Dear Mr. Weisberg,

Whatever one's position on abortion, a number of things are clear - the longer one waits, the more an abortion resembles infanticide; somewhere between conception and giving birth, a soul inheres; those most monomaniacal and fanatic in their views regarding abortion are Democrats.

Whereas pro-choice Republicans have a place in their party, explain to me where all the pro-life Democrats are. Absolutism is what the left is all about, whether it involves abortion, free speech, education, energy, or any number of issues.

Liberals have no tolerance for dissent on abortion or on the airwaves and they have zero interest in choice when it comes to schools or the use of oil, coal, or nuclear power.

In that regard, 'labeling' liberals as socialists is not an epithet; it's a euphemism. In reality, they are aspiring fascists in disguise, except ever since the advent of conservative alternatives on the air, in print, on TV, and now in cyberspace, their masks have been ripped off.

Moderately yours,

Sal Antonino

I'm sorry. I did not realize that my insistance on preserving a woman's right to choose somehow limited your insistance on choosing to give birth whenever you become pregnant. Honestly, I have no problem if you choose to carry your pregnancy to term. I swear I will not bomb your hospital for delivering babies. I will not wait for you outside your OB/GYN office and personally attack you for your decision after your prenatal care visits. And most importantly, I will not lobby our government to pass any legislation that will deprive you of the right to make that choice.

What's a soul? Have you ever actually seen one? Can you prove that there is such a thing as a soul? What color is it? How much does it way?

That's: how much does it weigh?

I think you guys forget that it was the fanatical left that attacks people all the time. Probably 90% of the protests are leftists. Then you complain about the other 10%? There's a word for that: hypocrite.

(Fighting against harvesting trees, a renewable crop -- using animals for research or food. Using energy of almost any kind -- Nuclear, Hydroelectric, etc. They protest over not going to war in Rwanda, how we go to war, or for going to war. But ironically, when we end a war that they want and millions die because of it, like in Vietnam, not a protestor to be seen -- those millions died in a sacrifice for their liberal goals, and that's OK). Or because someone reversed their activist judges ruling. And so on, and so on).

The right, tends to protest for one thing -- protecting human life and liberty. 99.999% behave better than most of the liberals. The liberals plays the other fraction of a percent as the norm.

I don't agree with abortion bombings at all. But it is obvious that the extremists on the left, and their insensitivity and their agenda and intolerance is what helped make people so frustrated that they lost their minds and did stupid things.

Add those three letters and our estimable Jesuitist emerges.

Even the word-style sounds Ninoesque.

If so, it's downright weird to get such anti-liberal hatred.

Look: all the Dems (and most GOP) want is to get abortions when they feel they have to. YOU make it a Federal case, invoking ensoulment (religion).

However, regarding abortion, I once told a shrewish liberal (potsmoker too) that I myself feel appalled by 9th-month voluntary abortions. Well, she started her "it's my body" kvetcherei. So there: I'm a liberal Democrat who doesn't look kindly on voluntary abortions in 3rd trimester.
By the way, nearby the shrew were the potsotted parents of a very famous GOP spechwriter. (I don't smoke pot ever.)

But -- my son -- don't you know that "soul" is religion?

Do "pro-choice" Republicans have a place in the party? How many pro-choice Republicans hold office based on support from the GOP base? I can think of one: Arlen Specter who gained office BEFORE anti-choice became a GOP Litmus test.

Compare that to Dem. Party where Gov Tim Kane, Sen Bob Casey.. in fact here is a list of Dem Candidates running for office with full support of their party who are anti-choice.

Where is the equivilent list from the Pro Choice Republicans? You guys are still fighting to keep The Government's hands off women's bodies in the PARTY PLANKS.

Sorry no. the reason the GOP accepts "Pro-choice Republicans" in their party is that they have no problems with hypocrisy as long as their core agenda gets supported. If the leadership can get you to turn out and vote for McCain, then the leadership can get McCain to nominate another 2 Alitos to SCOTUS and overturn Roe- and what are the "pro-choice Republicans" going to do about it at that point?

Compare that to the Dems. Dems don't require someone to support abortion. You can work towards reducing abortions. What you cannot do is pass legislation that allows THE GOVERNMENT to reach into women's bodies.

What liberals have little tolerance for is name calling, hypocrisy and dishonesty.

• It is Dishonest to pretend there is any sort of science supporting the claim that Global Warming doesn't exist
• It is Dishonest to pretend that there is any sort of factual basis for supporting Intelligent Design or Creationism
• It is Dishonest to claim that the North Slope has "Plenty of Oil" when it is past its peak production and provides 4% of our daily consumption.
• It is Dishonest to claim to be against earmarks when you have fought for over $500,000,000 in earmarks
• It is Dishonest to pretend that abortion is more dangerous to a woman's health than carrying to term
• It is Dishonest to pretend that there are "welfare queens driving cadillacs" that are responsible for our deficit
• It is Dishonest to pretend that WMDs have been found in Iraq.
• It is Dishonest to pretend that there is any factual evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed historically

Now you have a FREE SPEECH RIGHT to make these dishonest claims

But it isn't an intolerance for dissent to be intolerant of FACTUAL DISHONESTY

Now if you want to talk about 'facism' - the definition of facism is a Government using its authoritarian power to regulate the populace IN PARTNERSHIP WITH BUSINESS. Frankly this fits the Republican party far more closely than the Dems.

Which leads us to the other hallmark of Facism - the use of The Great Lie. The Great Lie that the GOP is being honest in its position advocacy. The Great Lie that liberals stifle dissent, The Great Lie that liberals have the facist tendencies that are the core beliefs of the Republican party. The Great Lie that socialism has failed. The Great Lie that the USSR or the PRC were ever socialist.

So which party is more like the Facists of WWII? It sure isn't the Dems.

Hmm 90% of the protests are leftist. What do you base this on? How many "leftitsts" set off bombs to protest a woman's right to control her own reproductive organs?

Note also, the conservatives have had control of most of the levers of governance for most of the last 30 years.

What would you expect if such policies were not popular with the populace? Would you expect the supporters of such policies as extracting IRREPLACEBLE resources to protest such actions?

BTW, its simply a lie. a straight up lie, to claim that

Old Growth Trees are a "renewable crop"
the left protests Solar, wind or other renewable non-destructive energy sources
The left protested not invading Rwanda
That the left Wanted Vietnam or Iraq or even afghanistan

That is simply dishonest because there are no facts to support the claims no matter how nice they sound.

Similarly the notion that judges are "activist" because they apply The Constitution instead of conservative beliefs is not a legitimate claim either.

The right hardly protests protecting human life. I have yet to see the right protesting the invasion of Iraq which has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. I have yet to see the right protesting the death penalty, even in cases of children. I have yet to see the right protesting the torture deaths of our enemies.

No, you aren't protesting to "protect human life". You are protesting to impose YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on the rest of us.

How is it that the "insensitivity of the left" caused the bombings? How is it that the left is "intolerant" of anyone's choice to carry to term?

If you are going to argue that the right does stupid things, I'm not going to disagree. Your dishonest post here demonstrates that.

But when you justify the use of violence to impose your beliefs on the fact that we are not kowtowing to your beliefs, then you are justifying terrorism. Hardly a position that "protects life".

Liberals are pretty big on choice of schools. Many send their kids to college, ranging from Brown to St. Peter's in Jersey City or U of Chicago or Roanoke or Reed; many go to Yeshivas or even Jesuit preps like Xavier or St Benedict's -- or off to Hotchkiss and Exeter.

Could you 'splain yourself about your accusation that liberals are quasi-fascistic because of opposition to choice of schools?

Do I detect a dig against Brown v Board?

Degsme, you're obviously not very bright or well read. 1) Fascism was known as the 3rd way. Communism/Socialism was no private property. Capitalism was all private property. Fascism was like socialism -- you have the right to private property as long as you live under the rules and regulations of the state and are controlled by the state. It is almost a policy mirror of progressive DEMOCRATS! They were pro gun-control, pro-state control. Some even called themselves national SOCIALISTS. That's a lot more like modern dems, then modern republicans. The only reason why they were ever called right wing is because they were right of communists and socialists. Which is like calling Al Gore right wing, because Obama and Michael Moore are left of him. 2) There is very soft non-causal correlation because CO2 and global warming. There are dozens of world caliber scientists that think the case is proven -- but the left thinks we should ignore them, because some troll on the internet knows more than them? Nice try. 3) 80% of the worlds population believes there's some sort of intelligent design or more than just evolution. Einstein referred to God more than a few times. What's sad is having no room in your believe system for anyone else's beliefs, let alone the majority of other people. 4) So now you know more than the oil companies? There's more than the north slope in Alaska, and technology advances and we are re-opening wells today that we thought were tapped out or unprofitable in the past. Palin also said energy needs -- which includes natural gas, she mentioned solar and wind and tide. But you know more. 5) Welcome to adult-ville. So you're offered $1B, and you turn down half, when most politicians are for them all (and the democrats would have lobbied for $1.5B). Are you for or against Earmarks? Oh, you mean life is more complex than a democrats bumper-sticker? 6) In some cases abortion is more dangerous than carrying it to term -- certainly for the fetus. It matters how the pregnancy is going. But it is more disingenuous to pretend that a 3rd term, fully viable baby HAS to be aborted in pieces rather than birthed alive, for the mothers health. 99% of the time, that's crap, even if you are too biased or stupid to admit it. 7) Have you done social work? My spouse and I both did for many years. There is a LOT of corruption. One couple was making more than we were at the time. It is a disgustingly broke system -- and whistleblowers are thrown out. Wink and look the other way isn't uncommon. 8) WMD's were found in Iraq you simpleton. Old chemical and biological agents. They weren't in the quantities we expected, and the report pointed out while he didn't have the current capacity to build them (as Bill Clinton and others thought), he had the skeleton programs in place, ready to be ramped up when France/Russia/Germany got sanctions lifted -- which was the other alternative. Remember? (Probably not). 9) You're cute -- I find small minded people amusing. Sarah Palin's down-baby probably has more ability to posit and postulate. Um, we have dinosaurs alive today -- so claiming we never coexisted begs the questions, have you seen an alligator, shark, coelacanth? See the problem is you have one world view, and it must be right -- so everyone else's must be wrong. You're the fanatic you hate.... and you're not a very educated one (like most of them).

FDR, HST, JFK, and LBJ were all progressive or liberal Democrats. They all were key players in fighting and defeating fascism, Nazis, and Republicans.

HST and LBJ fought wars against communists also -- in Korea and Vietnam.

FDR didn't like the competition -- you do realize that sometimes communist countries fight each other too? Fascism was pretty gone after WWII, so I'm not sure what you're referring to with JFK and LBJ. But seriously -- go back and read on fascism, they're like little california liberals outlawing McDonnalds and smoking for your own good, creating the peace corps, er, Brown shirts, and lots of social programs. The fascists and the communists didn't get along either. Here's some links to catch up: <link> , <link> -- think of it as political correctness taken to the next level. It usually starts with them appointing "the one" true leader, and attacking anyone that is different. Sound familiar?

How sad

The best you can offer as a rebuttal is name calling and made up spin.

1) Fascism was known as the 3rd way. Communism/Socialism was no private property. Capitalism was all private property. Fascism was like socialism -- you have the right to private property as long as you live under the rules and regulations of the state and are controlled by the state.

Um no. Facism:

Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist political ideology and mass movement that is concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence, and which seeks to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity

Now lets see Nationalis is GOP, cults of purity and strength are GOP. Notions of a cultural decline or decadence are.. GOP. Hmmm Seems like the shoe fits. I think you need to revisit your understanding of the definition of facism. Those of us who's families suffered under it know how to recognize it.

As for socialism

Socialism is the economic theory of social organization advocating that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be regulated or owned by the community.[1]

Well its true that the GOP isn't socialist because you clearly don't believe that a community has the right to regulate how its resources are used or abused. Now its not that the GOP doesn't believe in regulation. They clearly believe in regulating our bodies, our sex lives and what we can say on the phone - like the Facists.

. 2) There is very soft non-causal correlation because CO2 and global warming. There are dozens of world caliber scientists that think the case is proven -- but the left thinks we should ignore them,

Not clear what you are quite trying to say here. There are far more than "dozens" of world caliber scientists that have clear evidence that human generated warming is driving the system past its tipping point. There are in fact thousands of them. There are a handful of scientists in the pay of companies who stand to lose $ millions who claim otherwise, but just as you would not trust the Russian Ambassador to give you the straight story on Georgia, we can't trust these guns for hire either.

3) 80% of the worlds population believes there's some sort of intelligent design or more than just evolution. Einstein referred to God more than a few times.

Hmm, so back when 100% of the world believed that the sun revolved around the earth, it did so as well? Sorry, BELIEF in the face of observable facts is ignorance. BTW Einstein's reference to god was metaphorical. Your ignorance of Einstein's work and meaning is demonstrated by your quote here. And your ignorance of his work is what allows you to continue to believe in things like intelligent design.

Go ahead, offer a single bit of actual factual evidence that requires Intelligent Design to explain it. Just one.

4) So now you know more than the oil companies? There's more than the north slope in Alaska, and technology advances and we are re-opening wells today that we thought were tapped out or unprofitable in the past.

Having worked with oil Cos on technology I don't believe you or Palin. I have a fair understanding of how oil fields are assessed and evaluated. And even the oil companies don't claim that there is "plenty of oil" under the north slope. Palin just made that up. Out of whole cloth.

5) Welcome to adult-ville. So you're offered $1B, and you turn down half, when most politicians are for them all (and the democrats would have lobbied for $1.5B). Are you for or against Earmarks? Oh, you mean life is more complex than a democrats bumper-sticker?

What are you talking about? This connects to no actual facts. Palin paid lobbyists to get $27 million for Wasilla ($3000/person) of our tax dollars but claims to not let lobbyists in her office. Palin aggressively fought for the Bridge To Nowhere, and then when it was cancelled fought to keep that money. Yet now she claims to have fought against the bridge and earmarks.

That's not 'adult-ville'. That's being dishonest. "Adult-ville" would acknowledge that earmarks are a mixed blessing and be honest about how she has sought them. It is "kids-ville" to lie so blatantly about what you have done.

6) In some cases abortion is more dangerous than carrying it to term -- certainly for the fetus. It matters how the pregnancy is going. But it is more disingenuous to pretend that a 3rd term, fully viable baby HAS to be aborted in pieces rather than birthed alive, for the mothers health. 99% of the time, that's crap, even if you are too biased or stupid to admit it.

Actually there are NO cases where an abortion is more dangerous for the host woman than carrying to term. Simply because of how violent and invasive delivery is. So you are simply dishonest in claiming otherwise.

As for 3rd term abortions. They are increadibly few and far between - largely because by that point you are only aborting real problem pregnancies. Most are done because of In Utero Fetal Death (95%) in which case there is no reason not to use the safest and least intrusive means possible. And the remaining 4% were due to anencephalic fetuses who also would not survive. IOW your claim that 99% of the time they could be delivered is once again

IGNORANCE - or perhaps a deliberate lie on your part. You know, making up the 99% number just like Palin made up the numbers about the North Slope.

7) Have you done social work? My spouse and I both did for many years. There is a LOT of corruption. One couple was making more than we were at the time. It is a disgustingly broke system -- and whistleblowers are thrown out. Wink and look the other way isn't uncommon.

So we have already seen that your claims of what is and isn't 99% are simply not credible. Instead they are based in your narrow beliefs. So this claim simply isn't credible. Moreover it doesn't even really tell us anything. "Social Work" - that can be anything from volunteering at the foodbank to being a government paid case worker or case work supervisor. That you don't provide details makes your claims even more suspect

8) WMD's were found in Iraq you simpleton. Old chemical and biological agents.

I knew you'd pull out that nonsense. Yes, old artillery shells were discovered, a couple of them. Kind of like the DU shells that were still in the desert from the 1st US invasion. These were no longer functional as weapons. Thus the term WMD - WEAPON of mass destruction, simply doesn't apply. Nor were the amounts discovered capable of MASS destruction.

So no. WMDs were not found in Iraq. And your claims to the contrary and your name calling actually demonstrate that the term simpleton probably applies to you.

9) You're cute -- I find small minded people amusing. Sarah Palin's down-baby probably has more ability to posit and postulate. Um, we have dinosaurs alive today -- so claiming we never coexisted begs the questions, have you seen an alligator, shark, coelacanth?

Ah yes. more name calling. You don't have facts so you name call. Alligators, sharks and ceolacanths are not dinosaurs ("fearfully great lizards"). They are creatures with very very close genetic heritage to dinosaurs but they are not dinosaurs.

Your ignorance is showing

See the problem is you have one world view, and it must be right -- so everyone else's must be wrong. You're the fanatic you hate.... and you're not a very educated one (like most of them).

LOL!! so where are the facts that support your claim? I'm not advocating "one world view". Just asking for one that is supported by observable facts and for which the Null Hypothesis has been disproven.

Now if being edjerkated requires me to think as sloppyly as you do, then I'm glad that by your standard I'm not very educated.

When you get some facts to support your beliefs, get back to us.

I'm always impressed by the ignorant people's ability to resist learning. I offered a link, it was too much work to click it? "Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism." -- which is kinda what I said. You said no, and only used the top line of the wiki link, instead of reading further. Score one for public education.

There's plenty of flag waving by the left AND right. You point to the rights and ignore the lefts, hypocrisy is so cute. There were nationalistic tendancies in the national SOCIALISTS and the Italians -- but they were still socialist like, which is not at all republican like, but an aweful lot Democratic like.

Of course the Republicans will regulate resources -- it's just that the Democrats see force as the perfect tool for every occasion. The Republicans see it as the last resort. It's like that old adage, if your only tool is a hammer, you'll see every problem as a nail. So Democrat.

Science is not about populism. (At least before the Democrats got to it). 1,000 people can say something is true, it only takes 1 person to disagree and prove them wrong -- that's science. Politics is when idiots say things like "most of the IPCC agrees", instead of science which says, "there are still these major holes/'questions in the models and claims". There are hundreds of things that hint that CO2 is not the major forcing factor, and science is about proof -- there are no large scale experiments or proof that CO2 is the cause. However, solar activity causing it has better correlations than CO2, and explains that Mars and Jupiter have been warming at the same rate -- despite our SUV's being nowhere near them.

The point about intelligent design is there's an easy compromise that could be made, if the dems weren't such black-and-white teenagers. I'm an atheist -- I don't believe in Super-Santa-Clause. But I understand that most people believe in a God. I have ZERO problem with talking about Evolution, then pointing out that most people in the world believe there's more to the story than that. Briefly talk about different alternate theories, point out while they don't have scientific proof, they are still the majority position in the world, and they should consult their priest/pastor/rabbi/etc for more on that. In other words, act like adult scientists instead of religious zealots that are scared of other views. Separation of Church and state just means you won't put ONE religion ahead of the others, not that you'll stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. Gads, the dems are such immature little tyrants on this stuff.... "no no, we can't mention that most people believe in God, or that there's other ways we got here".

While delivery is a "violent" act, abortion is too. You are really saying that a full term Mom, say she's about to deliver -- but instead you use forceps and tools to pull the baby out part by part, or half deliver and crush it on the way out, how is that less invasive than the alternative? Doesn't delaying delivering increase risk?

As for rates see: <link> -- roughly 1M per year (not many to you?) Look at the part, reasons for late term abortions -- top 5 reasons are laziness. 1.4% of about 1M is about 140,000/year. (I've heard up to 200,000 so the numbers aren't far off). The left is pissed because we lost 5,000 Americans in 5 years in Iraq to stop Saddam from Killing an Average of 100,000/year (average death rate during his reign) -- and they wonder why the right should care that a large percentage of 200,000 lives are lost each year due to laziness? Hypocrisy.

Remember only 5% want abortion 100% illegal ("never") -- and that's pretty evenly split Democrats/Republicans. Just more republicans want a little more responsibility on the mother and it to be more as a last resort, instead of a first one.

I do agree that a lot of them are performed for deformities (down, anencephalic, etc.). But the Baby will die anyways -- you said so yourself. So there's no need to murder it, just let it happen. One of my martial arts students had an anencephalic baby (normally) and it lived for a few days before dying. Actually, for her, the time helped her. But just because it would be easier to kill it, doesn't change our responsibilities as individuals or society not to practice eugenics.

Like how you dodge the whole point. I've done social work, you've read about it. You use false numbers to dodge the point. Corruption and waste in social programs are real. I did some private charity (including food bank, abused women and children, runaways, community advancement), my spouse worked for at risk mothers leading them into early childhood development. She did that for 3 years, and did other social work (usually around infant care) for another 3 years. We saw corruption, waste, bureaucracy. Which gets to the point. It isn't that social programs are bad. Government run social programs with little accountability and few incentives for efficiency entropy over time, into corrupt and embarrassing wastes that do little good for either side (at least compared to smaller more local or private alternatives). I'm not against social programs -- just against big federal ones. Democrats problem is they see the solution as forcing other people to pay washington because Washington Bureaucrats know more about the problem than the community, and no one in all those layers would waste money/time/energy?

Wait, wait. Let me get this straight, you said "absolutely no WMD's were found", and I explain that they were, and what skeleton programs were still in place. And you claim I'm wrong for not trying to mislead people as you did? Puhlease. We found WMD's, Saddam had failed to live up to resolution 1441 which required him to allow inspections and account for the destruction of the weapons he had. (The ones we found proved he hadn't lived up to that). And if we hadn't gone in, he would have them by now. So how is the alternative better? I don't have to like how the war was executed to like the alternative of Saddam still killing 100,000 people per year, and getting WMD's a lot less.

Amazing

Classic Big Lie approach. You offer no support for any of your arguements yet pretend they are based in fact after having been caught out in fallacy after fallacy.

The notion that the GOP sees force as the 'last resort' is about as laughable as it gets. The evidence of Iraq is the quintessential counter example to this claim. As Scott McClellan documents, the invasion of Iraq was on the books well before 9/11 making the GOP/Bush claims to "exhaust every diplomatic avenue".

As for science, the mere fact that you speak of alternative theories

Briefly talk about different alternate theories

Demonstrates your lack of qualifications to even begin to reason about the science of Global Warming. There are no "alteranate theories" to evolution. There are alternate hypothesis, but a hypothesis is a much much weaker statement than a theory. Your inability to differentiate between the two, to even recognize why there are different terms that apply suggests you lack even the basics of scientific language and method to evaluate something as complex as global warming.

You are correct thought that the science is not based on populism or the depth of your corporate funding. And as of yet, not one of the corporate funding shills has come up with any evidence that actually disputes anthrogenic global warming.

No abortion is not violent on the host mother. It may cause some discomfort but DNX is not violent. Its amazing how you can claim that 99% of all late term abortions have no need for DNX and when confronted with facts that contradict that and demonstrate that you actually lied about that number, you turn around and pass it off without even acknowledging your fudging:

"I do agree that a lot of them are performed for deformities "

When you originally agreed to nothing of the kind. Nor is your Wikipedia data even remotely relevant. The data cites 16 weeks as "late abortion" where as a "3rd trimester abortion" - which you are CLAIMING to be discussing is 24 weeks onwards.

that's a fudge on your part of 8 weeks or roughly 23% of the whole duration of the pregnancy. Again, your outright denial of actual, verifiable, FACTUAL data on abortion demonstrates both your ignorance of this subject as well as your dishonesty in the discussion.

Talk about the GReat Lie.

I've done social work, you've read about it. You use false numbers to dodge the point.

I gotta hand it to you. You have some serious moxy. You use false numbers on abortion and NO verifiable data on your claims of social work and then accuse me of "using false numbers to dodge the point". Wow! just WOW!

So what sort of social work is it that you've done that I've read about? Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous? Bailing GWB out of the drunk tank? Seriously. What actual work of any credibility can we believe you in claiming?

We have already seen that in two successive posts you have either outright lied about your claims or misrepresented the numbers to a massive degree. Your claims of corruption and government lack of oversight simply have no credibility.

You offer nothing that can be verified. Sorta like Reagan's non-existant Welfare Queen Driving a Cadillac. I (and I think most other readers will) suspect that you , like Reagan, are just making up what you believe. And like Reagan, you offer no specifics so that you can't be caught out in an overt lie.

And I stand by my original claim - absolutely no WMDs were found. What were found were old components of WMDS but which no longer were neither Weapons nor capable of MASS Destruction. The ability to reconstitute development programs - programs that require components that the embargo was keeping out of Iraq was NEVER part of the claim for invading Iraq.

We were told by the GOP in explicit terms that there WERE WMDS and that the GOP leadership "know[s] where they are" and we were told exactly where they would be found.

They never were.

So now you make similarly false claims about abortion statistics. Made up out of whole cloth.

Why would any rational person believe you or any other GOP appologist? You don't even lie WELL. You lie about stupid things that can be verified like abortion statistics and weeks of gestation.

Go get an education. then some facts. And THEN maybe THEN you can come have a discussion.

BTW didn't you claim in your previous post your spouse was "your husband" and now its "Your wife"?

Let me guess, this is Cassandra/Banana_boat/Widow etc.

Sucker me - getting pulled into a discussion with a liar like you.