nonniey

I disagree with your agreement of that disagreement. We should ahh ..........do hummmm........something.

I think ILB was addressed with Rueben Foster, they threw 2 picks at guard and are moving Fisher to the position so they addressed that with a mass approach so that is why I removed them from the top three needs at this point (which probably won't reflect reality come next year).

So last year at this time we thought the 2019 top 3 needs/focus would be Guard, DB and ILB correct? This year for 2020 is what? WR, TE and DB? (Or maybe OT). Understand the WR class is supposed to be exceptionally strong what about the TEs and DBs? (OTs?)

Larry the New York law in effect made it easier to abuse the Health of the Mother and viability factors. So in effect yes abortion is legal at any time as long as you can get one doctor (who would almost certainly be the abortion provider) to sign off on the abortion as necessary. And fetuses are viable at 21 weeks anyway so someone wouldn't even need an ethically challenged doctor for 3 weeks during the viability window. The issue is the abuse of the health of the Mother and viability of the fetus waiver.

Technically it is not leave it up to the states. In the states that have legalized it they have only legalized it under state law it is still illegal under Federal Law. If the Feds were to remove the designation of Marijuana as a class B drug, then the States would still have to act individually on the issue.

New York for one. Raised cutoff to 24 weeks before requirement to consult with a Doctor (as in 1 Doctor). And I'll throw Gosnell once again out there as he was a Doctor (many of the charges that were brought against him in Pennsylvania would now be legal in New York). Additionally it again doesn't define what health of the mother is or what viability of the baby means which has allowed for some pretty loose use of health of mother or viability of baby excuses. Additionally penalties for violating law need to be addressed. You mentioned Tiller who had a habit of getting a doctors 2d opinion (that was required in Kansas) from his own employees (a legal violation) however legally he wasn't risking much by doing so as it was only a misdemeanor. All I'm proposing is at 20 weeks a panel of doctors (at least 3 and they can't have skin in the game) have to approve an abortion once it is decided that a set criteria has been met. I'm also saying the criteria has to be quite a bit less nebulous than it currently is.

From my understanding only a very small percent of that 1 percent involves aborting healthy fetuses from healthy mothers. Very small depending on sources only 3-10 thousand a year. Are you ok with 3-10 thousand a year?

This is the extreme position of the pro-choice side that even most pro-choicers wouldn't agree with. This allows for abortions at the last minute (and is currently permitted in some states). Problem is this is the default position taken in the fight. Similar to backing the NRA even though people who support gun rights liking some of the gun control proposals that the NRA automatically opposes.

Not for the type of abortions many of us want banned. (Well unless they go to China or Iceland). Because those are illegal just about everywhere.

Yes but it still needs to be drawn and currently it isn't. The earliest delivery of a baby that survived was 21 weeks and 5 days. I'd think that line should be no later than that and I'd subtract a week and half from that and make it 20 weeks. After 20 weeks abortions by exception should be allowed but stricter restrictions must be emplaced than what currently exists (health of the mother or status of the fetus can and has been used as a fig leaf to abort healthy fetuses from healthy mothers). Dr. Gosnell?

I think this is a good and accurate summation. I guess I fall into the category that at some point a fetus should gain constitutional protections (not at conception for me though), for me that would be when it becomes viable outside the womb. 21 weeks 5 days is the current record for a baby to survive outside the womb, I'd set the cutt-off at 20 weeks for Constitutional protections to kick in.

Yep 1% and yes even among those 1% the vast majority are legitimately done. I think it is only between 3 and 10 thousand abortions per year of viable fetuses that are terminated by (ethically challenged?) abortion providers who are protected by the law they work under. So I take it you are good with that? It is only 3-10 thousand after all. I'm not good with that.

Do you live in Alabama? (And no I don't agree with Alabama's new law).

The vast majority are also opposed to allowing late term abortions on viable fetuses. The United States is the most permissive country in the world (Tied with a very few) when it comes to allowing late term abortions. No European country for example would allow what a few of our states allow (Not even Holland).

Stupid decision by Alabama pro-lifers. Those who want more limitations put on abortion in this country were winning the argument and then these knuckleheads go for the extreme that only a minority want and it will lose even in this Supreme Court. They could have put limitations on aborting viable fetuses which would be upheld and it would have been a political winner. Getting sick of the whole loaf or nothing approach by the friggen extremes.

I believe the Dems don't have a winner take all system for their primaries and caucuses. If a large number of candidates stay in the race, look for a brokered convention where anyone could win.

These are cuts from events in the Colts draft room including during their 1st round pick. Surprisingly quiet and little discussion on the trade offer from the Redskins before accepting it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5QNhKYq8WU&feature=player_embedded Anyone know if the Redskins put something like this out?

Maybe but I'm not totally sure you did. He was talking about a Democrat running for President using common sense and having no chance in primaries because of that. I decided to include the Republicans with common sense having no chance. I think maybe you thought I was adding Dems to the conversation (if not I analyzed your response incorrectly). I didn't say you wanted to kill them I reported (accurately) that you wanted them dead.

Common sense in today's parties? Not a snow ball's chance in hell.

So what has that to do with Simmsy's statement? He still wants you dead. Or are you saying what you think he really meant was non liberal boomers? And that would be OK with you?

I'm just calling you and Warhead hateful and ignorant (Can you tell the difference from what you did???). Did you or did you not state that Boomers need to die? (BTW Ladyskinsfan that includes you). Did you not claim that all rural people had no culture?

Don't you think it is bit ironic that at least two posters in this thread today were themselves spouting hateful, ignorant rhetoric in an attempt to characterize a broad group as hateful and ignorant?

New Hampshire?? Those are probably all rural white people -hateful, ignorant trash. Shouldn't be allowed to vote (according to some on this very page. Heck one of them want's most of those in that photo dead).

What all rural white people, do you think that too? Seriously?

Intent of that statement was that the US population in general's (likely 90% plus) quality of life was in the top 5-10%. That said of the 16 states ranked higher in quality of life, I don't think their combined populations reach the total US population (I know the top 10 don't reach 50%). Smaller populations are easier to manage and provide for, especially when they can focus a larger proportion of their treasure on standard of living issues than the US can - due to the US providing most of their security. Oh just round them up and send them to camps, why don't you? I guess one thing you have established is you're white, definitely hateful, almost certainly ignorant question is would that make you trash as well?