(07-08-2025 08:29 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Awwww. Don't cry my friend.

No worries on that warrior boy.

I have seen threads shut down before this. Maybe everyone is having to much fun.

(07-08-2025 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Simply awesome

I made the top 4 of Tanq’s howler list

Tanq continues to make a fool and jackazz of himself

He lacks the wherewithal of introspection. Narcissistic would be a compliment.

I do wonder if it ever occurs to him that others may have valid points

Nope, just like that loose muffler on your vehicle he just continues to rattle away. An annoying noise you don’t want to hear because it benefits no one.

Even if there ever was any substance to his argument it’s lost in his childish endless blather.

Do you really use those expressions in the real world you type on here?

(07-08-2025 07:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 05:37 PM)ThreeifbyLightning 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.

Let me explain one last thing to you. When you resort to adolescent - like 7 year old - insults and name calling you’re dead to me. Seriously grow the **** up. I don’t have the desire or time in my life to waste it on you. Lastly, I’m also not repeating myself over and over again. I already explained why your question is false and frankly ignorant. You can live with the reality or not. I really don’t give a damn.

Maybe google 'viewpoint discrimination', hoss.

Then come back and tell us your ace bang up legal analysis.

Or just continue with your flapping of your arms up and down, along with your oh-so-cool epeen bravado bet.

As for name-calling -- I called someone else a comment, and you jumped right into the pool, sparky. So simply stfu about your light it up retorts that you shot right back as a kneejerk.

When you try to dance in the 'epeen bet' pool, yeah, its is a bull**** schlock junior gman testosterone epeen bet schtick. Bummer about that labeling there, but thats exactly what it is. Id prefer you answer my one little simple yes / no question.

And yeah, the comments about what you really dont have a clue about still stand.

That list should be clue who is 'ignorant' on the issue, hoss. Guess not to Mr DHS who seemingly doesnt have a clue on on the impact of the 1st amendment on the issue, and instead decides to call that wild ass 'analysis' and ever convoluting story the real truth and everuything elese 'ignorant'. Good job, hoss.

Get nack to your intelligence at DHS schtick. You hopefully are a crapload better at that then opining on 1st amendment and this issue.

And for all your epeen bravado on an online bet -- I still see you dont have the spine nor the chops to address the one easy question. Lolz.

Tanq never ceases to amuse

Total meltdown because he convinces no one from the endless blather to accept or agree with his out of touch reality

Sky screaming 101

When all else fails break out the HYSTERIA CARD

Sometimes skirting the edge of BORDERLINE PD.

NBC should hire you because they offer nothing close to the soap opera antics you are so endowed with.

(07-08-2025 05:20 PM)TripleA Wrote:  P.S. I post dozens of tweets daily, sometimes more. If you think I'm going to "background" every one, you are out of your mind.

Every person on here knows exactly what a tweet is. It is someone else's comment online that you pass along for discussion purposes. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Big deal. Easily discovered.

Meanwhile, I would like to point out that "background" is a noun, not a verb.

mayun, don't test nuts with 'usage', or he'll back-ground yo' arse and show ya the asphalt ...

(07-09-2025 12:09 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 05:37 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

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

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

Let me explain one last thing to you. When you resort to adolescent - like 7 year old - insults and name calling you’re dead to me. Seriously grow the **** up. I don’t have the desire or time in my life to waste it on you. Lastly, I’m also not repeating myself over and over again. I already explained why your question is false and frankly ignorant. You can live with the reality or not. I really don’t give a damn.

Maybe google 'viewpoint discrimination', hoss.

Then come back and tell us your ace bang up legal analysis.

Or just continue with your flapping of your arms up and down, along with your oh-so-cool epeen bravado bet.

As for name-calling -- I called someone else a comment, and you jumped right into the pool, sparky. So simply stfu about your light it up retorts that you shot right back as a kneejerk.

When you try to dance in the 'epeen bet' pool, yeah, its is a bull**** schlock junior gman testosterone epeen bet schtick. Bummer about that labeling there, but thats exactly what it is. Id prefer you answer my one little simple yes / no question.

And yeah, the comments about what you really dont have a clue about still stand.

That list should be clue who is 'ignorant' on the issue, hoss. Guess not to Mr DHS who seemingly doesnt have a clue on on the impact of the 1st amendment on the issue, and instead decides to call that wild ass 'analysis' and ever convoluting story the real truth and everuything elese 'ignorant'. Good job, hoss.

Get nack to your intelligence at DHS schtick. You hopefully are a crapload better at that then opining on 1st amendment and this issue.

And for all your epeen bravado on an online bet -- I still see you dont have the spine nor the chops to address the one easy question. Lolz.

Tanq never ceases to amuse

Total meltdown because he convinces no one from the endless blather to accept or agree with his out of touch reality

Sky screaming 101

When all else fails break out the HYSTERIA CARD

Sometimes skirting the edge of BORDERLINE PD.

NBC should hire you because they offer nothing close to the soap opera antics you are so endowed with.

Cool cool BD.

As usual, nothing but chip on your shoulder screaming fest from you. Always fun to engage with this, my friend. Lolz.

(07-08-2025 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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?

Like I said, let the states provide the money for abortions. Why should the federal government give money to an independent organization.

June 2022.
The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ended the federal constitutional right to abortion, allowing individual states to independently decide the legal parameters regarding abortion care.
The federal government shouldn't be forced to supply money when it was turned over to the states.

Hyde amendment
The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision in the United States that bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except in cases where the pregnancy results from rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.
Since 1976, the amendment has been re-enacted every year, with exceptions varying over time.

(07-09-2025 01:17 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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?

Like I said, let the states provide the money for abortions. Why should the federal government give money to an independent organization.

June 2022.
The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ended the federal constitutional right to abortion, allowing individual states to independently decide the legal parameters regarding abortion care.
The federal government shouldn't be forced to supply money when it was turned over to the states.

This has nothing to do with any govt money for abortions.

(07-09-2025 02:05 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Hyde amendment
The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision in the United States that bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except in cases where the pregnancy results from rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.
Since 1976, the amendment has been re-enacted every year, with exceptions varying over time.

Correct. This law has zero to do with the Hyde Amendment. PP does not and cannot perform abortions under Medicaid. No one can.

This law has to do with every other medical service PP provides and can do so under Medicare. Medicare money for abortion has nothing to do with the law in question.

(07-09-2025 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 02:05 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Hyde amendment
The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision in the United States that bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except in cases where the pregnancy results from rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.
Since 1976, the amendment has been re-enacted every year, with exceptions varying over time.

Correct. This law has zero to do with the Hyde Amendment. PP does not and cannot perform abortions under Medicaid. No one can.

This law has to do with every other medical service PP provides and can do so under Medicare. Medicare money for abortion has nothing to do with the law in question.

True but,

Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid payments for other health services, which helps support its overall operations, including abortion services.

However, political and legal challenges, such as recent Supreme Court rulings, have allowed states to block Medicaid funding for services at Planned Parenthood.

If the Supreme Court say states can block funding why not the federal government.

There is no law that says the federal government has to fund Nonprofit Organization.

(07-09-2025 02:58 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 02:05 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Hyde amendment
The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision in the United States that bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except in cases where the pregnancy results from rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.
Since 1976, the amendment has been re-enacted every year, with exceptions varying over time.

Correct. This law has zero to do with the Hyde Amendment. PP does not and cannot perform abortions under Medicaid. No one can.

This law has to do with every other medical service PP provides and can do so under Medicare. Medicare money for abortion has nothing to do with the law in question.

True but,

Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid payments for other health services, which helps support its overall operations, including abortion services.

Yep. Not germane.

Quote: However, political and legal challenges, such as recent Supreme Court rulings, have allowed states to block Medicaid funding for services at Planned Parenthood.

And all are subject to ongoing suits under the 'any qualified provider' regime in the statute.

And the Supreme Court hasnt per se allowed states to block Medicaid funding. The Couth Carolina case only ruled that the count in the suit wasnt a proper vehicle for the plaintiffs to file suit, and no real plaintiff was really in the suit. The SCOTUS simply vanished the suit saying that the plaintiffs and the claim were not a proper match.

Quote: If the Supreme Court say states can block funding why not the federal government.

This suit is very different -- it brings up the concepts of Bill of Attainder, and viewpoint discrimination as being improper.

Quote: There is no law that says the federal government has to fund Nonprofit Organization.

There is plenty of law that says a government may not use improper viewpoint discrimination to do so.

There is plenty of law that says a government may not write a law that *specifically* applies to only one entity.

Still ranting?

And you call others, "Howler Monkeys"?

If this was a college football game Vegas would set the spread foe the buy game at 31.5 points and this guy would still bet the underdog money line...and then cry about the refs after the dog gets beaten like a rented mule.

(07-09-2025 03:48 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  If this was a college football game Vegas would set the spread foe the buy game at 31.5 points and this guy would still bet the underdog money line...and then cry about the refs after the dog gets beaten like a rented mule.

Hell, he gets beaten like a rented mule every damn day, and keeps coming back for more.

(07-09-2025 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 02:58 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 02:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 02:05 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Hyde amendment
The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision in the United States that bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except in cases where the pregnancy results from rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.
Since 1976, the amendment has been re-enacted every year, with exceptions varying over time.

Correct. This law has zero to do with the Hyde Amendment. PP does not and cannot perform abortions under Medicaid. No one can.

This law has to do with every other medical service PP provides and can do so under Medicare. Medicare money for abortion has nothing to do with the law in question.

True but,

Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid payments for other health services, which helps support its overall operations, including abortion services.

Yep. Not germane.

Quote: However, political and legal challenges, such as recent Supreme Court rulings, have allowed states to block Medicaid funding for services at Planned Parenthood.

And all are subject to ongoing suits under the 'any qualified provider' regime in the statute.

And the Supreme Court hasnt per se allowed states to block Medicaid funding. The Couth Carolina case only ruled that the count in the suit wasnt a proper vehicle for the plaintiffs to file suit, and no real plaintiff was really in the suit. The SCOTUS simply vanished the suit saying that the plaintiffs and the claim were not a proper match.

Quote: If the Supreme Court say states can block funding why not the federal government.

This suit is very different -- it brings up the concepts of Bill of Attainder, and viewpoint discrimination as being improper.

Quote: There is no law that says the federal government has to fund Nonprofit Organization.

There is plenty of law that says a government may not use improper viewpoint discrimination to do so.

There is plenty of law that says a government may not write a law that *specifically* applies to only one entity.

"Yep. Not germane"

Maybe not to you.

"And the Supreme Court hasnt per se allowed states to block Medicaid funding"

The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that states can block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. In a 6-3 decision on June 26, 2025, the Court held that states are not required to allow Medicaid patients to choose any qualified provider, including Planned Parenthood, and that patients cannot sue under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to enforce such a right.
This decision effectively allows states to exclude providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, even for services unrelated to abortion, such as contraception and cancer screenings.

I will says this again,

There is no law that says the federal government has to fund Nonprofit Organization.

It is fascinating to watch internet self immolation by the same guy repeatedly.

(07-09-2025 04:04 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It is fascinating to watch internet self immolation by the same guy repeatedly.

(07-09-2025 03:36 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  Still ranting?

And you call others, "Howler Monkeys"?

Glad to know 'bill of attainder' is ranting. Cool cool.