(07-09-2025 04:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(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.

Compare the bolded to my "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 suit was filed under a particualr provision that the they didnt have standing.

That is wholly different than a suit based on exclusion from being a provider based on 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Quote: 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.

And again, the SC case decided *still* does not allow for an exclusion based on viewpoint discrimination.

Quote: I will says this again,

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

And I will say it again as well: no entity may be barred because they hold a particular political viewpoint. Something the recent SC case doesnt even touch.

Maybe read your 'say it again', then read mine. They are different things.

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

Its fascinating to watch the internet people sitting around stating random **** about a particular issue, when they typically dont seem to understand the gears operating there. Besides whiny **** like you just did.

Hahaha, let's see, whom would I hire to be my attorney? Tanq or Rath?

Tough choice. Not.

I'm a flip a coin.

Heads it's rath.

Tails it's rath.

(07-09-2025 04:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Hahaha, let's see, whom would I hire to be my attorney? Tanq or Rath?

Tough choice. Not.

Cool cool. All good. All in all I dont prefer whiny bitchy idiots as clients. Still out there doing that whiny stuff I see. All is well and unchanged in 3A-ville I see. Lolz.

Yeah, and your troll game sucks. You say the same weak sauce over and over. Hell, you're not even inventive on a message board.

(07-09-2025 04:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 04:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

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

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

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

Compare the bolded to my "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 suit was filed under a particualr provision that the they didnt have standing.

That is wholly different than a suit based on exclusion from being a provider based on 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Quote: 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.

And again, the SC case decided *still* does not allow for an exclusion based on viewpoint discrimination.

Quote: I will says this again,

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

And I will say it again as well: no entity may be barred because they hold a particular political viewpoint. Something the recent SC case doesnt even touch.

Maybe read your 'say it again', then read mine. They are different things.

Well I guess we will have to wait and see if that Bill of Attainder or viewpoint discrimination idea works out for PP and others that you have hitched your wagon to.

I don't believe you're going to get that ruling you are looking for in this case. Keep swinging for the fence, you might get one out of the infield one day.

Narcissistic behavior on a blind message board…I can’t imagine how bad it’d be in real life.

(07-09-2025 05:21 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Yeah, and your troll game sucks. You say the same weak sauce over and over. Hell, you're not even inventive on a message board.

Yet you keep jabbering on. Id say at this point its "rent free."

I post, you seemingly need to post to add your whiny *****..

Someone mentions me, you seemingly need to post to add your whiny *****.

Someone else mentions me, you seemingly need to post to add your whiny ***** (once again).

Someone yet again else mentions me, you seemingly need to post to add your whiny ***** (yet once more again).

Lolz.

Then you yabber "your troll game sucks". Im not the whiny ***** with the massive whiny ***** issue noted right above. Double lolz.

Yeah, absolutely rent free in whinyland...... Triple lolz.

(07-09-2025 05:34 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 04:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 04:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

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

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

Compare the bolded to my "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 suit was filed under a particualr provision that the they didnt have standing.

That is wholly different than a suit based on exclusion from being a provider based on 'viewpoint discrimination'.

Quote: 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.

And again, the SC case decided *still* does not allow for an exclusion based on viewpoint discrimination.

Quote: I will says this again,

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

And I will say it again as well: no entity may be barred because they hold a particular political viewpoint. Something the recent SC case doesnt even touch.

Maybe read your 'say it again', then read mine. They are different things.

Well I guess we will have to wait and see if that Bill of Attainder or viewpoint discrimination idea works out for PP and others that you have hitched your wagon to.

I don't believe you're going to get that ruling you are looking for in this case. Keep swinging for the fence, you might get one out of the infield one day.

You keep swinging for the fence as well, my friend.

The funny thing this entire thread is because some dumbfks here thought the issue was direct funding. ANd the entire world got rizzed up when it was noted that there are some underlying other issues beyond the 'dumbfk bait' of simply 'funded'.

And the other thing that is funny my entire stance is that there is more to the issue than the 'dumbfk bait' of simply funded. And more than 'wow, some judge simply ran an injunction against a WRITTEN law.'

Honestly, in the end, the PP stance may or may not stand. But it goes well beyond the simpleton issue of 'the gubbmint can write any law they want, in any manner they want.' In short, they cant. And the law that was written in this issue, and the manner that it was written, does seemingly have a bit more issue to it beyond the first level screech of the cited initial piece going on the warpath because 'some out of control court JUST ran an injunction against a readily legible law'.

And the other real fun thing is how everyone here now tags me with 'the PP is gonna win', when I havent even noted that.

Funny that. I am glad you at least understand there is more than the myna bird 'law was written, how dare the court enjoin it, the utter sheer depravity' that seems the normal reaction sround here. Or perhaps you dont.

Im truly amused how many conservatives simply ditch the concepts of 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in view of potential Fed Govt overreach these days. It used to be conservative types that actually cared about those concepts. I guess when they run afoul of their god worship, fairly convenient to walk away from that base conviction muy pronto.

It really is laughable.

And you suck at reading personalities, too. You're not living rent free anywhere, you narcissist.

Plus, that's the lamest damn comeback in the history of message boards. Kindergarten stuff.

You're just such a douche, it's fun to harass you.

And it's so damn easy. You can't shut up, you can't let anything go, and you always have to have the last word.

"A narcissist, in the context of personality, refers to someone exhibiting narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others."

^^^its a classic case. Textbook actually.

(07-09-2025 05:52 PM)TripleA Wrote:  And you suck at reading personalities, too. You're not living rent free anywhere, you narcissist.

Plus, that's the lamest damn comeback in the history of message boards. Kindergarten stuff.

You're just such a douche, it's fun to harass you.

And it's so damn easy. You can't shut up, you can't let anything go, and you always have to have the last word.

TBH, I always had a problem enjoying agitating others since I was kid.

Tanq, is like that dog in the cartoons. It doesn’t matter what he is doing he is going to give chase to whatever is thrown.

Knowing that and knowing my propensity to agitate he definitely causes me to sin as a Christian more so than just some other poster who won’t give chase to anything I toss out there.

He simply doesn’t have the wherewithal to see the big picture.

Common sense alludes him because he is a legend in his own mind. He is SuperLawyer who can twist and manipulate his way into believing he has proven his ideology is superior.

Unfortunately for him, most see him as a wind bag. As Shakespeare once put it “full of sound and fury signifying nothing”

Btw, you will be proven wrong again for the umpteenth time on this subject. Be my guest and continue flailing and flopping around if it’s gets you the attention you so yearn for

(07-09-2025 05:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  "A narcissist, in the context of personality, refers to someone exhibiting narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others."

Unfortunately for him it’s not the only Personality Disorder he displays

(07-09-2025 06:11 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 05:52 PM)TripleA Wrote:  And you suck at reading personalities, too. You're not living rent free anywhere, you narcissist.

Plus, that's the lamest damn comeback in the history of message boards. Kindergarten stuff.

You're just such a douche, it's fun to harass you.

And it's so damn easy. You can't shut up, you can't let anything go, and you always have to have the last word.

TBH, I always had a problem enjoying agitating others since I was kid.

Tanq, is like that dog in the cartoons. It doesn’t matter what he is doing he is going to give chase to whatever is thrown.

Knowing that and knowing my propensity to agitate he definitely causes me to sin as a Christian more so than just some other poster who won’t give chase to anything I toss out there.

He simply doesn’t have the wherewithal to see the big picture.

Common sense alludes him because he is a legend in his own mind. He is SuperLawyer who can twist and manipulate his way into believing he has proven his ideology is superior.

Unfortunately for him, most see him as a wind bag. As Shakespeare once put it “full of sound and fury signifying nothing”

Btw, you will be proven wrong again for the umpteenth time on this subject. Be my guest and continue flailing and flopping around if it’s gets you the attention you so yearn for

I am just the opposite of you, as far as harassing others on message boards. I always thought it was stupid, and made both parties look bad.

Never on any other board do I act like a jerk. I'm polite and easy to get along with.

But Tanq is such a special case. He's narcissistic, arrogant, off-putting, rude, and frequently wrong. I left him alone for a while, but when it became obvious he was always going to be this way, I decided to give him a big helping of pushback.

Sometimes it's fun, and sometimes it's just tiring, lol.

He's still yammering?

(07-09-2025 06:40 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  He's still yammering?

Seven posts up from you. He has been on overload the past two days, although he slowed down a lot today vs. yesterday. lol.

(07-09-2025 05:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  "A narcissist, in the context of personality, refers to someone exhibiting narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others."

Got you in for three more direct responses, and two comments simply to others commenting about me.

Yeah. No rent Free at all there, My Friend.

By my count you are 8 deep into comments to / about me. Lolz.


Along with 2 whiny comments from Bluie (with the usual paucity of mental depth he tends to revel in), and even one other of the retard howler brigade. Cool cool.

Im three 'outside comments' in (now four) -- with the retard monkey group having 17 in the frenzied poop tossing troop response. Really funny to watch. 8 just from you. Double lolz.

Yeah, right -- no Rent Free at all there in 3A-ville. Triple lolz.

Wondering if I can juice this to a 6:1 ratio. Or how many more of my comments will get you fktards to 50 responses in total?

(07-09-2025 05:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  "A narcissist, in the context of personality, refers to someone exhibiting narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others."

Sociopath

Dont forget that part