Nanker Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 This turd shouldn’t resign from office. He should commit seppuku. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, Nanker said: This turd shouldn’t resign from office. He should commit seppuku. What's fantastic about this is that he was likely ratted out by PP or their operatives. No way this stuff wasn't known within the DNC circles... he messes up and talks about the real goals of PP on the radio, triggering outrage - so they kick him to the curb with their wasted $2m (of tax payer money). Which just reinforces the point about prog-fascism I laid out above. Step out of line - even if you're a loyal soldier like the Governor is/was - they will ***** end you. But let's hear more about how fascism is what they're fighting against... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 9 minutes ago, Nanker said: This turd shouldn’t resign from office. He should commit seppuku. There's also this to consider: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Crayola64 said: Absolutely, I guess that would fall under my second part of deciding if or what the consequences should be. while iv never dressed in black face, imagine having a snapshot of stuff you’ve said or done taken out of context. None of us would have jobs now! the more concerning thing about this guy was his ramblings about infanticide when the bill doesn’t permit it... The bill might not explicitly permit it but it is written in a way that the law might allow or ignore it. BTW, and I say this with respect and all sincerity, you may want to take a hard look at many of the positions of your party. It's nothing like the party of your father and if given their way would turn us into a 3rd world country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Good thread here for consideration about the slippery slope... (language warning) 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Crayola64 said: On a side note, as someone who has lived in the south, Virginia, and now a liberal bubble that is Minneapolis...this current controversy is so Virginia. It really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 32 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Good thread here for consideration about the slippery slope... (language warning) Super solid thought process on this. I want him to refuse to resign, and I want the hypocrisy of the left to become more evident to the moderates and others like @Crayola64 who are sick of this thought patrol bull####! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: The question that also needs to be asked is one of context. What if that picture was taken from a play that was making fun of racism or attacking stereotypes? Not so black or white anymore, eh? Or like I said, what if it was a black guy in the KKK costume, and intended to be ironic? The problem is that the lunatic fringe will allow absolutely no context. Context doesn't matter. The entire idea of "cultural appropriation," in fact, is to decontextualize everything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 This Virginia governor is HILARIOUS! Let’s support the ***** out of him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: What's fantastic about this is that he was likely ratted out by PP or their operatives. No way this stuff wasn't known within the DNC circles... I have seen some references to it being out there months ago. Here is one: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Now he denies it's him in the picture he apologized for being in. This is getting Gary Hart/Monkey Business-level entertaining. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: The bill might not explicitly permit it but it is written in a way that the law might allow or ignore it. I think we’ve beaten it to death at this point. Strong disagree it permits anything after the birth, but agree to disagree! Quote BTW, and I say this with respect and all sincerity, you may want to take a hard look at many of the positions of your party. It's nothing like the party of your father and if given their way would turn us into a 3rd world country. I disagree with a lot of their positions, but same with republicans. Both have some idiotic stances. Both have become so overly sensitive too it’s hiloarious; each having a laundry list of stuff to whine about...kneeling verse staring!!! Edited February 2, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I think we’ve beaten it to death at this point. Strong disagree it permits anything after the birth, but agree to disagree! Even if it did what mother in her right mind would go through a full term pregnancy and then change her mind at the last second? That's crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, Doc Brown said: Even if it did what mother in her right mind would go through a full term pregnancy and then change her mind at the last second? That's crazy. Yea I mentioned that pushing any statute to its extreme regarding time limits can produce unrealistic and dumb scenarios. My example was a law that allows you to return a car if you discover a previously unknown defect within 6 months...of course returning it after minutes would be nonsensical. but I don’t even see a sentence in that bill that you can even argue allows you to kill a baby after it’s been born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Even if it did what mother in her right mind would go through a full term pregnancy and then change her mind at the last second? That's crazy. postpartum depression can start before birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, Crayola64 said: Yea I mentioned that pushing any statute to its extreme regarding time limits can produce unrealistic and dumb scenarios. My example was a law that allows you to return a car if you discover a previously unknown defect within 6 months...of course returning it after minutes would be nonsensical. but I don’t even see a sentence in that bill that you can even argue allows you to kill a baby after it’s been born. There isn't. The outrage machine came from conservative propaganda networks who saw a political opportunity and ran with it after Northam's comment. It's actually funny because the MSM will often do this with Trump's comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: There isn't. The outrage machine came from conservative propaganda networks who saw a political opportunity and ran with it after Northam's comment. It's actually funny because the MSM will often do this with Trump's comments. Curious. Can you list the conservative propaganda networks for me? I'll spot you Fox News. Go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, LABillzFan said: Curious. Can you list the conservative propaganda networks for me? I'll spot you Fox News. Go. There are none. Well, Fox Business I guess. I should've said outlets that include talk radio and right wing websites (Breitbart, Daily Caller, Daily Wire). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 It's really best to judge the article by the author ...................and not the site. Quote Planned ParenthoodVerified account @PPFA FollowFollow @PPFA There is no place for @GovernorVA’s racist actions or language in our democracy, or our country. He should resign immediately. How about infanticide ? Quote Sean DavisVerified account @seanmdav 18h18 Justin Fairfax, who would replace Northam, is a former Planned Parenthood official who is even more radically pro-infanticide than Northam. There’s no downside for abortionists in calling for Northam’s head. They get all the baby-killing w/o the baggage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Even if it did what mother in her right mind would go through a full term pregnancy and then change her mind at the last second? That's crazy. Women + hormonal imbalance = crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 3 hours ago, LABillzFan said: Curious. Can you list the conservative propaganda networks for me? I'll spot you Fox News. Go. Actually the news shows are pretty down the middle, other than Shepard Smith who would fit in very well at MSNBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Actually the news shows are pretty down the middle, other than Shepard Smith who would fit in very well at MSNBC. Shepard Smith is one of the best at reporting real time news, but, that doesn’t mean he isn’t a complete tool for the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Democrats’ Inexorable Abortion Logic Has Finally Caught Up With Them From unrestricted late-term abortions to infanticide, Democrats are now facing the consequences of a position that never had a limiting principle. FTA: The Virginia bill, for example, would change state law to allow third-trimester abortions if the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to “impair the mental or physical health of the woman”—removing the qualifiers “substantially and irremediably.” In other words, almost any impairment—anxiety, depression, physical discomfort—is enough to justify abortion up to the point of delivery. As my colleague David Harsanyi pointed out on Twitter, is there a difference between aborting a fetus in the third trimester because it’s causing the mother emotional distress, and killing a premature infant in the NICU for the same reason? If there is a difference, what is it? Will any Democrat say? They will not, because there is no difference, and they know it. These bills demonstrate that the debate over abortion was never about when life begins. All that hemming and hawing about a fetus just being a “clump of cells” was disingenuous from the start. {SNIP} Until recently, abortion advocates refused to acknowledge this. But now they are coming around, in part because the Democratic Party’s leftist base has demanded it. They don’t want any more talk about abortion being “safe, legal, and rare,” they want to proclaim it as a positive good. But to do that, abortion mustn’t hinge on a question of biology or gestation or fetus viability, but on the sheer will of the mother. It’s now possible to find abortion advocates who will come right out and say this, and even talk about it at length. In an August 2017 episode of Philosophy Time, a YouTube series in which actor James Franco and philosophy professor Eliot Michaelson have conversations with academics about various topics, the interviewee was professor Elizabeth Harman, who teaches philosophy at Princeton University. Harman attempted to explain why aborted fetuses don’t have “moral status” the way that non-aborted fetuses do. She said that everyone alive has moral status, and that we all had moral status when we were in utero, “in virtue of our futures… We were [the] beginning stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person and it doesn’t have moral status Franco asks, “If a woman decides to have an abortion with an early fetus, just that act or that intention negates the ‘moral status’ of that early fetus just because if she goes out and has an abortion, it’s pretty certain that it’s not going to become a person?” Harman’s response is worth quoting at length, because she articulates what has always been the necessary logical position of abortion supporters, although even she struggles to come out and state it plainly: Right, so it might look like, on my view, abortion is permissible because you had the abortion but that abortion wouldn’t have been permissible if you didn’t have the abortion. That’s not quite the view, for I think two different reasons. So one reason is that, um, even if you have moral status—and in my view back when you were an early fetus you had moral status—but it’s not that aborting you would have been wrong, because if your mother had chosen to abort her pregnancy then it wouldn’t have been the case that you would have had moral status because you would have died as an early fetus, so she would have been aborting something that didn’t have moral status. So it’s not—my view isn’t that if you do abort, abortion is OK but if you don’t abort, abortion would have been wrong. But what it turns out is that it’s a contingent matter that you have moral status. You actually have moral status but you might not have counted morally at all if you had been aborted. You would have existed but you just would have had this really very short existence in which you wouldn’t have mattered morally. That’s a tortured way of saying that if a woman desires to bring her fetus to term, she imputes personhood to her child and it gains moral status. That is, nothing but the woman’s will confers moral status on the unborn child. In Harman’s view, there is nothing inherent about a fetus that gives it moral status. The right to life, to personhood, is entirely contingent. In the actual interview, Harman might sound a bit befuddled, but she’s no fool (she has a PhD in philosophy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a bachelor’s from Harvard, and teaches at Princeton). Harman knows exactly what she’s saying—and why. At least she’s honest. Unlike most abortion advocates, Harman is willing to accept that whether a baby is born or not is an irrelevant milestone, a meaningless observation. What really matters is whether the mother desires it to be born. Last Line Now at last the pretense has lifted and we can talk about what we should have been talking about for the past 46 years: whether parents have the right to commit infanticide against their unwanted children. MORE AT THE LINK: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 6 hours ago, Doc Brown said: There isn't. The outrage machine came from conservative propaganda networks who saw a political opportunity and ran with it after Northam's comment. It's actually funny because the MSM will often do this with Trump's comments. I'm sorry Doc, but you're wrong. If you choose to support Northams comments, such is your right in America. However, assuming that folks who believe that life begins at conception, or the many of us who get queasy about snuffing a life much after 3 months, need conservative media to wind us up about taking life at 7..8..or 9 months, well, you have not been paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 1 hour ago, njbuff said: Shepard Smith is one of the best at reporting real time news, but, that doesn’t mean he isn’t a complete tool for the left. He's the stereotypical little biotch that has a hissy fit as he exaggerates everything that makes Trump look bad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I'm sorry Doc, but you're wrong. If you choose to support Northams comments, such is your right in America. However, assuming that folks who believe that life begins at conception, or the many of us who get queasy about snuffing a life much after 3 months, need conservative media to wind us up about taking life at 7..8..or 9 months, well, you have not been paying attention. I'm not supporting his comments. If the proposed law actually allowed infanticide I'd be just as worked up as many on this thread. It doesn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 7 hours ago, Doc Brown said: I'm not supporting his comments. If the proposed law actually allowed infanticide I'd be just as worked up as many on this thread. It doesn't. “Our policy manual forbids racism, therefore there is no racism going on here.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 https://twitter.com/OliverMcGee/status/1091898514542641153 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 10 hours ago, Doc Brown said: I'm not supporting his comments. If the proposed law actually allowed infanticide I'd be just as worked up as many on this thread. It doesn't. It's very clear that the guv thought it included infanticide and that he would have signed it and that he was cool with it. The sponsor of the bill clearly stated that a woman in labor could abort. You don't think the definition of labor could be "interpreted" by these ghouls? The guv already showed that it would be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 18 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: It's very clear that the guv thought it included infanticide and that he would have signed it and that he was cool with it. The sponsor of the bill clearly stated that a woman in labor could abort. You don't think the definition of labor could be "interpreted" by these ghouls? The guv already showed that it would be. No because that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of how law works and what the bill says. This is such a ridiculous argument. Look, the bill allows abortion right up until birth (though that’s an extreme and would be beyond rare). Why can’t you all just complain about that as immoral or whatever without making the argument it allows after birth abortions? Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 23 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: No because that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of how law works and what the bill says. This is such a ridiculous argument. Look, the bill allows abortion right up until birth (though that’s an extreme and would be beyond rare). Why can’t you all just complain about that as immoral or whatever without making the argument it allows after birth abortions? Christ. Did you not listen to the governor's statement several days ago that the law would allow for the killing of a just born baby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Did you not listen to the governor's statement several days ago that the law would allow for the killing of a just born baby? Dude, he wore blackface or a KKK hood 34 years ago (unless he didn't, but he's sorry anyhow). That invalidates his statements on interpretations of the proposed legislation! There's nothing to see here, move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Did you not listen to the governor's statement several days ago that the law would allow for the killing of a just born baby? Yea, politicians mistating what laws can and cannot do really isn’t relevant. I know that’s dumb, but that’s the way it is. And politicians say a lot of dumb and wrong things about laws. even if there was something ambiguous about the timing portion in the bill, which there is not (which can’t be said enough...seriously quote any ambiguity about timing.), you look to a million other things to figure out the ambiguity, not what the governor said on the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Dude, he wore blackface or a KKK hood 34 years ago (unless he didn't, but he's sorry anyhow). That invalidates his statements on interpretations of the proposed legislation! There's nothing to see here, move along. I never wore blackface but every time I travel on Bailey Ave. in Buffalo I see all these people that do. 2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Yea, politicians mistating what laws can and cannot do really isn’t relevant. I know that’s dumb, but that’s the way it is. And politicians say a lot of dumb and wrong things about laws. even if there was something ambiguous about the timing portion in the bill, which there is not (which can’t be said enough...seriously quote any ambiguity about timing.), you look to a million other things to figure out the ambiguity, not what the governor said on the radio. It's not like the governor was/is a pediatrician or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: It's not like the governor was/is a pediatrician or anything. Sorry, that’s not how interpreting laws work. An expert on abortion bills can’t weigh in either. It’s not about his qualifications, it’s that there are more important things to consider. And again, the bill isn’t ambiguous with timing so it doesn’t matter. It speaks for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 13 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Yea, politicians mistating what laws can and cannot do really isn’t relevant. I know that’s dumb, but that’s the way it is. And politicians say a lot of dumb and wrong things about laws. even if there was something ambiguous about the timing portion in the bill, which there is not (which can’t be said enough...seriously quote any ambiguity about timing.), you look to a million other things to figure out the ambiguity, not what the governor said on the radio. 7 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Sorry, that’s not how interpreting laws work. An expert on abortion bills can’t weigh in either. It’s not about his qualifications, it’s that there are more important things to consider. And again, the bill isn’t ambiguous with timing so it doesn’t matter. It speaks for itself. what. kind. of. *****ery. is. this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 40 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: No because that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of how law works and what the bill says. This is such a ridiculous argument. Look, the bill allows abortion right up until birth (though that’s an extreme and would be beyond rare). Why can’t you all just complain about that as immoral or whatever without making the argument it allows after birth abortions? Christ. We've already been through this: what he was saying was referencing line 81 below. If the baby is being aborted or the woman has a miscarriage, and "the product of such abortion of miscarriage" shows "evidence of viability" (meaning having the ability to survive or live successfully)," then life support will be provided...which is where the governor talks about keeping the baby comfortable until the mother and doctor decide to kill it. There is no denying this is what he meant. There is also no denying how PP admitted they get more money for taking parts off a live baby than a dead one. So if you're okay with killing a baby outside of womb because "the products of such abortion or miscarriage" are still viable, then you're willing to let PP-backed doctors get their parts off the live "product of such abortion or miscarriage." It's the least he could do for $2M 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 8 minutes ago, Foxx said: what. kind. of. *****ery. is. this? I'll gladly discuss this with you if you want to learn something about interpreting statutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: We've already been through this: what he was saying was referencing line 81 below. If the baby is being aborted or the woman has a miscarriage, and "the product of such abortion of miscarriage" shows "evidence of viability" (meaning having the ability to survive or live successfully)," then life support will be provided...which is where the governor talks about keeping the baby comfortable until the mother and doctor decide to kill it. There is no denying this is what he meant. There is also no denying how PP admitted they get more money for taking parts off a live baby than a dead one. So if you're okay with killing a baby outside of womb because "the products of such abortion or miscarriage" are still viable, then you're willing to let PP-backed doctors get their parts off the live "product of such abortion or miscarriage." It's the least he could do for $2M Ok great. So like you said, this is discussing what to do after an abortion has already occurred. This is not talking about the decision to, for the first time like many people are saying, kill a baby. And two, this says shall. And I have already explained why shall is mandatory here. The easiest of which to understand is that "shall" is used constantly in the statute in the mandatory sense, and its not going to take a different meaning here. And also, interpreting it as may is silly, why would there be a provision saying you may use life support on a product of abortion if it has clearly visible evidence of viability? They already have that ability, and the whole sentence reads funny in different ways if you see it as may. Edit, I see what you are saying. You are saying the measures of life support are for the purpose of deciding whether or not to kill a viable living baby (instead of for purposes of keeping it alive no matter what). And my response is, there is nothing in the bill that says that. Literally nothing. Edited February 3, 2019 by Crayola64 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Foxx said: what. kind. of. *****ery. is. this? Great to see such experts in Constitutiona law like Crayola pontificating on these documents In areas of negotiating and final passage and intent and actual performance thanks sport!!! you must have a busy slate with your law practice and yet give us hours a day for free Edited February 3, 2019 by row_33 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts