Jpizzle

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

88,125 posts in this topic

I just wanted to point out what a bunch of ****heads y'all are. Seriously, **** you!!

On both sides, you ******* cocksuckers are the most loathsome ****sticks I have ever seen. The Racist Nazi Conservatives on the right and the Bitchmade ******s on the left can ******* kill each other for all I care.

tl;dr **** YOU BAN ME *****!!!

Carter, Kevo, SpongeDong and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

And for what it's worth, they won't be prosecuted successfully under the new law, and I'd wager they won't be prosecuted at all but for the chance that some yahoo gung ho prosecutor in one of our eleventy billion counties might decide to try to make a name for himself the wrong way.

But if it makes you feel better, I personally know five people who voted for the law.  I'll ask each and every one of them to make the law more explicit in terms of prosecuting women who have an abortion.

The bottom bolded would be a good first step.  Particularly given that the top bolded part is not some far-fetched idea in that state, nor is it far fetched to see a appeal panel reach a different interpretation of the law than you and uphold such a prosecution if successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

I agreed with some of this and some of this was off the rails.

You always throw in WFW doesn't blah blah blah when I just disagreed with them ( when I said over my dead body) about these anti-abortion bills.

You agree with what you want to agree with and call that being moderate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DD: Objective Elite said:

I just wanted to point out what a bunch of ****heads y'all are. Seriously, **** you!!

On both sides, you ******* cocksuckers are the most loathsome ****sticks I have ever seen. The Racist Nazi Conservatives on the right and the Bitchmade ******s on the left can ******* kill each other for all I care.

tl;dr **** YOU BAN ME *****!!!

Love you too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DD: Objective Elite said:

I just wanted to point out what a bunch of ****heads y'all are. Seriously, **** you!!

On both sides, you ******* cocksuckers are the most loathsome ****sticks I have ever seen. The Racist Nazi Conservatives on the right and the Bitchmade ******s on the left can ******* kill each other for all I care.

tl;dr **** YOU BAN ME *****!!!

k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

No, you aren't.  And they said they weren't.  And the law is sufficiently clear on the abortion issue that it would take a lot of knot-untangling to allow what you propose is "express" in the law.

Nobody involved in passing this law is calling for the prosecution of women who have abortions.  The laws sponsors and the people who voted for it have said so publicly and to me privately.  Your argument appears to be that "well, that's what they said, but if you twist the law enough you can get to this conclusion, so their law EXPRESSLY does this dystopic thing I want to be true because it feeds the narrative."

I'm not claiming that this is what they're saying. Claiming that you do not intend to prosecute women is a very old trope among the anti-choice community. Only a handful, such as the Federalist article I posted earlier in the thread, are tossing that veil to the wayside. This is also a strange argument to make since you appear to be relying heavily on what they're saying to form your argument.

I'm pointing out what is intended by the law based on how it is worded, framed, and lines up with other laws. It has some challenge hurdles to jump over but that challenge boils down to whether or not the law is allowed to consider fetuses human or not. If it can then it can get around the criminal abortion statute and go straight for murder and conspiracy charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jerry Lundegaard said:

The bottom bolded would be a good first step.  Particularly given that the top bolded part is not some far-fetched idea in that state, nor is it far fetched to see a appeal panel reach a different interpretation of the law than you and uphold such a prosecution if successful.

Since an appeal panel has already ruled on the basic premise involved, I'm far more concerned about the former than the latter.

My point in my initial post was simply this -- the DAs promising not to prosecute women who have abortions are doing exactly what the law intends, not "opposing" it as that stupid article suggested.  Nobody wants to see women prosecuted for seeking abortions.  The point is to ensure that doctors and others who might wish to perform abortions be prosecuted.  That is what the legislature intended in passing the law, and that's what the law on its face calls for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DD: Objective Elite said:

I just wanted to point out what a bunch of ****heads y'all are. Seriously, **** you!!

On both sides, you ******* cocksuckers are the most loathsome ****sticks I have ever seen. The Racist Nazi Conservatives on the right and the Bitchmade ******s on the left can ******* kill each other for all I care.

tl;dr **** YOU BAN ME *****!!!

Someone's got a case of the Mondays.  Full disclosure, I don't know what day it is (I don't work or do anything remotely productive with my time).

Serge, The Monarch, Carter and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

I'm not claiming that this is what they're saying. Claiming that you do not intend to prosecute women is a very old trope among the anti-choice community. Only a handful, such as the Federalist article I posted earlier in the thread, are tossing that veil to the wayside. This is also a strange argument to make since you appear to be relying heavily on what they're saying to form your argument.

I'm pointing out what is intended by the law based on how it is worded, framed, and lines up with other laws. It has some challenge hurdles to jump over but that challenge boils down to whether or not the law is allowed to consider fetuses human or not. If it can then it can get around the criminal abortion statute and go straight for murder and conspiracy charges.

So you don't know what "expressly" means then.

I mean, now your argument is "I know what they SAY, but you see, I can read their minds and I know what they REALLY MEAN."

That's dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Serge said:

You agree with what you want to agree with and call that being moderate. 

That's too simple and frankly a bit dishonest. I also should disagree/agree where my convictions lay, if not I'm being dishonest with myself. 

Moderate is the best description to classify me. Although, some people have said Dem/liberal which is going way beyond the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S., it doesn't hurt my argument at all that I am personal friends with the four people I mentioned earlier, three of whom voted for this law and one of whom sponsored it.  I know them.  I know how they think.  I know who they are and what they care about.

They are not the stupid caricature you have painted in your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

Since an appeal panel has already ruled on the basic premise involved, I'm far more concerned about the former than the latter.

My point in my initial post was simply this -- the DAs promising not to prosecute women who have abortions are doing exactly what the law intends, not "opposing" it as that stupid article suggested.  Nobody wants to see women prosecuted for seeking abortions.  The point is to ensure that doctors and others who might wish to perform abortions be prosecuted.  That is what the legislature intended in passing the law, and that's what the law on its face calls for.

As I said before, that former panel was considering a different statute (still on the books, but not the statute under which a prosecution now would be brought) at a different time, without the personhood language from the new statute, and any decent lawyer could easily distinguish that case.  And with so many Federalist Society judges out there, no, I am not confident that some appellate panel wouldn't reach a bad decision based on any number of readings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

So you don't know what "expressly" means then.

I mean, now your argument is "I know what they SAY, but you see, I can read their minds and I know what they REALLY MEAN."

That's dumb.

I mean, I know what they're saying. I don't believe them while you do is the point there.

The bill expressly calling for prosecution of women who obtain abortions post 6 weeks, however, has been laid out a few times already. It's there that you're coming in and claiming that isn't what they really mean since your friend assured you that it's totally not what he's doing.

Optimus_Cr1m35 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

P.S., it doesn't hurt my argument at all that I am personal friends with the four people I mentioned earlier, three of whom voted for this law and one of whom sponsored it.  I know them.  I know how they think.  I know who they are and what they care about.

They are not the stupid caricature you have painted in your head.

This may all be true, but they did not expressly say it in their bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mdrake34 said:

Probably about time to take ABF out back and Old Yeller it. 

I was going to make this exact post, but I got lazy (it's my natural disposition).

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DD: Objective Elite said:

I just wanted to point out what a bunch of ****heads y'all are. Seriously, **** you!!

On both sides, you ******* cocksuckers are the most loathsome ****sticks I have ever seen. The Racist Nazi Conservatives on the right and the Bitchmade ******s on the left can ******* kill each other for all I care.

tl;dr **** YOU BAN ME *****!!!

Words of wisdom from a splinter boad poster...:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jerry Lundegaard said:

As I said before, that former panel was considering a different statute (still on the books, but not the statute under which a prosecution now would be brought) at a different time, without the personhood language from the new statute, and any decent lawyer could easily distinguish that case.  And with so many Federalist Society judges out there, no, I am not confident that some appellate panel wouldn't reach a bad decision based on any number of readings.  

Do you acknowledge this is a pretty significant reach, though?  That the law does not "expressly" provide for this as was claimed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

I mean, I know what they're saying. I don't believe them while you do is the point there.

The bill expressly calling for prosecution of women who obtain abortions post 6 weeks, however, has been laid out a few times already. It's there that you're coming in and claiming that isn't what they really mean since your friend assured you that it's totally not what he's doing.

Yeah.  I know them.  You don't.

So there's that.

There you go with "expressly" again.  Words mean things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jerry Lundegaard said:

This may all be true, but they did not expressly say it in their bill.

They sure didn't "expressly" say the opposite, either.

I'm in no way saying this is a perfect bill that accounts for every eventuality.  I will do my part to see it is tightened up (though obviously court challenges may make that all a moot point in any event).  But the Hunger Games narrative is absurdly ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

Yeah.  I know them.  You don't.

So there's that.

There you go with "expressly" again.  Words mean things.

So does the wording of laws, which you keep trying to brush aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

Yeah.  I know them.  You don't.

So there's that.

There you go with "expressly" again.  Words mean things.

Words are pretty cool but they can also hurt your feelings, which isn't cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

That's too simple and frankly a bit dishonest. I also should disagree/agree where my convictions lay, if not I'm being dishonest with myself. 

Moderate is the best description to classify me. Although, some people have said Dem/liberal which is going way beyond the truth.

I called you a Democrat because to this day you use Obama as justification for your support of the child internment camps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now