permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Did you read you link??

It was not a hooray for the orange guy,. the same artist has done past work lampooning Putin and Kim as well as others.. but it seems a number of right wingers did think it was praise for the orange fool.


Read... from you r link....

My bad spin, this is not from your link, rather the other one from Son???

http://time.com/5526224/trump-float-italy/


Anyway the object was parody, not praise..




The official description of the statue says that the float was created by artist Fabrizio Galli, whose past sculptures included satirical depictions of Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin. It says Master-Drone was a take off of a character from the miniature war game Warhammer 40,000. In the era of Trump, the statement said, fantasy had become reality.

Many conservative commentators on Twitter appeared to interpret the float as a tribute to Trump. Several tweeted that it was a “parade for Trump.”

Trump’s image has been a popular image in the parade several times over the past few years. In 2017, a snarling Trump-head was placed in the middle of an American-themed float. A Statue of Liberty stood on top of Trump’s hair, where a giant cowboy and the phrase “Bang Bang” towered over him. A clip of the Green Day song “American I***t” played in the background.

Other floats in the parade this year also have serious social messages. These floats include “High Tide,” depicting a gigantic whale trapped in a pile of trash, and “The Pack,” a commentary on bullying and violence showing a group of hyenas tearing through a book.

fullspinzoo

Yeah I checked with other links...as not as popular as I thought but that's OK. He's extremely popular here. And that's all that counts. A majority of Americans loved his speech, like the economy that he has created, like his agenda to protect human life, and one hundred of his other policies. So that's all I care about. the fact that you and your ilk have a real problem protecting or better yet letting late term births happen is going to create a real problem for you come Nov 2020. If you don't think faith based Christians aren't going to come in droves, you must be kidding yourself. Last time it was 80%, and this time it will be even higher on that one issue. But of course, you guys (you secularists/non believers) on the left could care less going to the extreme of "infanticide" ie Gov. of Virginia. (which is nothing short of murder). Too many Americans have morals, scruples, and real hang-ups with the equivalent of laws such as what just past in NY. Trump's ree******n is going to be easier than I thought...especially with agendas like the green new deal which is a complete joke. Nothing like taking us back 100 years. Do me a favor....keep that AOC woman around. Great news for the Republican party/conservatives. Oh BTW, I've asked this question many times but I'll ask one more time. Who could have accomplished more than Trump in the last 2 years toward the economy. I received one persons answer. Actually had the balls to come up with a name. I've asked the question a least a dozen times, nobody seems to want to come up with a single name. Or can't is probably more like it. Want to take a stab? Don't make it too hilarious. And please try to give an answer where the guy/girl is STILL alive. Lincoln, as in Abe, won't work!!!

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

gosh Spin,,, you need to stop h*****g out in right wing coffee houses..

I also will add, that the NY and VA laws or bill s are nothing at all that you guys portray them to be..
but that is par for the day with a right wing poster.. No big deal, only made up fantasy to try and make a statement without facts..

such a waist of brain power.. could be put to such better news..

fullspinzoo

If it's not a******n OK during the last trimester, then what is it "a******n breath"? You can try to spin it in a different way, but no cigar. I'm happy about it because it makes Trump's job that much easier. If I'm wrong about the law, explain please. H*****g out in right wing coffee shops would be better than watching the trash that CNN, MSNBC or the bulls**t that the alphabet networks put out there. Trump has done more for this country than Obama did in 8 years. Obama couldn't even get the GDP over 3% per annum. Trump will fly past that number this year with flying colors. Record this, record that....all good. Who is that person that could be doing a better job? Haven't heard a name yet. Please don't say AOC.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Under Obama, the national debt exploded due to the Bush economic crash and all the tax cuts passed previously, plus the bailout and the two wars. But by the end of his term, the budget deficit had been cut and cut and cut, and was trending toward zero. Had we continued along that course, it would be almost balanced by now.

Instead, the yearly deficit is now over a trillion dollars, and the tax cuts will cost us 11 trillion dollars over the next decade.

Now look at a chart for each of the following metrics:

Average wages
Purchasing power of the US dollar
Employment
Unemployment
Percentage of people living below the poverty line
Make sure those charts go back well before Trump become President.

Then:

Tell me if the tax cuts have caused average wages to rise any faster than before.
Tell me if your dollar buys you more, or less, than it did before.
Tell me if there was a sudden large spike in employment, or if it continued to rise at the same gradual pace it had been on for ten years.
Tell me if there was a sudden drop in unemployment, or if the number has decreased steadily since 2009 and there has been no significant decrease after the Trump tax cuts.
Tell me if a smaller percentage of people live below the poverty line.
In other words, tell me what economic miracle we are living in that can possibly be attributed to those tax cuts.

Are they anything besides a deficit spike and a wet dream for Trump’s billionaire friends?

The answer to that is a big fat no. But go ahead and check, I encourage you to think for yourself and do independent searching, gets you in the habit of doing so when people make claims you think might be suspect.


Quote:

For two years of Republican control of Congress, there was no wall money.

Democrats did not get elected on the promise of building Trump’s wall. Frankly, they got elected to put a check on Donald Trump. Not rolling over and doing his bidding is why they were elected.

They still have a responsibility to all the American people, including for border security.

They offered and passed legislation that includes big bumps in funding for border security, agents, drones, sensors, cameras, you name it.

That’s most of what Trump wants, and the border currently has:

1) Border wall, fence, or vehicle barrier covering about a third of it

2) River, canyon, and vast deserts covering most of the rest

3) Vast and expensive amounts of private property that would need to be seized and a lot of court cases tried by the government to gain that property back, covering all the remainder.

There is no way to cheaply build a wall that is more effective than the physical barriers we already have. There is no moderately expensive way.

There is only the way that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and I don’t mean for the construction of the wall itself, either.

If we have hundreds of billions of dollars to spare, I’d rather use it to close the insurance coverage gap and extend medicare to more of the poor.

Why? Because I am a Democrat, and I would rather focus on services for our citizens than a barrier we would have to man anyway, because an unmanned wall is worse than useless.

Or we could use that money to pay down about a tenth of Trump’s yearly national budget deficit, which is a significant amount of money going out the door that we do not have.

The Democrats have given him a billion dollars plus for border security. This is much lower than the amount they previously agreed upon in a bipartisan manner before Trump threw his big tantrum and shut down the government.

All he had to do was sign the bills passed by the Senate and the House already, and he would have more money than what he got now.

That’s the master negotiator at work. Couldn’t get 100 percent of what he wanted with Republicans in charge, so no wall spanning the entire border.

Couldn’t get half of what he wanted with Republicans in charge, so no fence spanning the entire border.

Could get a small percentage of what he wanted with Democrats in the House and Republicans in the Senate, if he signed into law the bills that were passed before and just after the midterms. But he refused.

So now he will get an even smaller percentage.

America will always be great. Even Trump cannot make America lose its greatness. But he can’t lead his way out of a paper bag. He can’t negotiate worth a damn. He can’t hire “the best people”, half of them got fired, quit, or are under investigation, and the rest have already plead guilty to lesser crimes in exchange for a promise to testify against… someone.

Trump isn’t even good at giving conservative Republicans what they want.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

What do the changes mean? What follows is a quick glimpse of how a******n rights will change in New York.

Why now?
The federal law guaranteeing a******n rights has always superseded New York's law. But Cuomo fears that all or part of Roe v. Wade could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court's new conservative majority, leaving it to each state to regulate a******n with their own laws.

The Democratic-controlled Assembly has passed the Reproductive Health Act in each session for most of the past decade. But each time, the bill was blocked by the Republican majority in the Senate.

In November, Democrats won a majority in the Senate for only the second time in decades. With Democrats holding 39 seats in the 63-member chamber, new Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, pictured above, promised to make the bill a top priority.

A bipartisan history
New York's 1970 law that legalized a******n in the state was a bipartisan effort. The law was co-authored by Assemblywoman Constance Cook, a Republican from Ithaca, and state Sen. Franz Leichter, a Manhattan Democrat.

"I didn't really have a sense at that time that we had done something momentous, though it was long overdue," Cook told The New York Times in April 2000. "Looking back now, it seems like a bigger deal."

The bill passed the Senate on March 18, 1970 by a v**e of 31-26.

The Assembly struggled to pass the bill and added an amendment to allow unrestricted a******ns up to 24 weeks in a pregnancy. After 24 weeks, a******ns were permitted only to save the life of the woman. The bill eventually passed in the Assembly, 76-73.

Despite the declining numbers, New York's a******n rate of 23.1 per thousand was still twice the national average. About 25 to 27 percent of pregnancies in the state end in a******n. New York ranks among the top three states for the highest rate of unintended pregnancies.

Under the rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade and New York law, all women have the right to an a******n at any time in their first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

After 24 weeks, exceptions can be made under federal law when a woman's life or health is at risk. But the 1970 New York law made exceptions only when a woman's life is at risk.

The Reproductive Health Act changes New York's law to permit a******ns after 24 weeks in case where a woman's life or health would be threatened by continuing the pregnancy.

The updated New York law leaves it to doctors to decide when a woman's health is at risk. Opponents argued that the law should have defined what constitutes a threat to a pregnant woman's health.


Allowing a******ns when a fetus is not viable
New York's 1970 law gave women the right to an a******n if a fetus is not viable during the first 24 weeks of a pregnancy.

Under the Reproductive Health Act, a woman will have the right to a******n at any time, including the third trimester, if the fetus is not viable and cannot survive outside the womb.

The change matches the right on fetal viability already guaranteed under Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

A******n rights advocates noted that New York women sometimes had to travel to other states for an a******n after learning late in their pregnancy that the fetus was no longer viable.

Such late-term a******ns are rare. About 1 percent of a******ns nationwide are performed after 21 weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Since New York passed its a******n rights law in 1970, it has regulated a******n under criminal law, treating a******n in the third trimester as a felony punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The Reproductive Health Act regulates a******n under public health law, consistent with most states.

A******n rights supporters say the existing law had a chilling effect on doctors in New York who were reluctant to provide a******ns after 24 weeks when the mother's life was in danger or the fetus was no longer viable.

In a widely reported case, one New York woman had to travel to Colorado to terminate her pregnancy when she found out after 31 weeks that the baby she was carrying would not survive outside the womb.

New York Senate Republicans say the new law will limit prosecutors from applying criminal charges in case of domestic violence when a woman loses a child during pregnancy.

The GOP senators introduced "The Liv Act" named after Livia Abreu, an army veteran from the Bronx who was 26 weeks pregnant when her ex-boyfriend stabbed her six times in May 2018. The fetus did not survive.

The Republican bill would treat an assault on a pregnant woman as a felony, even if it does not involve the loss of her pregnancy. Democrats say existing criminal laws do the same thing.

The Reproductive Health Act allows licensed nurse practitioners, physician assistants and licensed midwives to provide a******ns, in addition to physicians.

The bill's authors say the change is essential for rural parts of the state where women have limited access to doctors and it could take weeks before they can see a doctor.

Opponents say the change extends beyond the scope of Roe v. Wade and will ultimately result in an increase in the number of a******ns in the state.

Senate Republicans argued that by allowing non-physicians to perform a******ns, it will endanger the health of more women. The bill's sponsors noted that most a******ns today occur when a doctor administers a pill to a patient early in a pregnancy.

The focus of New York lawmakers extends beyond a******n. In addition to the Reproductive Health Act, the Assembly and Senate plan to pass a separate bill to expand birth-control coverage.

The Comprehensive Contraceptive Coverage Act "requires health insurance policies to include coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs, devices, and products, as well as voluntary sterilization procedures, contraceptive education and counseling, and related follow up services."

The bill prohibits health insurance companies from imposing cost-sharing requirements for contraception.

Advocates for the bill say it's necessary because about 55 percent of pregnancies in New York are unintended, ranking the state among the top three in the nation for the most unintended pregnancies, according to 2010 statistics.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

The only wall/barrier that needs to be built is in proximity to points of entry. The wilderness will fend for itself and when they start getting into these ranchers land then watch, they will happily allow a wall/barrier to be built. Arizona ranchers are very much in favor of one!

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

maybe so, I see the wall as pretty much an unimportant distraction about a decreasing problem..

If trump did not want people to follow that rather then something else, maybe the China trade..

It is however a person feels about the emigrants/i******s, a useless matter of money down the drain..

In no sense is it a crisis..

And yes, I have agreed that if I lived in a border state I may feel different about the need..

A bolt of lightning hitting the water.. bet it was after my boat..

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Tell that to the one's manning the hospitals in towns like Waxahachie where the mom's sneak in to have their anchor babies, knowing they will not be turned away or towns like the suburb's of DFW where places like Garland are over run with i******s. Whitney is not exactly a big draw for i******s.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Strange comment..

In Minnesota, and I thought elsewhere, hospitals can not by law turn away any one in need of medical attention.

That would seem to include delivery of a child.

I can not see how you see that as a political statement by the hospital or anyone giving aid..

Are Texas hospitals allowed to turn away patients in need?

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

You seem to make every issue an either/or problem. Everything is black or white, 1 or 0, if someone does not agree on building a wall or wh**ever you are calling it today, that does not in anyway mean they are opposed to border security..

the "wall" is ineffective, timely to build, and expensive.. money down the drain.. better to spend it other ways..

BP union was officially opposed to wall, when trump brought the current union leader to the white house and offered him what ever it was.. the statement was removed and the supposed preferance of the union was changed over night..

What did the union leader gain from the orange con man???

son of witless

You seem to be in need of an optometrist or did you just sew your eyelids shut ?