Jump to content

Ag with kids

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ag with kids

  1. I tried to KEEP it in the room, dammit!!!!
  2. Oh...yeah. Because I'm not joining in your circle jerk. Sorry...
  3. It wasn't a personal attack. I'm just tired of her attacking anyone conservative and I hope she gets past that. The carpet bombing of neg reps (even going over to other boards to do it) is bullshit. I was trying to keep that offline to be polite.
  4. But, it's not a complete and total ban. It's like what we have now with guns - Texas says hell yes and California says no unless you jump through these 76 hoops that make it really difficult (those "reasonable restrictions") If this comes to fruition, it's Texas says no after a heartbeat and California says yes until just before they exit the birth canal. BTW, I disagree it falls under a right to "privacy" though. If I wanted to kill my 2 day old child and just bury it in my back yard because I didn't want it, I don't think that would fall under any "privacy" rights. Why should 2 days before it's born be different? or replace 2 days with 8 months... As to the other legislation that's being drawn up, that's no different than Representatives from various states proposing anti gun laws...ok. Just because they propose them doesn't mean they can pass OR be constitutional. And again...I'm abortion agnostic. But, I REALLY hate when people try to rationalize away the fact that they're terminating a human life just to mitigate the guilt they'd feel for doing that. Accept it. OWN it. Hell, even RBG thought the reasoning behind RvW was a little suspect.
  5. That's because you have a rep for attacking every single poster that even remotely seems conservative by carpet bombing them with neg reps. I was only trying to keep that offline for politeness and also to not derail the thread. But...you keep doing you I guess...
  6. I'm not. But, you should stop neg rep carpet bombing everyone that you disagree with. THAT is what makes you a sad person. And I do truly hope you get better. Release the hate. You'll feel better.
  7. Ummm...No. However, there were NUMEROUS cases that went to SCOTUS trying to do that. If the RTBA had lost out, would you, or the poster I responded to feel that attacks on the Justices and their families would be ok? Again, thanks again for being civil. You know I always try to be, regardless of all the personal attacks on me here. I've got a thick skin.
  8. Does this apply to the right to bear arms?
  9. I'm not. But, you would be crying on here if the roles were reversed. And I'd be on your side. Wrong is wrong.
  10. It's amusing that this post of mine got 4 neg reps. I guess they don't wan't all people that do illegal things to suffer consequences...or they want the law to only work in one direction. Odd....
  11. Ummm...does the guy not realize that's a quote from the CDC that was included in the draft opinion?
  12. "He"? Who are you talking about?
  13. Yes. Those are all fucking wrong. Why do want the law to only work one direction? I don't. I want ALL people that do illegal things to suffer consequences.
  14. Anyone that actually broke the law, yes I do. But...then, you must also be on my side, right? If these protesters broke the law (which according to the statute they did) you want them arrested too, right? You know, law and order...
  15. Yes. But, right now it is the law, right? But, do we really want this to be the standard? What if the final opinion came out and they DON'T overturn RvW. Would you support anti-abortion advocates going to the houses of the Justices that upheld it? You know as well as I do that what they're doing right now is threatening. And it would be threatening if anti-abortion people showed up at the justices that upheld RvW.
  16. Read the statute. "resorts to any other demonstration" I'm glad y'all are back to supporting freedom of speech though. Elon will be happy with y'alls conversion.
  17. Or "resorts to any other demonstration"... They don't have to do any of those things. That's the catchall.
  18. Then why are they there? Just to call him a dick? They chant "we will not go back" over and over. Is that not an attempt at influence? Or "resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence"? This looks like the catchall for this. Look. Doxxing is wrong. And going to the personal residences of people in government (or anyone else) is wrong. I don't care who does it, right or left.
  19. Breaking the law isn't important?
  20. Interdasting. Since the protest was against the law, they now have someone to prosecute. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1507&num=0&edition=prelim First rule of breaking the law is STFU.
  21. Any conservatives that think this is good are dumb as shit and need to be punished to the full extent of the law.
  22. I think they make those for South Austin's mom...
  23. So...adding punitive tax rates directly on a small group of people isn't intended to do that? smdh...
  24. Well...using the standard dictionary definition...they ARE persecuted... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecute And right on this thread they're being shamed and denigrated... So....perhaps revise your interpretation...
×
×
  • Create New...