would have cooked the fried chicken in a southern household; the chicken in prosperous southern households, particularly in the Colonel’s era, was inevitably cooked by a black maid or family housekeeper. Colonel Sanders created an alternative reality in which the white planter not only ate the chicken but implicitly made it. Nothing could have been further from the truth.”
We also put the “Miss Childress” story to Psyche Williams-Forson, chair of the department of American Studies at the University of Maryland College Park, an expert in the interaction of food, cultural history and women’s studies and author of the 2006 book “Building Houses Out of Chicken Legs: Black Women, Food and Power.”
She told us she had found “no direct evidence that Colonel Sanders ‘stole’ the KFC recipe from an African American woman,” and had come across no information that indicated Sanders later paid the woman $1,200 under pressure from her family.
However, Williams-Forson emphasized that a history does exist of white entrepreneurs and chefs taking recipes from African American women and men, without giving them proper credit. She pointed to the example of Idella Parker, who was a long-time maid to the white cookbook author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, and later an author in her own right. In her 2006 book, Williams-Forson wrote:
“The cookbook, according to Parker, required ‘months and months together’ in Rawlings’ tiny kitchen extracting the recipes from ‘[Parker’s] hands and head.’ [Parker] says: ‘Many of the recipes in the book were mine, but [Rawlings] only gave me credit for three of them, including ‘Idella’s biscuits.’ There were several others that were mine too, such as the chocolate pie, and of course it was me who did most of the cooking when we were trying the recipes out.’
“In the end, Parker, whose many contributions made the cookbook a reality, only received an autographed copy. But of this she says, ‘in those days I was grateful for any little crumb that white people let fall, so I kept my thoughts about the cookbook strictly to myself.'”
More broadly, Williams-Forson told us, “some black women who performed domestic service had their recipes improperly ‘borrowed.'” She added:
“Given that throughout enslavement and long after, African American and white women often worked together in the kitchen instructing and cooking various recipes, it is quite difficult to make a strong assertion of whose recipe belongs to whom. The issue, however, is that African American women were never credited in cookbooks. How is this possible given the proven evidence of African American culinary skill?”
Despite the absence of documentary evidence to support the “Miss Childress” theory, Williams-Forson outlined the reasons why it should not be dismissed, writing to us in an email:
“This is not to say it did not happen. I am saying I did not find this evidence. And where might this evidence be uncovered? Would Sanders have acknowledged it? Might the African American family have kept a receipt? This is a needle in a haystack because it happened so often to African Americans, who were denied the opportunity to read and write, and thus were unable to document their culinary practices.”
Although we have found no evidence to support the claim, it is possible that Sanders did directly steal his fried chicken recipe from a specific African American woman, who may or may not have been named Childress. If he did, it is also plausible that no documentary evidence of that act of plagiarism ever existed, or that if it did, it has not survived.
Alternatively, Sanders might have borrowed and taken elements of several fried chicken recipes, perhaps some of them invented by, or passed down or shared between, African American women — in the way that many recipes evolve and change over the years.
“Miss Childress” might simply be a stand-in or symbolic victim in the wider legacy of appropriation and intellectual property theft that characterized much of the cultural relations between whites and blacks in early 20th-century America. Until and unless we obtain concrete evidence that clears up that uncertainty, we are issuing a rating of “Unproven.”
My oversight, sorry. But the support is understandable because 'end times' theology triumphs over right to life dogma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
Fewer women are having abortions. Why?
Alia E. Dastagir, USA TODAYPublished 3:59 p.m. ET June 13, 2019 | Updated 7:17 a.m. ET June 17, 2019
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/13/abortion-law-fewer-women-having-abortions-why/1424236001/
Pro-life advocates tend to be skeptical about contraception.
"I think we have to be careful trying to assign this as the silver bullet — that this is what's driving the abortion decline," said Melanie Israel, a research associate at the Heritage Foundation's DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society.
Well of course they are skeptical and 'careful'. They can't allow the experience, the data, Re comprehensive sex education and contraception to triumph over the hope of abstinence ONLY education. Because everyone knows that a stern talking to about 'naughty parts' is all that human nature requires.
In the first half of 2019, several states have passed some of the most restrictive abortion bans since Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973. The new laws are part of a nearly decade-long wave of anti-abortion legislation that pro-life activists see as key to reducing and eventually eliminating abortion in the U.S.
Is it working?
A 2018 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the national abortion rate declined 26% between 2006 and 2015, reaching a historic low. But the CDC did not credit a single driver. Is it the proliferation of restrictive abortion laws? Increased access to contraception? More comprehensive sex education?
Mary Ziegler, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law who specializes in the legal history of reproduction, says it's likely all of it.
"The picture is messy and complicated and cannot be reduced to talking points," she said.
Better birth control and more of it
The vast majority of abortions are a result of unplanned pregnancies, according to the CDC. Its data shows the number of unintended pregnancies decreased from 51% in 2008 to 45% between 2011 and 2013, noting that more women using contraception and more effective forms of contraception like intrauterine devices, might be factors.
Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization that advances sexual and reproductive health and rights, says Obamacare could also be contributing to the decline. The Affordable Care Act's federal contraceptive coverage guarantee applies to most private health plans, requiring coverage for a wide array of contraceptives used by women without any out-of-pocket costs.
The change made it possible, Nash said, for women to choose the method of contraception that best suited them, versus what they could afford.
Ginny Ehrlich, chief executive officer of Power to Decide, a campaign to prevent unplanned pregnancy, says while contraception is more widely available, there are still more than 20 million women in need of publicly funded contraception — which refers to government programs that provide contraception to low-income women. She said 19.5 million of those women currently live in so-called contraceptive deserts, defined as lacking "reasonable access in their county to a health center that offers the full range of contraceptive methods."
Many of these areas are in states passing some of the most restrictive abortion laws.
In Alabama, which passed a near-total abortion ban in May, more than 300,000 women need publicly funded contraception but live in contraceptive deserts, according to Power to Decide. In Missouri, which could become the only state without an abortion facility, that number is nearly 400,000. In Ohio, lack of access affects more than 700,000 women, and in Georgia, nearly 650,000 women are affected.
WHERE IS ABORTION LEGAL?: Everywhere. But ...
The CDC says providing free contraception to women would likely further reduce unwanted pregnancies and in turn abortion rates. It's why Power to Decide and other groups are advocating to make oral contraceptives available over the counter for free.
A 2018 study found nearly one in four adults and teens who aren't using contraception said they would use it if it was available over the counter.
So why hasn't it happened yet? The medical community is largely behind it, and the conversion also appears to have bipartisan support.
A focus on comprehensive sex education
Between 2006 and 2015, the abortion rate for girls between 15 and 19 plummeted 54%. Teen pregnancy rates are also down, reaching a record low in 2017.
The CDC says evidence suggests that more teens are abstaining from sex and that more teens who are sexually active are using birth control.
Some experts point to comprehensive sex education, defined as "age-appropriate, medically-accurate information on a broad set of topics related to sexuality," as one factor that may be changing behaviors that put teens at risk of pregnancy.
'BAD FOR BUSINESS': Major companies sign joint letter against abortion bans
"If you think about those years, that's when we were putting more funding into comprehensive sex ed. There was more funding available for programs that discussed condoms and contraception," said Jennifer Driver, state policy director at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). "During that period, we were moving away from abstinence-until-marriage programs."
Research shows teens who receive comprehensive sex education are significantly less likely to become pregnant than those who receive abstinence-only or no sex education.
Driver said many states with restrictive abortion laws, including Alabama and Georgia, also heavily stress abstinence-until-marriage in their sex ed programs.
More restrictive laws
Experts say the surge in abortion restrictions is making the procedure more difficult to access for women who live in states that pass them, especially poor women.
The CDC's 2018 report on the declining abortion rate says that in addition to more contraceptive use, the availability of abortion providers and regulations such as mandatory waiting periods and parental consent could also be contributing to fewer women having abortions.
Texas, for example, has passed a number of restrictions on abortion in the last several years and saw a 28% decline in the abortion rate between 2011 and 2014, according to Guttmacher.
If the recent surge of abortion restrictions goes into effect, Nash said "it might make it impossible for a number of patients to get the care they need."
Abortion decline isn't a shared goal
In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," a slogan that persisted among Democrats for years. It was a position on which pro-choice and pro-life activists could ostensibly agree, since it implied abortion is something to avoid.
Pro-choice advocates have moved from framing abortion as something that should be "rare" to something that should be accessible to any woman who needs it, though they strongly advocate for policies that reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which in turn reduces the need for abortion. Pro-life advocates say eliminating abortion is a chief goal and they view pro-life legislation as a key way to accomplish it.
"The pro-life movement is ultimately seeking the day that every human being is both protected in law and welcomed in life," Israel said. "There's acknowledgment that there's a public policy piece of this, but there's also a cultural side. If abortion were suddenly illegal tomorrow, that's not going to change hearts and minds. The movement wants to make abortion unthinkable."
Meanwhile, pro-choice activists are focused on making abortion part of healthcare, a reproductive service any woman can access uneventfully if she chooses.
"Conversations about reducing the abortion rate can stigmatize people who have abortions," Nash said. "It's about giving people the access they need when they need it. We need to be able to trust people to make decisions they know are best for them."
There is no clear reason why abortion is declining in the U.S. And there isn't agreement that a decline is even desirable.
"We've changed what was an undeniable consensus — that reducing abortion was the goal," Ziegler said. "Now we're looking at whether the decline in abortion rates is something to be celebrated or worried about."
Hey moron, the Feds don't pay for 'abortion clinics' and without the misnamed 'entitlement programs'....they are buy-in through payroll tax withholding....Red State America would be hurt the worst.
Look it up ignoramus; higher per capita Medicaid, SSDI and Snap benefits in States that get more back than they pay in.
You won't look it up because you know that you won't like what you find.
Ironic that you would someday be policing up the evidence of 'questionable brain waves', chiefly incoherent fact challenged argumentation, on a device that didn't exist on a network that DARPA had yet to create.
http://techland.time.com/2012/07/25/how-government-did-and-didnt-invent-the-internet/
Sometimes I think they're just a dead give away.
“While it does not appear any of the cadets were able to translate their fake military status into getting laid, the vast majority did attempt to get free apps at the local Chili’s every Veterans’ Day.”
Dblog, Shower Cap and The Rude Pundit are fuckin' catnip to me.
Oh it's memory. My brother took me to see every war movie made in the 50's. He knew he wanted to be a pilot.
Then he wanted to fly jets, the USMC said helicopters for you son.
He did end up as a pilot for UA. I guess flying a copter in Nam satisfied UA that he could probably be trained to pilot fixed wing.
We both got a good laugh out of "before you get to sell what we teach you over at United AIRlines…
I credit this shit. I remember the trailer in the theater. It WAS the time of the 'evil empire' and the military told Reagan when he inquired about going into Central America...'we don't do jungles anymore'....but the Russians were coming nonetheless.
Wolverines!!
Bring it, Wolverine. A couple of companies of paratroopers, Marines, automatic weapons, grenade launchers, air and arty, and we'll be able to *smell the crapped pants of Red State Murica.
If you can't think that much through, I'm not going to sweat your strategy and tactics. In fact, the after battle report, when your weapons will be policed up from the battlefield you either fled or died upon will be succinct, 'many weapons picked up, never fired and only dropped once.' LMAO!
*Same way I used to be able to smell the stockyards on a hot summer night in Chicago.
Singer Eddie Money, best known for his songs "Two Tickets to Paradise," "Take Me Home Tonight” and “Baby Hold On,” died Friday at the age of 70.
Singer Eddie Money performs onstage during the 2018 High Tide Beach Party at Huntington State Beach. (Scott Dudelson/Getty Images)
He had been battling stage 4 esophageal cancer.
Money's family said in a statement to Fox News: “The Money Family regrets to announce that Eddie passed away peacefully early this morning. It is with heavy hearts that we say goodbye to our loving husband and father. We cannot imagine our world without him. We are grateful that he will live on forever through his music.”
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/eddie-money-two-tickets-to-paradise-singer-dead-at-70
Money, whose real name was Edward Mahoney, made his stunning cancer announcement just last month in a video from his AXS TV reality series called "Real Money."
In the video, Money said he discovered he had cancer after what he thought was a routine checkup. The rock legend learned that the disease had spread to his liver and lymph nodes.
“What I don’t want to do is I don’t want to keep the fact that I have cancer from everybody,” Money said. “It’s not honest. I want to be honest with everybody. I want people to know that cancer [treatment] has come a long way and not everybody dies from cancer like they did in the '50s and '60s.
"Am I going to live a long time? Who knows? It’s in God’s hands.”
The rocker had numerous health problems recently, including heart valve surgery earlier this year and pneumonia following the procedure, which led to his cancellation of a planned summer tour.
His career spanned more than three decades and 12 studio albums. He was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., raised in Plainedge, Long Island, and then moved to California, where he signed with Columbia Records.
In 1987, he received a best rock vocal Grammy nomination for "Take Me Home Tonight," which featured a cameo by Ronnie Spector.
Singer Eddie Money, best known for his songs "Two Tickets to Paradise," "Take Me Home Tonight” and “Baby Hold On,” died Friday at the age of 70.
Singer Eddie Money performs onstage during the 2018 High Tide Beach Party at Huntington State Beach. (Scott Dudelson/Getty Images)
He had been battling stage 4 esophageal cancer.
Money's family said in a statement to Fox News: “The Money Family regrets to announce that Eddie passed away peacefully early this morning. It is with heavy hearts that we say goodbye to our loving husband and father. We cannot imagine our world without him. We are grateful that he will live on forever through his music.”
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/eddie-money-two-tickets-to-paradise-singer-dead-at-70
Money, whose real name was Edward Mahoney, made his stunning cancer announcement just last month in a video from his AXS TV reality series called "Real Money."
In the video, Money said he discovered he had cancer after what he thought was a routine checkup. The rock legend learned that the disease had spread to his liver and lymph nodes.
“What I don’t want to do is I don’t want to keep the fact that I have cancer from everybody,” Money said. “It’s not honest. I want to be honest with everybody. I want people to know that cancer [treatment] has come a long way and not everybody dies from cancer like they did in the '50s and '60s.
"Am I going to live a long time? Who knows? It’s in God’s hands.”
The rocker had numerous health problems recently, including heart valve surgery earlier this year and pneumonia following the procedure, which led to his cancellation of a planned summer tour.
His career spanned more than three decades and 12 studio albums. He was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., raised in Plainedge, Long Island, and then moved to California, where he signed with Columbia Records.
In 1987, he received a best rock vocal Grammy nomination for "Take Me Home Tonight," which featured a cameo by Ronnie Spector.
What a man needs to feel like a man is in his head.
An AR-15 is so clearly an overcompensation it's laughable to argue otherwise.
Not the point. It's not what you call it, it's the effect of the rounds on human bodies. Those effects are NOT same as from hunting rifles.
Get the distinction? No sensible hunter wants to 'tear up the meat'.
Additionally, if you care to do some real research, the lightness and the balance of the weapon allows for rapid fire that can be controlled to arrive on target with little dispersion of the rounds.
Those factors also allow for shooting on the run, as in an assault.
THIS statement by you is what I was responding to, asshole.
You are...………….misinformed.
What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns
They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
Heather Sher
Feb 22, 2018
AR-15 rifles on display
Lisa Marie Pane / AP
As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.
In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.
I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?
The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.
A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.
Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him.
The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.
I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal.
The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.
With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.
One of my ER colleagues was waiting nervously for his own children outside the school. While the shooting was still in progress, the first responders were gathering up victims whenever they could and carrying them outside the building. Even as a physician trained in trauma situations, there was nothing he could do at the scene to help save the victims who had been shot with the AR-15. Most of them died on the spot; they had no fighting chance at life.
As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients. It’s clear to me that AR-15 and other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet.
I have friends who own AR-15 rifles; they enjoy shooting them at target practice for sport and fervently defend their right to own them. But I cannot accept that their right to enjoy their hobby supersedes my right to send my own children to school, a movie theater, or a concert and to know that they are safe.
Can the answer really be to subject our school children to active-shooter drills—to learn to hide under desks, turn off the lights, lock the door, and be silent—instead of addressing the root cause of the problem and passing legislation to take AR-15-style weapons out of the hands of civilians?
In the aftermath of this shooting, in the face of specific questioning, our government leaders did not want to discuss gun control even when asked directly about the issue. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida warned not to “jump to conclusions that there’s some law we could have passed that could have prevented it.” A reporter asked House Speaker Paul Ryan about gun control, and he replied, “As you know, mental health is often a big problem underlying these tragedies.” And on Tuesday, Florida’s state legislature voted against considering a ban on AR-15-type rifles, 71 to 36.
If politicians want to back comprehensive mental-health reform, I am all for it. As a medical doctor, I’ve witnessed firsthand the toll that mental-health issues take on families and on individuals themselves who have no access to satisfactory long-term mental-health care. But the president and Congress should not use this issue as an excuse to deliberately overlook the fact that the use of AR-15 rifles is the common denominator in many mass shootings.
A medical professor taught me about the dangers of drawing incorrect conclusions from data, using the example of gum chewing, smokers, and lung cancer. He said smokers may be more likely to chew gum to cover bad breath, but one cannot look at the data and decide that gum chewing causes lung cancer. It is the same type of erroneous logic that focuses on mental health after mass shootings, when banning the sale of semiautomatic rifles would be a far more effective means of preventing them.
Banning the AR-15 should not be a partisan issue. No consensus may exist on many questions of gun control, but there seems to be broad support for removing high-velocity, lethal weaponry and high-capacity magazines from the market, which would drastically reduce the incidence of mass murders. Every constitutionally guaranteed right that we are blessed to enjoy comes with responsibilities. Even our right to free speech is not limitless. Second Amendment gun rights must respect the same boundaries.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the appropriate agency to review the potential impact of banning AR-15-style rifles and high-capacity magazines on the incidence of mass shootings. The agency was effectively barred from studying gun violence as a public-health issue in 1996, by a statutory provision known as the Dickey Amendment. This provision needs to be repealed so that the CDC can study this issue and make sensible gun-policy recommendations to Congress.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994 included language that prohibited semiautomatic rifles such the AR-15, and also large-capacity magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds. The ban was allowed to expire on September 13, 2004, after 10 years. The mass murders that have followed the ban’s lapse make clear that it must be reinstated.
On Wednesday night, Rubio said at a town-hall event hosted by CNN that it is impossible to create effective gun regulations because there are too many “loopholes,” and that a “plastic grip” can make the difference between a gun that is legal and one that is illegal. But if we can see the different impacts of high- and low-velocity rounds clinically, then the government can also draw such distinctions.
As a radiologist, I have now seen high-velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all.
Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal
“The little bullet pays off in wound ballistics.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/why-the-ar-15-is-so-lethal/545162/
James Fallows
Nov 7, 2017
AR-15 rifles are displayed for sale at the Guntoberfest gun show in Oaks, Pennsylvania. (Joshua Roberts / Reuters)
Americans who know nothing else about firearms are all too familiar with the name AR-15. It’s the semi-automatic weapon that murderers have used in many of the most notorious and highest-casualty gun killings of recent years: Aurora, Colorado. Newtown, Connecticut. Orlando, Florida. San Bernardino, California. Now, with modified versions, in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Sutherland Springs, Texas.
What is this gun? Why is it the weapon that people who want to kill a lot of other people, in a hurry, mainly choose? Tim Dickinson offered a useful history of the AR-15’s emergence as the main implement of mass murder last year in Rolling Stone (“All-American Killer: How the AR-15 Became Mass Shooters’ Weapon of Choice”), and Meghan O’Dea in Fortune and Aaron Smith for CNN also had valuable reports.
But there’s another angle of the AR-15 saga that has slightly slipped from view. It is why this particular weapon is so unusually effective in killing things—even when compared with other firearms.
As it happens, I did an Atlantic article on exactly this subject, back in a very different era of American politics. In 1981, I published a book called National Defense, which was popular at the time and was excerpted in three installments in the magazine. One of the installments was called “The M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story,” and it included the origin story of the AR-15. That article was not previously available online, but my colleague Annika Neklason has just digitized it from the archives, and it’s now available.
The AR-15 was newsworthy in those days mainly as the original civilian version of what became the U.S. military’s standard M-16 combat rifle. The problem with the M-16, from the perspective of many of the Americans who had been using it during the 1960s and 1970s in Vietnam, is that it too often failed at the fundamental task of combat weaponry: killing troops on the other side.
The M-16 jammed. It was touchy if it got wet or dirty—which, in jungle warfare, weapons generally did. Veterans’ stories about the M-16, which became newspaper exposés, which became congressional hearings, concerned the battles in which an American soldier or Marine was found shot to death by an enemy AK-47, a jammed M-16 clutched in the American’s hands.
The point of my story was to explain how the Army’s procurement bureaucracy had systematically, and knowingly if not intentionally, converted the early-model AR-15 into the fully “militarized” but vastly less reliable M-16. Those were the comparisons that mattered most in the aftermath of Vietnam: the M-16 versus its AR-15 predecessor, and the M-16 against the adversary’s practically indestructible AK-47.
Along the way, I examined the other side of the comparison: why the AR-15 was such a revolution in killing power. That’s the part of the story that is most relevant now.
* * *
The AR-15, created by the celebrated armaments designer Eugene Stoner, had many advantages, but a crucial one was that it used smaller, lighter bullets than some predecessors, which traveled at higher speed. My story said:
Nearly a century before American troops were ordered into Vietnam, weapons designers had made a discovery in the science of “wound ballistics.” The discovery was that a small, fast-traveling bullet often did a great deal more damage than a larger round when fired into human or (for the experiments) animal flesh.
A large artillery round might pass straight through a human body, but a small bullet could act like a gouge. During the early stages of the congressional hearing, [Representative Richard] Ichord asked Eugene Stoner, the designer of the original version of the M-16, to explain the apparent paradox of a small bullet’s destructive power. The answer emerged in the following grisly exchange.
“ICHORD: One army boy told me that he had shot a Vietcong near the eye with an M-14 [which uses a substantially heavier bullet] and the bullet did not make too large a hole on exit, but he shot a Vietcong under similar circumstances in the same place with an M-16 and his whole head was reduced to pulp. This would not appear to make sense. You have greater velocity but the bullet is lighter.”
“STONER: There is the advantage that a small or light bullet has over a heavy one when it comes to wound ballistics. … What it amounts to is the fact that bullets are stabilized to fly through the air, and not through water, or a body, which is approximately the same density as the water.
And they are stable as long as they are in the air. When they hit something, they immediately go unstable. … If you are talking about .30-caliber [like a bullet used in the Army’s previous M-14], this might remain stable through a human body. … While a little bullet, being it has a low mass, it senses an instability situation faster and reacts much faster. … this is what makes a little bullet pay off so much in wound ballistics.”
A little bullet pays off so much in wound ballistics. That is what people who choose these weapons know.
I remember one other thing about that story. Everyone I interviewed about these weapons at the time—the AR-15, its bastard offspring M-16, the opposing AK-47—assumed as a first premise that they were talking about battlefield equipment. None of them seemed to imagine such killing power in civilian hands.
Texas A&M Corps of Cadets found guilty of 143 years of stolen valor
Published 2 hours ago on September 13, 2019
By BYOBooyah
COLLEGE STATION, Texas – The student body of Texas A&M University was rocked today by news that their Corps of Cadets is guilty of stolen valor and has been for 143 years. Authorities reached a guilty verdict after discovering that despite wearing uniforms in public, displaying military medals, and being big time hardos, less than half of cadets go on to serve in the military.
“The fact that these kids and this institution have let this go on for over a century is unconscionable,” says lead investigator Winston Hughes. “While it does not appear any of the cadets were able to translate their fake military status into getting laid, the vast majority did attempt to get free apps at the local Chili’s every Veterans’ Day.”
Stolen Valor is typically defined as an individual wearing a military uniform and impersonating a member of the armed forces despite never having served. Texas A&M released a statement clarifying that, while the majority of their Cadets don’t commission into the armed forces, some do and all of them take their “dress up and march around stuff” very seriously.
The school also stressed the importance of imagination in developing young minds. “Whether that involves imagining you go to Hogwarts or imagining you attend a military academy, the principle remains the same,” Booster Club President Jimbob Joe Houston notes.
Houston was also quick to point out the school’s status as a Senior Military College, a special designation granted to several institutions after the Civil War authorizing their students to wear fancy boots and get high and tight haircuts unironically. However, detractors point out, that authorization is for individuals who are actually going to join the military and does not cover those who are live-action role-playing as soldiers from the Spanish-American War.
The nail in the coffin for A&M’s stolen valor case was the fact that unlike other Senior Military Colleges—such as the Citadel or the Virginia Military Institute—it’s possible to be a student at the school without being a fake ROTC weirdo.
“Over 69,000 students will attend class this year in College Station while only about 2,500 will dress up and ask people to thank them for their service” Hughes notes.
When reached for comment, member of the Corps Josh Taylor was unapologetic.
“How am I stealing valor by just wearing a uniform? Like I owe some kind of service to the country?” Taylor says. “I bought these boots with my parents’ own money, and donated my time to appearing on ESPN football broadcasts all fall. The nation has been compensated.”
“If anything, you could say I’m overcompensating”
You can't reason someone out of what they weren't reasoned into.
That applies to every righty who posts his fact challenged nonsense, bigotries and bat shit conspiracy theories.
An abundance of AR caves assures a plentiful supply of bat-shit per capita. And aren't they in good company? Mostly the Old Confederacy and one gambling mecca.
https://www.arkansas.com/articles/caves-caverns-spelunking
How very unkind of you...…………...to airline vomit bags.
At least they serve a purpose.