Jump to content

Abortion Basically Illegal In Texas Now


Tiberius
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Eddie got me into playing guitar.  But they're a couple of my favorites, yes.

 

 

I showed him that he was duped by his masters last year, at a critical juncture in the Wuhan virus epidemic.  It's a bitter pill to swallow so denial seems to be his defense mechanism. 

My friend collects those old Kramers from the 80’s. He loves those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

I am happy to correct any grammatical issues my posts have if it opens up a slight chance of stopping you from being such a repetitive bore.  What you are doing here isn't "work", unless acting like a divisive @ss is a job.  

 

Edit to add that if mocking grammar and screen names is your only game, maybe you should shut up and listen for awhile. 

I didn’t realize that you are such a snowflake.  Maybe I should include in my work information about the perils of consuming cheap whiskey. I’m guessing you guzzle that stuff, chow down on red meat as much as you can, and will munch some HCQ/ivermectin with “Doc,” but won’t get the COVID vax because of your “concern about what goes in your body.”  One of those meal team six guys who has never met a Big Mac he didn’t like but won’t get the vax for “health” reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Governor said:

My friend collects those old Kramers from the 80’s. He loves those things.

 

I always wanted to get one, but again the cost.  I can easily afford it but I can't justify spending that much, especially when it won't allow me to play like them.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

After the grammar deputy wraps up that crime scene, we can send the punctuation and sentence structure police your way.

 

🙄

Looks like we have a grammarian on our hands here.  Excellent news.  I look forward to your input. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I didn’t realize that you are such a snowflake.  Maybe I should include in my work information about the perils of consuming cheap whiskey. I’m guessing you guzzle that stuff, chow down on red meat as much as you can, and will munch some HCQ/ivermectin with “Doc,” but won’t get the COVID vax because of your “concern about what goes in your body.”  One of those meal team six guys who has never met a Big Mac he didn’t like but won’t get the vax for “health” reasons. 

 

Yes because a vaccine that has been around for 9 months has proven long-term safety versus 2 drugs that have been around for decades, one of which people are on daily for decades.  Never mind that treatment is limited.  Good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yes because a vaccine that has been around for 9 months has proven long-term safety versus 2 drugs that have been around for decades, one of which people are on daily for decades.  Never mind that treatment is limited.  Good one.

Doesn’t work for COVID.   You know that.  Side effects aren’t worth the “taking” of the drug for that purpose.  This is why we have to keep harping on the HCQ issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

I didn’t realize that you are such a snowflake.  Maybe I should include in my work information about the perils of consuming cheap whiskey. I’m guessing you guzzle that stuff, chow down on red meat as much as you can, and will munch some HCQ/ivermectin with “Doc,” but won’t get the COVID vax because of your “concern about what goes in your body.”  One of those meal team six guys who has never met a Big Mac he didn’t like but won’t get the vax for “health” reasons. 

You caught me, I am a total snowflake.  Douche bags trigger me. But I was probably vaccinated long before you, because I wasn't afraid of a vaccine produced under the Trump administration.   But it was a personal choice that I am happy I made. 

 

Let's start a counter for you, beginning with the above post:

HCQ - 1

Chef Jom Crow - 0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

So let’s clear a few things up about the Texas abortion bill. It’s not a ban on abortion. It just reduces the amount of time people have to get one. And it does something else that I think is proximate cause of the freakout: it allows private citizens to sue if people violate the law. As I understand it, providers won’t be arrested or face any jail time, they just could find themselves sued for up to 10K.

 

Of course Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are rushing to codify Roe v. Wade into law so it’s not at the mercy of the courts, but I don’t sense a ton of passion behind their efforts. The overreach — their associated bill would basically allow abortion on demand up to the time of birth — is always a sign they think they may have lost and are just Hail-Marying to appease their constituents and donors.

 

 

 

https://redstate.com/slee/2021/09/03/marble-halls-silver-screens-with-sarah-lee-ep-103-the-texas-heartbeat-bill-only-murders-in-the-building-and-hollywood-abortion-activism-edition-n437548

 

 

.

 

 

Several states are already considering following Texas' lead on SB8

 

FTA

On top of these efforts you can bet that the national media which is probably 95% pro-abortion will try to help the Democrats turn this into a positive for 2022. Simply put, both sides in this cultural forever war are too invested to admit defeat, at least for now.

 

Texas has shaken up this 48-year-old stalemate but this isn’t over yet.

 

The pro-abortion empire will strike back.

 

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2021/09/03/several-states-are-already-considering-following-texas-lead-on-sb8-n413620

 

 

 

 

Just playing this logic through. So if there are states that haven't repealed their anti-homosexuality laws, or their anti-race mixing laws, they could in theory follow suit and pass laws that make being gay or dating outside ones race punishable by civil suit.

 

And an army of deputized citizens could roam the land looking to sue anyone they think is gay or dating or dating outside their race...

 

Realistically, Texas is asserting that the law of the land doesn't apply in their state. We fought a war over this principal. 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Just playing this logic through. So if there are states that haven't repealed their anti-homosexuality laws, or their anti-race mixing laws, they could in theory follow suit and pass laws that make being gay or dating outside ones race punishable by civil suit.

 

And an army of deputized citizens could roam the land looking to sue anyone they think is gay or dating or dating outside their race...

 

Realistically, Texas is asserting that the law of the land doesn't apply in their state. We fought a war over this principal. 

 


Which war? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

You caught me, I am a total snowflake.  Douche bags trigger me. But I was probably vaccinated long before you, because I wasn't afraid of a vaccine produced under the Trump administration.   But it was a personal choice that I am happy I made. 

 

Let's start a counter for you, beginning with the above post:

HCQ - 1

Chef Jom Crow - 0

 

Keep an eye on your blood pressure.  It's not healthy to get triggered by Internet randos.  I'd hate to see what happens when the Girl Scouts knock on your door to sell cookies. 

 

Also, you spelled "Chef Jim Crow" incorrectly.  FYI. 

52 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Just playing this logic through. So if there are states that haven't repealed their anti-homosexuality laws, or their anti-race mixing laws, they could in theory follow suit and pass laws that make being gay or dating outside ones race punishable by civil suit.

 

And an army of deputized citizens could roam the land looking to sue anyone they think is gay or dating or dating outside their race...

 

Realistically, Texas is asserting that the law of the land doesn't apply in their state. We fought a war over this principal. 

 

 

I totally agree with all of this.  The point of the law, though, is to give SCOTUS the chance to revisit Roe.  

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I totally agree with all of this.  The point of the law, though, is to give SCOTUS the chance to revisit Roe.  

 

Texas is going to lose badly. When the dust settles, Texas is not going to be allowed to pass laws that they absolve themselves from being responsible for. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas doesn't lose. The country loses. 

The religious right (the taliban of North America) has forced their controls on everyone. I am surprised that a portion of tax dollars don't go to the church, or at least donations gave a double deduction. That is next.

Awe, Jim and Tammy Fae, bring back the good old days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Texas is going to lose badly. When the dust settles, Texas is not going to be allowed to pass laws that they absolve themselves from being responsible for. 

 

 

lefties/liberals are going to lose badly, your heyday is over. Peeps have had enough of the vile anger

and childish behavior.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Texas doesn't lose. The country loses. 

The religious right (the taliban of North America) has forced their controls on everyone. 


When do I get my machine guns and Blackhawk?

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I was told suggesting state’s rights had anything to do with it is sugarcoating  

 

You have a habit I've noticed of finding flaws in bad arguments and then applying the consequences of those flaws in other contexts in which they do not hold. 

 

The argument that the Civil War was not about slavery bc it was about states rights is as bad as the argument that the Civil War wasn't about states right bc it was about slavery.

 

The Civil War was over the south's assertion that state rights supercede federal law in general, with the practice of slavery being the major issue the south asserted it's right to.

 

The South lost. States do not have the right the enact laws that disregard federal law. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Motorin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Texas doesn't lose. The country loses. 

The religious right (the taliban of North America) has forced their controls on everyone. I am surprised that a portion of tax dollars don't go to the church, or at least donations gave a double deduction. That is next.

Awe, Jim and Tammy Fae, bring back the good old days.

How does this discussion have anything to do with your life up in Canada? Hang out your shingle and start providing abortions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

You have a habit I've noticed of finding flaws in bad arguments and then applying the consequences of those flaws in other contexts in which they do not hold. 

 

The argument that the Civil War was not about slavery bc it was about states rights is as bad as the argument that the Civil War wasn't about states right bc it was about slavery.

 

The Civil War was over the south's assertion that state rights supercede federal law in general, with the practice of slavery being the major issue the south asserted it's right to.

 

The South lost. States do not have the right the enact laws that disregard federal law. 

 

 

 

 

So states shouldn’t be allowed to legalize marijuana, right? 

 

Hypocrisy and conveniently conditional principles is what I tend to have a problem with. 

Obviously the south lost but the verdict of that war wasn’t that states are disallowed to govern themselves. 
 

until they can figure out a way to come up with something most agree with and put it in the constitution, this topic will swing like a pendulum. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...