Not working, just helping the wife

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Link please.

Executive Order on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals | The White House

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Started following a SCOTUS ruling.

 

Link please 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Link please 

Estelle v Gamble (1976), the 8th Amendment to the US.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/gender-affirming-care-incarceration-and-eighth-amendment/2023-06

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Estelle v Gamble (1976), the 8th Amendment to the US.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/gender-affirming-care-incarceration-and-eighth-amendment/2023-06

So you made it up, I thought so. 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you made it up, I thought so. 

And yet I provided a link.

 

Now all you have to do is show where Obama’s executive order mentions prisoners.

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Chomper Higgot

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet I provided a link.

Which (as usual) did not support your false claim. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Which (as usual) did not support your false claim. 

Because you don’t understand how law works.

 

The SCOTUS ruling is exactly the one prisoners use to argue for their rights to medical treatment while in prison.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because you don’t understand how law works.

 

The SCOTUS ruling is exactly the one prisoners use to argue for their rights to medical treatment while in prison.

Then why did you not post a link to the ruling?

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Then why did you not post a link to the ruling?

I’ve posted a link that explains how the SCOTUS ruling is applied.

 

Why don’t you show us the bit where Obama’s executive order talked about LGBTQ Prisoners receiving medical treatment.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve posted a link that explains how the SCOTUS ruling is applied.

 

Why don’t you show us the bit where Obama’s executive order talked about LGBTQ Prisoners receiving medical treatment.

You, as usual just posted a link to a leftist that agrees with you. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

40 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You, as usual just posted a link to a leftist that agrees with you. 

 

 

 No I posted a link which provides a detailed explanation.

 
Now please show us where Obama’s executive order talked about medical treatment of LGBTQ prisoners.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

 No I posted a link which provides a detailed explanation.

 
Now please show us where Obama’s executive order talked about medical treatment of LGBTQ prisoners.

 

 

I posted a link which provides a detailed explanation.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I posted a link which provides a detailed explanation.

What your link does not provide is any statement within Obama’s executive order that refers to medical treatment for LGBTQ prisoners.

[flexomike]

On 10/19/2024 at 11:39 AM, proton said:

 

Is hair splitting your hobby?

He just likes to troll people, he gets his jollies off of it, he can't even spell the name of his state correctly, So who is the dummy?

 

 

[Yellowtail]

I posted a link which provides a detailed explanation. That you are unwilling and or unable to read and understand the official document on the government website I linked to neither concerns nor surprises me.

 

Sorry, I could not find a video on MSNBC for you. 

 

[John Drake]

21 hours ago, bangadang said:

 She is pretty awful, and I think she may well lose. Not attend the dinner?  what a gaffe! 

 

What is revealing about the 32 days incident is what it reveals about her understanding of what she had just said. When the teleprompter went out, she was stuck on the last two words she had just read off the screen. If you had asked her what she had just said prior to getting stuck, she couldn't have told you. It's the worst sort of vacuous brain jerk. This used to be said about local evening news anchors. They, too, couldn't remember the stories they had just read on air. Just (and they) are just a face, with somebody else behind them operating them like automatons. Elon's new robots have more individual awareness.

[Chomper Higgot]

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I posted a link which provides a detailed explanation. That you are unwilling and or unable to read and understand the official document on the government website I linked to neither concerns nor surprises me.

 

Sorry, I could not find a video on MSNBC for you. 

 

The official document with zero reference to the medical treatment of LGBTQ prisoners.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The official document with zero reference to the medical treatment of LGBTQ prisoners.

 

 

You did not read it. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You did not read it. 

I read the full Executive Order, which is why I know you can’t produce any text from Obama’s Executive Order that makes any reference at all to the medical treatment of LGBTQ prisoners.

 

Feel free to prove me wrong with a linked quotation to the Executive Order.

 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I read the full Executive Order, which is why I know you can’t produce any text from Obama’s Executive Order that makes any reference at all to the medical treatment of LGBTQ prisoners.

 

Feel free to prove me wrong with a linked quotation to the Executive Order.

 

You could not have read the document linked and come to that conclusion. 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by mogandave

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You could not have read the document linked and come to that conclusion. 

 

 

I did read the document.

 

lets see if you can provide a quote from it that refers to the provision of medical treatment for LGBTQ prisoners.

[nauseus]

On 10/18/2024 at 3:25 PM, LosLobo said:

Let’s cut through the noise:

1. Boilerplate Pablum? Harris discussed real issues—immigration, healthcare, and gun control—clearly outlining her administration's strategies. Dismissing them as 'boilerplate' just shows you’re not engaging with the content.

2. ‘Mentioning the other candidate once a minute’? You call that weak? It’s called context. She’s drawing contrasts, which is crucial in an election. Voters deserve to know the differences in leadership.

3. Introducing her own proposals? She did! If you want a detailed policy plan, look for it instead of nitpicking how often she referenced Trump. Your preference for soundbites over substance is limiting the discussion.

If you really want to engage, listen to the whole interview and consider the points she made rather than just counting mentions. That’s how real discourse happens.

 

Interviews involve a series of Q's and A's. She completely failed the interview because she had no A's. Only F's. 

[nauseus]

On 10/18/2024 at 4:13 PM, earlinclaifornia said:

That’s why I keep you updated daily

I think of it as my ace in the hole

 

All your own work?

[nauseus]

On 10/18/2024 at 4:21 PM, Eric Loh said:

The fact that she drew 7.8 million Fox viewers was already a win for her. Fox audiences were  interested to know more about her and listen to her. That is a good sign for her with just 20 days from the election and not so good for Trump. . 

 

The Foxes like a good laugh as much as anyone else!

[nauseus]

On 10/18/2024 at 4:32 PM, Will B Good said:

 

 

 

I can only listen to him for 2 minutes then I start to contemplate self-harming.

 

 

 

 

Turn it  up a bit will ya?

[nauseus]

On 10/18/2024 at 8:33 PM, LosLobo said:

Interesting how you criticize Harris for not answering questions directly, yet your response is nothing but empty rhetoric.

You toss out buzzwords like ‘simple concept’ and ‘empty minds’ without backing them up with any real reasoning or evidence.

It’s almost like your own lack of logic comes from an empty mind—one that prefers shallow, simplistic answers over engaging with complex issues.

Maybe that’s why you’re struggling with the concept of nuance.

 

It's criticism and doesn't need explaining more than she didn't answer a single question directly.

[LosLobo]

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Interviews involve a series of Q's and A's. She completely failed the interview because she had no A's. Only F's. 

"Q's and A's"? Cute, but Harris gave answers—immigration, healthcare, gun control—clear as day. Your 'no A's' take? Just false.
 

And those 'F's' you tossed in? That’s not an argument; it’s ad hominem fluff. You’re dodging facts and labeling instead of engaging.
 

So, if you're done grading imaginary tests, maybe try actually listening.

[nauseus]

On 10/19/2024 at 6:52 AM, earlinclaifornia said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/18/politics/video/bret-baier-mistake-kamala-harris-fox-news-interview-digvid

‘I did make a mistake’: Baier addresses contentious moment during Harris interview

 

Off topic.....deflection...usual cobblers.....this topic is about Harris not Baier or Trump. You all respond like Kamala.

[nauseus]

On 10/19/2024 at 8:55 AM, Eric Loh said:

More Fox audiences were interested to listen to Harris than listen to Trump’s Fox Town Hall in Cumming held earlier. 
 https://www.yahoo.com/news/ratings-harris-fox-news-interview-134209870.html

 

Yep. They love a good laugh.

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

"Q's and A's"? Cute, but Harris gave answers—immigration, healthcare, gun control—clear as day. Your 'no A's' take? Just false.
 

And those 'F's' you tossed in? That’s not an argument; it’s ad hominem fluff. You’re dodging facts and labeling instead of engaging.
 

So, if you're done grading imaginary tests, maybe try actually listening.

 

Dodging facts? So funny. She didn't answer one question with any relevant reply.