(07-08-2025 03:02 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:07 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see the retard howlers are alit here. Cool cool.

Take the bet then if I'm such a retard.

I take it you think yourself a retard howler? Your stuff has an iota of substance, and sometimes not a whole hea[ing load of nothing but insults.

For the record, neither retard, nor howler at the current.

I told you, instead of the bet, try answering the simple question that you waltzed away from so daintily.

If you want to do your bull**** schlock jumior gman testosterone epeen bet stuff and pound your cute little frumpy chicken fried grease stained uniform shirt in that manner -- go right ahead, my friend.

You ran away from a very simple yes/ no question, mind you. Lolz.

The simple fact is you:
-- dont have a fing clue about the impact of 1st amendment on this,
-- dont have a fing clue about the issue of viewpoint discrimination on the issue,
-- dont have a clue as to the main issue in the lawsuit,
-- dont have a clue that the issue isnt to direct funding,
-- dont have a clue how to distinguish paid for services from such direct funding,
-- dont have a clue that how people expend their earned money is simply their business in terms of political activity
-- pound your junior gman authoritarian handle of 'President kann doo anyting hee wantz wit da money' garbage,
-- followed interestingly by the self-contradictory position to above of 'Congress has unfettered power of the purse',
-- followed by an amazing void of the contents of the 1st amendment and how that might impact the issue.

If you have the spine and chops you claim, answer my first question. Easy peasy.

Quote:If I'm a retard then what does that make the person (i.e. you) who has lost multiple times to this retard? You can add another after this one is settled.

Im not the person who runs away from answering a single simple question, good sir.


My answer to your epeen bet **** is -- I typically dont do epeen driven bet ****. Which seems to have captivated transfixed your gander gaze pretty tightly.

If you have spine and chops you exhibit with your epeen bet **** above, maybe apply that spine and chops to answering my very easy yes/ no question.

Here is the full thing: A government, has zero business making a decision on the eligibility of a group providing Medicare services, and being paid for those services, based on *any* political viewpoint test.

We shall see if the courts note that. You seem flabbergasted by the mere mention of that. Cool cool.

"decision on the eligibility of a group providing Medicare services"

Isn't this about Medicaid services ?

Yep. Thanks for the correction.

I'm trying to figure out how all this is a 1st Amendment violation.

EVERYTHING is a 1st Amendment violation for tanq.

(07-08-2025 03:28 PM)TripleA Wrote:  We need to hang this thread in the Jackassery Hall of Fame. Tanq has taken his BS to a whole 'nother level. Impressive.

Among the BS:

"You have to be one extreme level of a-hole"
"you are FOS"
"an arrogant *******"
"and yet be such a miserable failure on a message board?"

And those just among the more literal crappy little comments that seemingly permeate your comments. And that I responded directly to.

Not to mention barteet, 450, oru, and Blue Dragon as they drifted into the monkey poo **** that seems to be their oxygen.

Yeah, I called those last 4 howler retards. If you take offense and think you are a howler retard, thats on you.

And when you opened on me, I did so on you. Bummer.

Maybe take a look at your collective responses. Or simply stick your head in the sand as you usually do and walk away how dare I respond to those as I do.

Oh my gerd! That was a dagger to the heart tanq!

Old boy.

Yeah, yeah, you never start a thing.

News flash. You rarely post a paragraph that doesn't have a derogatory comment in it.

The fact that you play the victim card is hilarious.

(07-08-2025 03:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Yeah, yeah, you never start a thing.

News flash. You rarely post a paragraph that doesn't have a derogatory comment in it.

The fact that you play the victim card is hilarious.

Well he's an ambulance chaser so....

(07-08-2025 03:37 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out how all this is a 1st Amendment violation.

The government determining eligibility on such a program based on a political viewpoint. Or hinged on simply performing otherwise legal activities.

Its called 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Try looking up Bill of attainder.

Or try looking up 'targeting' (closely tied to the 1st amendment issue).

Mentioned every one of those previously.

(07-08-2025 03:49 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Oh my gerd! That was a dagger to the heart tanq!

Old boy.

Cool cool, warrior trigger boy.

(07-08-2025 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:37 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out how all this is a 1st Amendment violation.

The government determining eligibility on such a program based on a political viewpoint. Or hinged on simply performing otherwise legal activities.

Its called 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Try looking up Bill of attainder.

Or try looking up 'targeting' (closely tied to the 1st amendment issue).

Mentioned every one of those previously.

again, explain how fed funded vs. state funded is the real issue you continually dodge...

it's okay ... you hate trump and despise scotus returning roe back to the states ... for you, roe = rotten fish eggs ... by association, PP alone is a fockall with abby-bortions...

disclaimer: I'm pro choice for that 'goldilocks 13 week thingy'...

oh, wellzy...

(07-08-2025 03:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:37 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out how all this is a 1st Amendment violation.

The government determining eligibility on such a program based on a political viewpoint. Or hinged on simply performing otherwise legal activities.

Its called 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Try looking up Bill of attainder.

Or try looking up 'targeting' (closely tied to the 1st amendment issue).

Mentioned every one of those previously.

again, explain how fed funded vs. state funded is the real issue you continually dodge...

it's okay ... you hate trump and despise scotus returning roe back to the states ... for you, roe = rotten fish eggs ... by association, PP alone is a fockall with abby-bortions...

disclaimer: I'm pro choice for that 'goldilocks 13 week thingy'...

oh, wellzy...

To the bolded -- it might be best if you dont pull stuff out of thin air and call it the truth.

I was actually a hard proponent of overturning Roe.

And, I dont give a **** what PP is politically. Or what their political viewpoint is in this subject.

Its simply wrong, and against the 1st amendment, to pull PP from the program based on their political viewpoint. Period.

As it would be wrong, and against the 1st Amendment, to pull a doctors group that advocated pro-life issues from the program based solely or primarily on their political viewpoint.

As it would be wrong, and against the 1st Amendment, to pull a doctors group that were openly Nazis and white supremacists from the program based solely or primarily on their political viewpoint.

As it would be wrong, and against the 1st Amendment, to pull a doctors group that were openly BLM from the program based solely or primarily on their political viewpoint.

I dont know where you pull the 'Tanq hates the Scotus ruling overturning Roe' from. Just the opposite. Roe sucked as a legal framework. And had no basis in the Constitution. Period. Without regard to my stance on abortion.

And to the fed funded v state funded -- no difference. 1st amendment applies equally to both sources in this instance. The matter at hand is Federal law, that bars the use of funds to pay for Medicaid services based on a political viewpoint, among other problems.

(07-08-2025 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:37 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out how all this is a 1st Amendment violation.

The government determining eligibility on such a program based on a political viewpoint. Or hinged on simply performing otherwise legal activities.

Its called 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Try looking up Bill of attainder.

Or try looking up 'targeting' (closely tied to the 1st amendment issue).

Mentioned every one of those previously.

Ok, they still have their rights to give abortions, right. They will just have to find their money to do so somewhere else. Maybe the states where this is done can pony up the money.

(07-08-2025 03:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Yeah, yeah, you never start a thing.

News flash. You rarely post a paragraph that doesn't have a derogatory comment in it.

The fact that you play the victim card is hilarious.

Dude, you were absolutely the first in our back and forth to launch your name calling comments between us.

*YOU* decided you were a retarded howler, and *YOU* decided to launch the **** you did in post #95.

News flash -- the bolded is really stupid whiny rhetoric. Just saying.

you invariably roll off the wagon and regress to your mean re: me. Id say look it up, but considering you seemingly pride yourself on throwing out stupid empty items and state it isnt on you to verify anything, so Ill take the odds that you dont. Cool cool.

Have a great day, My Friend.

(07-08-2025 04:12 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:37 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out how all this is a 1st Amendment violation.

The government determining eligibility on such a program based on a political viewpoint. Or hinged on simply performing otherwise legal activities.

Its called 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Try looking up Bill of attainder.

Or try looking up 'targeting' (closely tied to the 1st amendment issue).

Mentioned every one of those previously.

Ok, they still have their rights to give abortions, right. They will just have to find their money to do so somewhere else. Maybe the states where this is done can pony up the money.

Maybe look up the three issues above. Before you re-comment.

Or answer this question I posed to TIBL -- "do you think it is proper for a government to discriminate on participation in an open program and against entities based solely on their political viewpoint?"

Or do you think that participation in being a Medicaid provider should be predicated on a specific political view?

I'm not talking about today, Tanq. I'm talking about your entire experience here. And yes, all I'm ever going to do with you on here is dive bomb, b/c I gave up on having an actual adult debate with you, long ago.

The fact that you blame everybody but yourself for all your negative interactions here is actually mind boggling.

(07-08-2025 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:37 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out how all this is a 1st Amendment violation.

The government determining eligibility on such a program based on a political viewpoint. Or hinged on simply performing otherwise legal activities.

Its called 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Try looking up Bill of attainder.

Or try looking up 'targeting' (closely tied to the 1st amendment issue).

Mentioned every one of those previously.

again, explain how fed funded vs. state funded is the real issue you continually dodge...

it's okay ... you hate trump and despise scotus returning roe back to the states ... for you, roe = rotten fish eggs ... by association, PP alone is a fockall with abby-bortions...

disclaimer: I'm pro choice for that 'goldilocks 13 week thingy'...

oh, wellzy...

To the bolded -- it might be best if you dont pull stuff out of thin air and call it the truth.

I was actually a hard proponent of overturning Roe.

And, I dont give a **** what PP is politically. Or what their political viewpoint is in this subject.

Its simply wrong, and against the 1st amendment, to pull PP from the program based on their political viewpoint. Period.

As it would be wrong, and against the 1st Amendment, to pull a doctors group that advocated pro-life issues from the program based solely or primarily on their political viewpoint.

As it would be wrong, and against the 1st Amendment, to pull a doctors group that were openly Nazis and white supremacists from the program based solely or primarily on their political viewpoint.

As it would be wrong, and against the 1st Amendment, to pull a doctors group that were openly BLM from the program based solely or primarily on their political viewpoint.

I dont know where you pull the 'Tanq hates the Scotus ruling overturning Roe' from. Just the opposite. Roe sucked as a legal framework. And had no basis in the Constitution. Period. Without regard to my stance on abortion.

And to the fed funded v state funded -- no difference. 1st amendment applies equally to both sources in this instance. The matter at hand is Federal law, that bars the use of funds to pay for Medicaid services based on a political viewpoint, among other problems.

it’s the contradiction via guilt by association … if 10A rules the roost, then 10A is where funding should originate and support … all your bs on ‘priory’ is now moot … you don’t get it both ways…

also, I have zero fk’n clue what 1A BLM bs you’re referencing … nor do I give two fks … moire moot bs…

wtfe…

(07-08-2025 02:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:33 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  You clearly lack the intellect to apply the amicus curiae in full conjuction to the nolo contendere when dealing with the ex parte desuetude in reference to the legal conundrum posited by the quantum meruit. If one merely applies the ab initio in the truest sense to the habeas corpus, then there is no other logical outcome than the per stirpes when compared to the voir dire of the resipsa loquitor. If one was a smart as I, then this conclusion is prima facie.

I'm a patent attorney who spends all day on this message board to educate you howler monkeys. You all should be grateful that I'm here. Cool, cool.

Love,
Tanq

I love it when idiots simply speak with their mouths full of ****. Please continue there oru.


And hate to tell you Einstein, havent done nose to floor patent work in many a moon. But, why let little facts clog up that pinhead cranium when you can make up anything at all you want when you do that slobber speak you seemingly excel at. Neat job above there.

Apparently you haven’t done much of any competent work in many a moon.

Never seen anyone who falls on the wrong side of nearly every argument as you do.

(07-08-2025 04:41 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:33 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  You clearly lack the intellect to apply the amicus curiae in full conjuction to the nolo contendere when dealing with the ex parte desuetude in reference to the legal conundrum posited by the quantum meruit. If one merely applies the ab initio in the truest sense to the habeas corpus, then there is no other logical outcome than the per stirpes when compared to the voir dire of the resipsa loquitor. If one was a smart as I, then this conclusion is prima facie.

I'm a patent attorney who spends all day on this message board to educate you howler monkeys. You all should be grateful that I'm here. Cool, cool.

Love,
Tanq

I love it when idiots simply speak with their mouths full of ****. Please continue there oru.


And hate to tell you Einstein, havent done nose to floor patent work in many a moon. But, why let little facts clog up that pinhead cranium when you can make up anything at all you want when you do that slobber speak you seemingly excel at. Neat job above there.

Apparently you haven’t done much of any competent work in many a moon.

Never seen anyone who falls on the wrong side of nearly every argument as you do.

Be sure and tell my clients that. And more than a couple that have been on the opposite side and now use my services.

Ill tell them that some dude who cant discuss any legal issue without personal ranting and name calling says that. Cool cool.

You are so cute when you fall into nothing but name calling mode. Which you do early and often, mostly without any cogent response on the issue.

Masters degree iirc, eh? Lolz.

(07-08-2025 04:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:37 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out how all this is a 1st Amendment violation.

The government determining eligibility on such a program based on a political viewpoint. Or hinged on simply performing otherwise legal activities.

Its called 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Try looking up Bill of attainder.

Or try looking up 'targeting' (closely tied to the 1st amendment issue).

Mentioned every one of those previously.

again, explain how fed funded vs. state funded is the real issue you continually dodge...

it's okay ... you hate trump and despise scotus returning roe back to the states ... for you, roe = rotten fish eggs ... by association, PP alone is a fockall with abby-bortions...

disclaimer: I'm pro choice for that 'goldilocks 13 week thingy'...

oh, wellzy...

To the bolded -- it might be best if you dont pull stuff out of thin air and call it the truth.

I was actually a hard proponent of overturning Roe.

And, I dont give a **** what PP is politically. Or what their political viewpoint is in this subject.

Its simply wrong, and against the 1st amendment, to pull PP from the program based on their political viewpoint. Period.

As it would be wrong, and against the 1st Amendment, to pull a doctors group that advocated pro-life issues from the program based solely or primarily on their political viewpoint.

As it would be wrong, and against the 1st Amendment, to pull a doctors group that were openly Nazis and white supremacists from the program based solely or primarily on their political viewpoint.

As it would be wrong, and against the 1st Amendment, to pull a doctors group that were openly BLM from the program based solely or primarily on their political viewpoint.

I dont know where you pull the 'Tanq hates the Scotus ruling overturning Roe' from. Just the opposite. Roe sucked as a legal framework. And had no basis in the Constitution. Period. Without regard to my stance on abortion.

And to the fed funded v state funded -- no difference. 1st amendment applies equally to both sources in this instance. The matter at hand is Federal law, that bars the use of funds to pay for Medicaid services based on a political viewpoint, among other problems.

it’s the contradiction via guilt by association … if 10A rules the roost, then 10A is where funding should originate and support … all your bs on ‘priory’ is now moot … you don’t get it both ways…

also, I have zero fk’n clue what 1A BLM bs you’re referencing … nor do I give two fks … moire moot bs…

wtfe…

Im saying that eligibility for being a Medicare provider shouldnt involve any political test or depend on any specific political viewpoint. No matter what that viewpoint.

I really dont understand your point on the 10A here.

(07-08-2025 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 03:37 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out how all this is a 1st Amendment violation.

The government determining eligibility on such a program based on a political viewpoint. Or hinged on simply performing otherwise legal activities.

Its called 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Try looking up Bill of attainder.

Or try looking up 'targeting' (closely tied to the 1st amendment issue).

Mentioned every one of those previously.

So it is constitutional to provide funding to a group that holds your political viewpoint, but it is unconstitutional for the opposition party to take that money away? Interesting viewpoint.