(07-10-2025 07:30 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 10:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 10:24 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 09:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2025 09:39 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  I’ve laughed so hard reading this back and forth.

But, I do wonder how Tanq looks when he is posting these verbal assaults?

As a kid growing up on a small farm and poor we had a milk cow. It wasn’t the black and white Holstein most folks think of because those are large cows that produce large amounts of milk. No, you get a Jersey because the Butterfat is better and she is small so no overproduction of milk. She does not cost as much in food to take care of as well.

But, Jersey cows can be crazy and unmanageable. Worst breed for this problem. I remember this farmer telling me always look at them directly and if you see those crazy eyes with too much white steer clear of that one.

This takes me back to a question I had earlier

If you want to be the person that does nothing but attack (which you do) -- you be you.

You seemingly enjoy doing that with anybody who disagrees with anything that might cut against anything in your shallow and ignorant (almost cult-like) "Dems are evil schtick", and your whiny diatribes about 'fork tongued lawyers'. A 10+ in an exercise of raw rhetoric, which perhaps is the level you are good with.

But again, Bluie, you be you.


Have great evening, my friend.

You’re too much.

Shallow says the one who uses legalese garbage to muddy up water that is crystal clear to others.

Ignorant would describe your rants and insults throughout this thread

Forked Tongue Tanq …..yep it works

Thanks for considering me a howler monkey your friend

It’s an honor

Oh no -- how dare one use actual topic language for a topic. How undoubtedly horrible that is. How *do* you manage? You are so brave.....

Look, if you want to stick to 6th grade civics looks at topics to back justify your politics -- go right ahead.

And I do enjoy your complaints about 'rants and insults' -- perhaps put on your big boy pants, rev up that vaunted Masters Degree, and look at whom almost always jumps straight in with the insults at the outset. Takes a special degree of ignorant (which you toss out above) to not notice that. Cool cool.

Sixth grade civics has cleaned your clock in every legal debate that has taken place here on this board. And yet you still howl about being the sharpest tool in the shed. Maybe you should come down to the howler monkey level and things would be more clear to you.

Sure thing, cletus.

(07-10-2025 06:46 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(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.

I've never seen someone get taken to the woodshed on a board and then keep coming back with the same points as if he's come up with something new or novel in the response. Retort is thoroughly eviscerated and then says the same thing like nothing ever happened to it the first time. I guess people do get used to losing.

I take it you still havent looked up 'viewpoint discrimination under the 1st amendment'. Easy thing to do. Just cut and paste the above when you go to google.

Or just ***** like above.

He never gets tired of the sound of his own voice.

This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

The proof of the viewpoint is embodied in the structure of the law itself. The predicate itself forces a viewpoint issue. Explicitly.

You are very correct as to the first brick there, and I commend you on that. And I am glad that you actually now acknowledge that the issue isnt limited to 'The President decides on how to expend', and not to simply 'The Congress can limit at their discretion without the 1st Amendment being any factor.'

Id suggest to take a look at how National Endowment of the Arts v. Finley and Agency for International development v Alliance for Open Society international have modified Rust. And limited Rust substantially in context of this issue.

A specified cut based on viewpoint must be within the bounds of the purpose of the program so cut. A cut based on a viewpoint outside the bounds of the program are simply an impermissible restriction of speech outside the bounds of the program.

The bounds of the program is to subsidize the health care for those who fall below certain financial threshholds. The restrictive portions of the law have nothing to do with that purpose.

And perhaps the number of cases that have that same issue coupled with the individualized targeting issue make the actions even more shaded to the improper.

But I am glad that you have both acknowledged that the issue isnt cut and dried to 'Congress can simply state', and that you have a basic knowledge of the first brick in the issue.

(07-10-2025 08:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

(07-10-2025 06:46 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(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.

I've never seen someone get taken to the woodshed on a board and then keep coming back with the same points as if he's come up with something new or novel in the response. Retort is thoroughly eviscerated and then says the same thing like nothing ever happened to it the first time. I guess people do get used to losing.

Amazes me, too. You can make 3 legit points in a reply, and he ignores all 3, and goes off on a tangent over some minor point.

Then as you said, when he gets shot down, he comes back to the same argument, just using different words. And he posts so much at one time that nobody is going to read all that crap.

It's also hilarious that he claims innocence when people attack him, yet he routinely makes unsolicited derogatory personal comments every time he disagrees with somebody here, and it is not limited to just one or two regular irritants like me. Hell, just today, he has gone after CJ, stink, and anybody else who disagrees with him. Unreal.

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

okay ... I'm invoicing ... I'll play...

define "precisely" in a sentence ... as in, "precedent fk's one up the pooper w/o a condom, prison, and the moist necessary - BIDET!"

today is not the day you want to fk with me ... I'm not rehashing this bs ... I only get nastier from this point...

btw, how's that donktard infiltration last year being addressed (remember, where I back out of bet due to lack of current knowledge) .... have they prosecuted (persecuted) one of those biatches, yet .... I'm betting those libtard fagoos haven't torched a soul...

bwahahahahahahaha

(07-10-2025 09:37 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 06:46 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(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.

I've never seen someone get taken to the woodshed on a board and then keep coming back with the same points as if he's come up with something new or novel in the response. Retort is thoroughly eviscerated and then says the same thing like nothing ever happened to it the first time. I guess people do get used to losing.

Amazes me, too. You can make 3 legit points in a reply, and he ignores all 3, and goes off on a tangent over some minor point.

Then as you said, when he gets shot down, he comes back to the same argument, just using different words. And he posts so much at one time that nobody is going to read all that crap.

It's also hilarious that he claims innocence when people attack him, yet he routinely makes unsolicited derogatory personal comments every time he disagrees with somebody here, and it is not limited to just one or two regular irritants like me. Hell, just today, he has gone after CJ, stink, and anybody else who disagrees with him. Unreal.

Andy, I've been 'putzing' with him for quite a time now back to the metro/cous-cous days ... (oh, yeah ... fk Schnelly and your CaRDS .... I still love my Cards, too)

en macro, we (he and I) rarely agree ... however, I'll stick up for him in 'principle of law' ... while I get it, I hate such in return...

I cannot handle subjectivity ... @achillesHeel

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

It’s useless to try to have a meaningful discussion with Tanq. He only sees and hears his side of any argument.

When he can longer withstand facts and logic he will resort to attacking you with degradation and condescending insults. It’s just his nature.

Of course pushing buttons on my part is really no better.

(07-10-2025 09:59 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

It’s useless to try to have a meaningful discussion with Tanq. He only sees and hears his side of any argument.

When he can longer withstand facts and logic he will resort to attacking you with degradation and condescending insults. It’s just his nature.

Of course pushing buttons on my part is really no better.

Exactly why I gave up trying to engage him on a serious basis.

(07-10-2025 10:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Exactly why I gave up trying to engage him on a serious basis.

hence, why I laughed at me mum in return with, "son, you should become a lawyer ... fk that mum .... I don't dislike sheeple that much!"

yeah, muh life is so much easier this way...

disclaimer: ex liz taylor finally found #4 - lawyer ... lifelong friend ... hell, even he married a jew in a prior...

how can I not love 'em as muh daughter laughs at entirety...

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

Planned Parenthood is not a private entity.
It is a nonprofit organization that operates through a network of 159 medical and non-medical affiliates, which operate over 600 health clinics in the United States.

(07-10-2025 09:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

okay ... I'm invoicing ... I'll play...

define "precisely" in a sentence ... as in, "precedent fk's one up the pooper w/o a condom, prison, and the moist necessary - BIDET!"

today is not the day you want to fk with me ... I'm not rehashing this bs ... I only get nastier from this point...

btw, how's that donktard infiltration last year being addressed (remember, where I back out of bet due to lack of current knowledge) .... have they prosecuted (persecuted) one of those biatches, yet .... I'm betting those libtard fagoos haven't torched a soul...

bwahahahahahahaha

Later decisions have said that the action or speech the government can tie funds to has to be in the area that the program is specifically directed at. Not the broad rule statement of "allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs".

It is proper for the government to tie Highway funds to a requirement that a movie on highway safety must be shown to every new licensee.

It isnt proper for the government to tie highway funds to a requirement that a brochure stating 'kamala harris is the best legislator' be included in every new licensee bundle.

In this case the funds are tied to Medicaid. The program scope is to distribute funds to cover the medical expenses of people who fall under certain financial thresholds. The issue of whether abortions are performed, and not even under the program, has literally nothing to do with the scope of the program nor the program funds.

(07-10-2025 10:58 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

Planned Parenthood is not a private entity.
It is a nonprofit organization that operates through a network of 159 medical and non-medical affiliates, which operate over 600 health clinics in the United States.

It absolutely is a private entity -- by being a 503 (or whatever) non-profit, as is every party plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In a legal context, a private actor refers to an individual or entity that is not part of the government or law enforcement.

Im making the distinction between a state actor / state entity and private actor / private entity.

Absolutely incredible.

(07-10-2025 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2025 08:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. PP is going to attempt to make it be one, but there's not proof or evidence of such. This is about funding priorities and budget cuts to activities that are not the purview of the federal govt to be funding. But let's pretend for a moment it is a viewpoint discrimination case. Enter...

Government Speech Exception: A significant exception to claims of viewpoint discrimination is the "government speech doctrine". This doctrine allows the government to control and restrict speech when it is speaking on its own behalf or through private actors it funds to transmit its message. In such cases, the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral and can choose to fund certain viewpoints to the exclusion of others.

Precedent: Rust v. Sullivan, which allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs.

oopsy...

hence, let 10A and their ilk git after eet ... does 10A now make more sensei, tanq?!

thank you, TibL!!!

The precedent rule he cites isnt precisely on point. Rust has been continuously altered to another subtle direction.

And hate to tell you Stink, this one isnt a 10A case. It is a question of fed power vs. a private entity.

okay ... I'm invoicing ... I'll play...

define "precisely" in a sentence ... as in, "precedent fk's one up the pooper w/o a condom, prison, and the moist necessary - BIDET!"

today is not the day you want to fk with me ... I'm not rehashing this bs ... I only get nastier from this point...

btw, how's that donktard infiltration last year being addressed (remember, where I back out of bet due to lack of current knowledge) .... have they prosecuted (persecuted) one of those biatches, yet .... I'm betting those libtard fagoos haven't torched a soul...

bwahahahahahahaha

Later decisions have said that the action or speech the government can tie funds to has to be in the area that the program is specifically directed at. Not the broad rule statement of "allows the government to regulate speech within the confines of federally funded programs".

It is proper for the government to tie Highway funds to a requirement that a movie on highway safety must be shown to every new licensee.

It isnt proper for the government to tie highway funds to a requirement that a brochure stating 'kamala harris is the best legislator' be included in every new licensee bundle.

In this case the funds are tied to Medicaid. The program scope is to distribute funds to cover the medical expenses of people who fall under certain financial thresholds. The issue of whether abortions are performed, and not even under the program, has literally nothing to do with the scope of the program nor the program funds.

whose later decisions ... oh, yeah, 10A trumps all that bs, funds or not ... have 'em fund uber to another fk'n dipshite state ('sip still zero abby-bortion tolerance)

but for argument sake, that would be helpful during discovery...

or is it another of too many schisms...

you're a trip, bruv ... please continue...

(07-10-2025 11:24 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Absolutely incredible.

it's expected ... like a rash after wiping with any of sumac(s) ... it's almost up there with the pine needles and cones ...

Planned Parenthood…..hhhmmmm…….what a crafty pseudonym for an organization that is planning on you NOT BECOMING A PARENT so their coffers can be filled with GOLD.

UGLY TRUTH

Exactly the organization I’d want to be arguing to get funded.

But, then again just look at who is arguing for it!