Y'all wild for still engaging.

They're engaged?? Awuh!

---

You clearly don't understand the Overton window. If you did, you wouldn't say both sides do it, because that's nearly impossible to do when your goal is preservation. You can't use the status quo as one side of the Overton window. The right would have to be pushing for something outside the realm of the norm. For example, if the right were to use the Overton window, when the left says, ban on guns, the right would say, lets mandate gun ownership. That's how that would work. The closest thing I can think of in that regard is Trump's wall. It took a democrat to bring the Overton window to the right.

Now that we've established that you don't know what you're talking about, do you really believe those politicians are setting the priorities based on their own ideals or the ideals of their financial backers? I'll give you a hint: It's the latter. Outside of Manchin, give me one person who isn't walking in lockstep with the democratic party. How is that even possible? It's because their base, who are a bunch of non-thinking ideologues (hey there), wants to feel like they are making a positive change, and their financial backers have a superman complex and believe they can save the world (while making themselves rich).

I will make a concession that I don't really think we are fighting Marxism, and those that advocate it are a bit misinformed. But you, sir, are not doing yourself any favors by listening to the words coming out of their mouths and treating it like facts. They are a bunch of liars who make policy to benefit themselves, and you're a sucker for giving them an inch of credibility. Also, I find it telling who you chose as the truth tellers. Lol.

Ron DeSantis has already announced that he wants the 2023 session of the FL legislature to be about making Florida a "constitutional carry state." Perhaps this will mean open carry without a license. This is undoubtedly a case of the Overton Window moving right.  Enacting a new 15 week abortion restriction is another case.  The window moves both ways.

Now that we've established that I do in fact know what I'm taking about, you're blind if you haven't noticed that both parties are moving in lockstep on almost every issue.  This is not due to their financial backers.  Their financial backers have diverse opinions on various issues, as the elected officials themselves do.  The only reason we see so little evidence of this reality is *cowardice.*. There is rarely any reward for sticking your neck out against party consensus.  It's really not more complicated than that.

And I never said any politician was trustworthy.  They break their promises all the time, usually by failing to do what they promised to do, and more rarely by doing what they promised not to do.  What I did say is that Nancy Pelosi is a more reliable source for What Will Nancy Do Next, than, say, Joe Rogan or Mark Levin.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol. Constitutional carry. What's the key word there, Mikey? Then you jump to conjecture, but I was completely open to the idea that his policy is driven by his donors, but whatever. You missed your chance there because you have to argue EVERYTHING.

Abortion at 15 weeks? How many weeks was it in 1973? Republicans are, by and large, restricting abortion to the heartbeat, which is a LONG way from where we started this discussion. That you would site that as an example it as an example of the Overton window should prove that your getting your "facts" from far left sources. You need to start using your brain.

Love the strawman, btw. If you actually listened to those politicians and juxtaposed it against their net worth and actual policy, you'd know how naive it is to reference them in the first place.

---

Yes yes. I'm the one who has to argue everything. Whereas you are completely reasonable and just telling people they're wrong! Not arguing!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol. Constitutional carry. What's the key word there, Mikey? Then you jump to conjecture, but I was completely open to the idea that his policy is driven by his donors, but whatever. You missed your chance there because you have to argue EVERYTHING.

Abortion at 15 weeks? How many weeks was it in 1973? Republicans are, by and large, restricting abortion to the heartbeat, which is a LONG way from where we started this discussion. That you would site that as an example it as an example of the Overton window should prove that your getting your "facts" from far left sources. You need to start using your brain.

Love the strawman, btw. If you actually listened to those politicians and juxtaposed it against their net worth and actual policy, you'd know how naive it is to reference them in the first place.

I don't know if your disconnect is with knowledge of history, or with math, or reading comprehension.

In 1972 abortion was legalized in FL. Prior to the Roe decision.  Then in 1973 of course you have the federal Role v Wade decision.  Then in 1980 a privacy provision was added to the Florida constitution.  The Overton Window in Florida was moving left on the issue throughout this time. 
In 2021, the Florida Legislature considered a bill reducing the gestational age limit of abortion from 24 weeks to 20.  It did not pass.  But in 2022, the Florida Legislature passed a 15 week ban.  The Overton Window in Florida clearly moved right in just a year.  

In 1987, Florida passed concealed carry.  Prior to this, a person had to apply for a license to carry a gun outside the home, and it was up to the discretion of some bureaucrat to decide if you had "good character" and a good enough reason to carry a weapon in public, concealed or not.  Such laws were older than most of the people who wanted to carry weapons at the time.  But in 1987 the Overton Window shifted right and Florida said anyone could do concealed carry as long as they took a class, no subjective judgements of good character.  Open carry was also considered, along with permitless carry, but these were both well beyond the Overton Window at the time.  But today, the Overton Window has shifted further right and it's likely that permitless concealed carry will be the law throughout Florida, perhaps with some counties being able to opt out.  Perhaps open carry will be on the table as well, but, regardless, it's undeniable that the Overton Window shifted right.  

So yes, the Overton Window absolutely moves both ways.  And that's OK.  But when you say it's only "moving the window" when the right does it, because that's "restoring" or "preserving" something, that is special pleading. One of the most egregious logical fallacies.  And you should be smarter than that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Dude. You still don't get it. The Overton Window is the range of acceptable mainstream discussion for a political topic.

Having a discussion about whether or not an abortion should be when the heart starts is WELL within the mainstream discussion on this topic. If you ask anyone, it's at least reasonable to all accept the most fringe. On the other hand, saying you can abort a baby until birth is THE most extreme position you can take on this issue. You literally can't go any further (and even then, you still have people who are beginning to talk about giving a grace period after birth). It's well outside the realm of reasonable discourse.

Having a discussion about the constitutionality of carry laws falls WELL within the structure of the law in America. Saying we should take guns away is THE most extreme position you can take on the issue.

The political left allows and amplifies these radicals, NOT because it's what they want, necessarily, but because they know it will make their goals more achievable in the long run. The Overton Window is a political strategy, dude. It's not both ends of the argument. The right is not PUSHING the discussion to the right by wanting to cap abortions to 15 weeks. That is left of their original position. Geez man. If you're going to Google stuff, at least try to wrap your brain around it. For the life of me, I don't get your haughtiness.

This is exactly what's happening with the trans issue, and your stupid [BLEEP] is in here talking about puberty blockers for 4 years so kids can figure out if they are a man or a woman. You're so freaking gullible. A smarter person wouldn't take the bait and move so far left over the course of 5 years. You just can't help yourself from looking through that window, though. Keep letting Pelosi and Schumer, the most honest of politicians, shape your views bro.

---

Dude. You still don't get it. The Overton Window is the range of acceptable mainstream discussion for a political topic. Having a discussion about whether or not an abortion should be when the heart starts is WELL within the mainstream discussion on this topic. If you ask anyone, it's at least reasonable to all accept the most fringe. On the other hand, saying you can abort a baby until birth is THE most extreme position you can take on this issue. You literally can't go any further (and even then, you still have people who are beginning to talk about giving a grace period after birth). It's well outside the realm of reasonable discourse.

The political left allows and amplifies these radicals, NOT because it's what they want, necessarily, but because they know it will make their goals more achievable in the long run. The Overton Window is a political strategy, dude. It's not both ends of the argument. The right is not PUSHING the discussion to the right by wanting to cap abortions to 15 weeks. That is left of their original position. Geez man. If you're going to Google stuff, at least try to wrap your brain around it. For the life of me, I don't get your haughtiness.

This is exactly what's happening with the trans issue, and your stupid [BLEEP] is in here talking about puberty blockers for 4 years so kids can figure out if they are a man or a woman. You're so freaking gullible. A smarter person wouldn't take the bait and move so far left over the course of 5 years. You just can't help yourself from looking through that window, though. Keep letting Pelosi and Schumer, the most honest of politicians, shape your views bro.

Gestation is 9 months.  On one end you have conception and on the other end birth.  You're correct that there are people who advocate for abortion-on-demand up to the point of birth.  You're correct that these people get amplified by other people who are less extreme but want to come across as moderates.  

But you omit that there are also people who say that elective abortion should never be allowed at any stage of gestation.  And these are also amplified by cynics who are less extreme but wish to appear moderate.

So even if we define the Overton Window your way, as a matter of discourse rather than legislating, you still have to cherry pick to arrive at your conclusion.  

And I never said Pelosi or Schumer shaped my views.  I said they were in power and that they were the most reliable source of information for what they would do with that power.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Dude. You still don't get it. The Overton Window is the range of acceptable mainstream discussion for a political topic. Having a discussion about whether or not an abortion should be when the heart starts is WELL within the mainstream discussion on this topic. If you ask anyone, it's at least reasonable to all accept the most fringe. On the other hand, saying you can abort a baby until birth is THE most extreme position you can take on this issue. You literally can't go any further (and even then, you still have people who are beginning to talk about giving a grace period after birth). It's well outside the realm of reasonable discourse.

The political left allows and amplifies these radicals, NOT because it's what they want, necessarily, but because they know it will make their goals more achievable in the long run. The Overton Window is a political strategy, dude. It's not both ends of the argument. The right is not PUSHING the discussion to the right by wanting to cap abortions to 15 weeks. That is left of their original position. Geez man. If you're going to Google stuff, at least try to wrap your brain around it. For the life of me, I don't get your haughtiness.

This is exactly what's happening with the trans issue, and your stupid [BLEEP] is in here talking about puberty blockers for 4 years so kids can figure out if they are a man or a woman. You're so freaking gullible. A smarter person wouldn't take the bait and move so far left over the course of 5 years. You just can't help yourself from looking through that window, though. Keep letting Pelosi and Schumer, the most honest of politicians, shape your views bro.

Gestation is 9 months.  On one end you have conception and on the other end birth.  You're correct that there are people who advocate for abortion-on-demand up to the point of birth.  You're correct that these people get amplified by other people who are less extreme but want to come across as moderates.  

But you omit that there are also people who say that elective abortion should never be allowed at any stage of gestation.  And these are also amplified by cynics who are less extreme but wish to appear moderate.

So even if we define the Overton Window your way, as a matter of discourse rather than legislating, you still have to cherry pick to arrive at your conclusion.  

And I never said Pelosi or Schumer shaped my views.  I said they were in power and that they were the most reliable source of information for what they would do with that power.

First of all... it's not how I define it. That is the definition. 

Secondly, I don't omit the bolded. IT WAS ALWAYS A PART OF THE DISCUSSION. At no point in history of public debate on abortion was there ever a group that didn't advocate for life at conception, dude. In fact, that group was the majority. Now they may be the far right, but it was ALWAYS A PART OF THE DISCUSSION within the mainstream. Now, it's starting to become less mainstream, but why? The Window pushes the discourse left. It's a political tool, and too many people in this country are not wise enough to it. 

And, I hate to even go here, if you really listened to these people you mentioned, you would find they talk about the Overton window. Their strategists talk about it. I admitted a place where the Overton window moved right, and Trump brought it. He brought it because he thinks like the left. He did it with anti-establishmentism, too, but I think that was more shattering a mirror than shifting the window. The right as an institution, has almost never moved the window right. You'd have to go all the way back to the Christian Coalition of the 80's to find it. It's a staple on the left.

---

Gestation is 9 months.  On one end you have conception and on the other end birth.  You're correct that there are people who advocate for abortion-on-demand up to the point of birth.  You're correct that these people get amplified by other people who are less extreme but want to come across as moderates.  

But you omit that there are also people who say that elective abortion should never be allowed at any stage of gestation.  And these are also amplified by cynics who are less extreme but wish to appear moderate.

So even if we define the Overton Window your way, as a matter of discourse rather than legislating, you still have to cherry pick to arrive at your conclusion.  

And I never said Pelosi or Schumer shaped my views.  I said they were in power and that they were the most reliable source of information for what they would do with that power.

First of all... it's not how I define it. That is the definition. 

Secondly, I don't omit the bolded. IT WAS ALWAYS A PART OF THE DISCUSSION. At no point in history of public debate on abortion was there ever a group that didn't advocate for life at conception, dude. In fact, that group was the majority. Now they may be the far right, but it was ALWAYS A PART OF THE DISCUSSION within the mainstream. Now, it's starting to become less mainstream, but why? The Window pushes the discourse left. It's a political tool, and too many people in this country are not wise enough to it. 

And, I hate to even go here, if you really listened to these people you mentioned, you would find they talk about the Overton window. Their strategists talk about it. I admitted a place where the Overton window moved right, and Trump brought it. He brought it because he thinks like the left. He did it with anti-establishmentism, too, but I think that was more shattering a mirror than shifting the window. The right as an institution, has almost never moved the window right. You'd have to go all the way back to the Christian Coalition of the 80's to find it. It's a staple on the left.

In capital letters there we find an appeal to the ancients.  And not even a good one! While we know that some among the ancients opposed abortion, which back then was only possible by taking a high dose of pennyroyal tea early in pregnancy, we also know that many of them turned a blind eye as poor mothers abandoned their babies in the woods to die, which amounted to an abortion but just after birth. Which by your own words you call the most extreme position possible. So that was "part of the discussion" as well

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol

---

And I know we are way off topic, but I'm not saying one view of abortion is as good as another. I'm only saying both sides use the same tactic of pulling the Overton Window their way. An Overton Window is part of any society and all societies change, so all Overton windows change. I am pro life and I am glad that the Overton Window is moving to the right on that issue.
My only concern is there are reports that gynecologists are refusing to treat any miscarriage until the mother's life is in danger, so as to avoid being accused of assisting in an intentional abortion of a healthy fetus.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Only you would "appeal to the ancients" in a discussion on the Overton Window and modern political discourse. Seriously, dude. You make me laugh. I don't know how anyone takes you seriously.

---

Only you would "appeal to the ancients" in a discussion on the Overton Window and modern political discourse. Seriously, dude. You make me laugh. I don't know how anyone takes you seriously.

You appealed to the ancients first.  You said a point of view was "always" part of the discussion. You didn't say "since 1920" or "since the founding of the US", you said "always." Meaning as far back as written documents will let us go.  So I went there with you, but you were there first.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Only you would "appeal to the ancients" in a discussion on the Overton Window and modern political discourse. Seriously, dude. You make me laugh. I don't know how anyone takes you seriously.

---

Only you would "appeal to the ancients" in a discussion on the Overton Window and modern political discourse. Seriously, dude. You make me laugh. I don't know how anyone takes you seriously.

I don't think anyone on this thread does.  I made a very simple libertarian argument and no one even understood it let alone took it seriously.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't think anyone on this thread does.  I made a very simple libertarian argument and no one even understood it let alone took it seriously.

Lol, you aren't very good at pretending to be what you aren't. Haven't been since you got here.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I don't think anyone on this thread does.  I made a very simple libertarian argument and no one even understood it let alone took it seriously.

Lol, you aren't very good at pretending to be what you aren't. Haven't been since you got here.

And you're a terrible moderator.  You've been that way since I got here.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Bro, you had to go back to Greek and Roman times to justify your Overton Window theory in a discussion we were having about modern political dialogue. Let that sink in. You do not argue in good faith.

---

Bro, you had to go back to Greek and Roman times to justify your Overton Window theory in a discussion we were having about modern political dialogue. Let that sink in. You do not argue in good faith.

But I didn't go that far back.  "Changelings" and "giving children back to the Faeries" were accepted all over the British Isles and most of Northern Europe while the Founders of the US were alive.  It was winked at that these were actually excuses for poor families to rid themselves of kids that today we would call special needs, or kids that were viewed as an unacceptable burden for some other reason. The magistrates tolerated it because they knew they wouldn't be able to find a jury that didn't either share the superstition or at least sympathize with the family. In colonial US and Canada, the people were more educated and religious and didn't believe in fairies. When infanticide did occur, it was sometimes prosecuted, but often not. If there was simply a dead baby in the crib in the morning, with no external injuries, medical science wasn't sufficiently advanced to prove what had happened. And medical science was such that it happened all the time anyhow, babies dying for no apparent reason. In effect that was winked at as well.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You're like an encyclopedia of irrelevant information.

---