Jpizzle

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

88,114 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, 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.

Is this a hobby you enjoy? The Jdave beatdowns or is it some sort of masochistic behavior?

Share this post


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

Is this a hobby you enjoy? The Jdave beatdowns or is it some sort of masochistic behavior?

The resident whipping post asking someone else this...

God I love the internet.

Share this post


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

Is this a hobby you enjoy? The Jdave beatdowns or is it some sort of masochistic behavior?

Being a reply guy on a forum is just sad.

Share this post


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

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

Show me in black and white words where the new law "expressly" calls for the prosecution of women who obtain abortions past 6 weeks or who go out of state to procure one.

Here's the text.  Chapter and verse please:

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20192020/HB/481

Share this post


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

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

I've never described holding children in "internment camps" when they were held at facilities with food, shelter, physical activities, schooling, and medical treatment. All the while Dems are trying to take beds out of the facilities.

 

Share this post


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

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

No, I don't think it's a significant reach at all.  I think there are very clear, cohesive arguments that could be made by a prosecutor and competent appellate attorneys for why it is the exactly right outcome.  And given the failure to expressly include language in the new statute exempting women (and thus relying on a separate statute for that protection), I have difficulty believing this was not the intent of at least some of the bill's sponsors and voters.

Share this post


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

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

When we are talking about what people intend, to wit.....

7 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

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

.....the wording of laws may apply to some other argument, but not to the issue I'm addressing.

You say you don't believe them.  I know them and you don't, so what you think doesn't really matter much to me.  

Share this post


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

Show me in black and white words where the new law "expressly" calls for the prosecution of women who obtain abortions past 6 weeks or who go out of state to procure one.

Here's the text.  Chapter and verse please:

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20192020/HB/481

So we've whittled this down from whether or not the anti-choice bill allows for women to be prosecuted to whether or not it's expressly stated within the bill.

lol alright

It's not expressly stated. They merely set up the framework for women to be prosecuted for murder for getting an abortion post-6 weeks.

Share this post


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

Being a reply guy on a forum is just sad.

Watching you struggle against JDave is what's sad, although I enjoy it. It compares with watching Doug destroy Optimus in the gun thread.

Share this post


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

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.

Given the zealotry of religious minded politicians and constituencies, it is not nearly as ridiculous as you claim.  

Share this post


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

Watching you struggle against JDave is what's sad, although I enjoy it. It compares with watching Doug destroy Optimus in the gun thread.

Just sad.

Share this post


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

I've never described holding children in "internment camps" when they were held at facilities with food, shelter, physical activities, schooling, and medical treatment. All the while Dems are trying to take beds out of the facilities.

 

Yeah, exactly, you want to mitigate your support of child internment camps, and that includes blaming Democrats for a policy Trump has wanted to emphasize several times during his administration. So I call you a Democrat, because you blame Democrats for supporting a policy that you support.

Share this post


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

No, I don't think it's a significant reach at all.  I think there are very clear, cohesive arguments that could be made by a prosecutor and competent appellate attorneys for why it is the exactly right outcome.  And given the failure to expressly include language in the new statute exempting women (and thus relying on a separate statute for that protection), I have difficulty believing this was not the intent of at least some of the bill's sponsors and voters.

The people I know who voted for the new law made it very clear, again publicly and privately to me, that they viewed the law as sufficient to address that concern.  They did not modify the portions of the abortion and feticide statutes that already prohibit such prosecutions.  They did not see this as the basis for a murder charge and took into account the Hillman case saying such prosecutions could not be brought.

The feticide statute already considers the unborn to be human beings.  That's why I suggest it's a stretch to say the murder statute applies to this.  They didn't change the existing structure of Georgia law which provides three separate and distinct punishments based on stage of development -- abortion, feticide and homicide.  They could have, but they didn't.

If they failed to draft a law that properly accounts for that, as I said, I will encourage them to fix that.  But when someone who doesn't know the people I know tells me what they really intend, sorry, that's just silly.

Share this post


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

Given the zealotry of religious minded politicians and constituencies, it is not nearly as ridiculous as you claim.  

To the extent that may be true, it's also not nearly as inevitable as others claim.  In fact, it's pretty **** unlikely.

Share this post


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

So we've whittled this down from whether or not the anti-choice bill allows for women to be prosecuted to whether or not it's expressly stated within the bill.

lol alright

It's not expressly stated. They merely set up the framework for women to be prosecuted for murder for getting an abortion post-6 weeks.

Thank you for admitting the anti-death law doesn't expressly say what you said it expressly says.

Words mean things.

Share this post


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

The people I know who voted for the new law made it very clear, again publicly and privately to me, that they viewed the law as sufficient to address that concern.  They did not modify the portions of the abortion and feticide statutes that already prohibit such prosecutions.  They did not see this as the basis for a murder charge and took into account the Hillman case saying such prosecutions could not be brought.

The feticide statute already considers the unborn to be human beings.  That's why I suggest it's a stretch to say the murder statute applies to this.  They didn't change the existing structure of Georgia law which provides three separate and distinct punishments based on stage of development -- abortion, feticide and homicide.  They could have, but they didn't.

If they failed to draft a law that properly accounts for that, as I said, I will encourage them to fix that.  But when someone who doesn't know the people I know tells me what they really intend, sorry, that's just silly.

With all due respect for your friends, if they didn't see the wormhole that bill would open up by failing to explicitly address it in the bill, I'm not sure I have much faith in the competency as bill drafters.  Moreover, you said you knew one of the sponsors, not all, and you certainly don't know all of the politicians who voted for it, right?  So even if the people you know think one way, it doesn't mean that everyone with input into the bill thinks the same.  As an aside, who actually drafted the bill?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Just sad.

Exactly, you finally got it.

What would my advice to you be? Don't engage with JDave or me for that matter. It's above your pay grade.

Share this post


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

The people I know who voted for the new law made it very clear, again publicly and privately to me, that they viewed the law as sufficient to address that concern.  They did not modify the portions of the abortion and feticide statutes that already prohibit such prosecutions.  They did not see this as the basis for a murder charge and took into account the Hillman case saying such prosecutions could not be brought.

The feticide statute already considers the unborn to be human beings.  That's why I suggest it's a stretch to say the murder statute applies to this.  They didn't change the existing structure of Georgia law which provides three separate and distinct punishments based on stage of development -- abortion, feticide and homicide.  They could have, but they didn't.

If they failed to draft a law that properly accounts for that, as I said, I will encourage them to fix that.  But when someone who doesn't know the people I know tells me what they really intend, sorry, that's just silly.

No it doesn't. The closest it comes is using "reason and humanity" in regard to arguing for why feticide should be charged.

5 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Thank you for admitting the anti-death law doesn't expressly say what you said it expressly says.

Words mean things.

And you've come a long way from stating that women couldn't be prosecuted.

Share this post


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

With all due respect for your friends, if they didn't see the wormhole that bill would open up by failing to explicitly address it in the bill, I'm not sure I have much faith in the competency as bill drafters.  Moreover, you said you knew one of the sponsors, not all, and you certainly don't know all of the politicians who voted for it, right?  So even if the people you know think one way, it doesn't mean that everyone with input into the bill thinks the same.  As an aside, who actually drafted the bill?

 

I know a whole lot of state legislators, lobbyists, etc.  I don't have much faith in any of their competency as bill drafters.  I have to live under the laws they draft, and it doesn't often make my life easy.  There are holes in every law I encounter as an attorney.

That's not to hate on these folks.  Some of them are lawyers, some are not.  It's simply to say, I don't expect perfect bills and neither should you.  That's no reason to impute bad intentions on people you don't know, however, which was my point to PG.

Share this post


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

Exactly, you finally got it.

What would my advice to you be? Don't engage with JDave or me for that matter. It's above your pay grade.

Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

I know a whole lot of state legislators, lobbyists, etc.  I don't have much faith in any of their competency as bill drafters.  I have to live under the laws they draft, and it doesn't often make my life easy.  There are holes in every law I encounter as an attorney.

That's not to hate on these folks.  Some of them are lawyers, some are not.  It's simply to say, I don't expect perfect bills and neither should you.  That's no reason to impute bad intentions on people you don't know, however, which was my point to PG.

If we are talking run of the mill legislation, sure.  With something like this, and all the ramifications it could have and is intended to have (e.g., a challenge to Roe), I **** sure expect my legislators to be as precise as possible.

Edited by Jerry Lundegaard

Share this post


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

No it doesn't. The closest it comes is using "reason and humanity" in regard to arguing for why feticide should be charged.

And you've come a long way from stating that women couldn't be prosecuted.

Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with what I've said here.

3 hours ago, JDaveG said:

The law doesn’t call for prosecuting women. So they will be expressly following the law. 

 

2 hours ago, JDaveG said:

I do. There is a statute that exempts women from being prosecuted under Georgia’s abortion laws for the death of her own child and a reported case that applies it. 

Take your own advice. You’re believing a lie. 

 

You, on the other hand, think the law "states" that women who have abortions are "taking part in a murder conspiracy."

2 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

You have one statute that states women can't be prosecuted yet you have a new one stating they're taking part in a murder conspiracy if they do and are not exempt. Which one breaks when push comes to shove?

But you think I've moved "a long way" here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Serge said:

Yeah, exactly, you want to mitigate your support of child internment camps, and that includes blaming Democrats for a policy Trump has wanted to emphasize several times during his administration. So I call you a Democrat, because you blame Democrats for supporting a policy that you support.

The only internment camps that existed in my lifetime were the ones FDR (D) imposed on Japanese camps.

The pictures you got excited about we're under Obama's watch (where you said nothing) but we're happy to blame on Trump.

I have to take points away for sincerity and I'm sure you can see why if you're being honest with yourself.

Share this post


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

If we are talking run of the mill legislation, sure.  With something like this, and all the ramifications it could have and is intended to have (e.g., a challenge to Roe), I **** sure expect my legislators to be as precise as possible.

"Imprecise" and "want to throw women in jail for having miscarriages" are a long way apart in terms of imputing motives.

Again, you haven't imputed motives.  But that's the context of the discussion you've entered.

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