(07-12-2025 04:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 04:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 08:32 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It's not hard. I try not to let personal opinion cloud predictive analysis.

I'm not rooting. And I'm not trying to advocate to change anyone's mind or show them how smart I am.

This is a water is wet legal issue. It will get hammered on appeal.

Yep.

Cool cool. We shall see.

Will you admit you were on this issue when it is decided?

Of course not.

(07-12-2025 05:54 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 04:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 04:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 08:32 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It's not hard. I try not to let personal opinion cloud predictive analysis.

I'm not rooting. And I'm not trying to advocate to change anyone's mind or show them how smart I am.

This is a water is wet legal issue. It will get hammered on appeal.

Yep.

Cool cool. We shall see.

Will you admit you were on this issue when it is decided?

First, I dont think that I have actually made any prediction on this case. My initial comment was in response to the cacophony of 'how dare a judge overrule a very clear law'. And pointed out the legal basis put forward to challenge the structure and implementation of that law.

And that response was -- there are 1st amendment issues in it, targeting issues in it, and potential bill of attainder issues. It isnt necessarily what the original poster claimed, nor what the tweet news the OP put out.

The ruckus has been the swarm of people saying that there is no 'viewpoint discrimination' anywhere in the issue. There is -- it is *in* the lawsuit. And passed the smell test for a TRO. Notwithstanding the folks here claiming that it isnt a factor at all.

That is the funny part. Care to point me to any language I have said that it will come down one way or another?

And, we actually have another god honest attorney who has claimed here that I have made nothing but a legal prediction based on political bias. I didnt want to get that ******* bent out of shape that he didnt happen to read my comments very closely -- given his broad and non-supported chest thumping about legal ****. And given his comments about my practice, it wasnt a good look for him to rip into me for making a prediction -- which I specifically did not. Ill leave the unspoken comment about the level of actual reading prowess on his part and his very humorous shade about my legal ability still unspoken.

Kind of a second funny part, there.

To your question -- to the extent I have made any prediction -- Ill be glad to concede any prediction I have made. As to the contents of any judicial decision -- kind of hard to say that judicial decision isnt a judicial decision.

Not to mention that there will be literally 4 - 7 appeals in this case.

Much as those above say 'just wait to see on appeal', there will be an appeal on the TRO, maybe 2, an appeal in the preliminary injunction, maybe 2 or three, and an appeal on summary judgement -- up to 3

So to the extent I have said that anything will come out one way or another -- I will be more than glad to concede when a court says otherwise.

Lies

(07-12-2025 06:35 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Lies

Then it should be easy for you to point out my predictions. I look forward to it.

(07-12-2025 06:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 06:35 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Lies

Then it should be easy for you to point out my predictions. I look forward to it.

Why would I? You are insignificant.

(07-12-2025 06:50 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 06:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 06:35 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Lies

Then it should be easy for you to point out my predictions. I look forward to it.

Why would I? You are insignificant.

Poor guy, too stupid to point out obvious lies that you say are there. Neat stuff. Lolz.

(07-12-2025 06:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 05:54 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 04:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 04:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 08:32 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It's not hard. I try not to let personal opinion cloud predictive analysis.

I'm not rooting. And I'm not trying to advocate to change anyone's mind or show them how smart I am.

This is a water is wet legal issue. It will get hammered on appeal.

Yep.

Cool cool. We shall see.

Will you admit you were on this issue when it is decided?

First, I dont think that I have actually made any prediction on this case. My initial comment was in response to the cacophony of 'how dare a judge overrule a very clear law'. And pointed out the legal basis put forward to challenge the structure and implementation of that law.

And that response was -- there are 1st amendment issues in it, targeting issues in it, and potential bill of attainder issues. It isnt necessarily what the original poster claimed, nor what the tweet news the OP put out.

The ruckus has been the swarm of people saying that there is no 'viewpoint discrimination' anywhere in the issue. There is -- it is *in* the lawsuit. And passed the smell test for a TRO. Notwithstanding the folks here claiming that it isnt a factor at all.

That is the funny part. Care to point me to any language I have said that it will come down one way or another?

And, we actually have another god honest attorney who has claimed here that I have made nothing but a legal prediction based on political bias. I didnt want to get that ******* bent out of shape that he didnt happen to read my comments very closely -- given his broad and non-supported chest thumping about legal ****. And given his comments about my practice, it wasnt a good look for him to rip into me for making a prediction -- which I specifically did not. Ill leave the unspoken comment about the level of actual reading prowess on his part and his very humorous shade about my legal ability still unspoken.

Kind of a second funny part, there.

To your question -- to the extent I have made any prediction -- Ill be glad to concede any prediction I have made. As to the contents of any judicial decision -- kind of hard to say that judicial decision isnt a judicial decision.

Not to mention that there will be literally 4 - 7 appeals in this case.

Much as those above say 'just wait to see on appeal', there will be an appeal on the TRO, maybe 2, an appeal in the preliminary injunction, maybe 2 or three, and an appeal on summary judgement -- up to 3

So to the extent I have said that anything will come out one way or another -- I will be more than glad to concede when a court says otherwise.

I don't see this as a 1st amendment issue at all.

(07-12-2025 06:54 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I don't see this as a 1st amendment issue at all.

You have every right to have that view.

1. Do you think that, with respect to government action, that 'all persons similarly situated should be treated alike'? A yes or no will suffice.

2. Do you think it proper that a government punish or suppress disfavored yet legal expression? A yes or no will suffice.

3. Do you think it proper that a government be able to retaliate against disfavored, yet legal expression? A yes or no will suffice.

If this bill were aimed to the act of abortion, then it should have included *every* group that provided abortions. It didnt. What distinguished PP to be 'carved out' specifically in the bill, since the bill did not broadly cover all abortion providers 9which it could have, according to you all....)

(07-12-2025 06:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 06:50 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 06:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 06:35 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Lies

Then it should be easy for you to point out my predictions. I look forward to it.

Why would I? You are insignificant.

Poor guy, too stupid to point out obvious lies that you say are there. Neat stuff. Lolz.

I never said anything about obvious lies, I'm saying every time you open your mouth you spout lies. I have absolutely no reason to refute them, you are completely unimportant to my life. I'm just pointing it out. I only took you off ignore because I was missing all the laughs you provide. I was missing all the fun.

Neat stuff. Lolz.

(07-12-2025 07:23 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 06:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 06:50 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 06:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 06:35 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Lies

Then it should be easy for you to point out my predictions. I look forward to it.

Why would I? You are insignificant.

Poor guy, too stupid to point out obvious lies that you say are there. Neat stuff. Lolz.

I never said anything about obvious lies, I'm saying every time you open your mouth you spout lies. I have absolutely no reason to refute them, you are completely unimportant to my life. I'm just pointing it out. I only took you off ignore because I was missing all the laughs you provide. I was missing all the fun.

Neat stuff. Lolz.

Im so unimportant you have the overriding urge to respond to pretty much every post of mine, and comment to everyone who posts about me.

Sounds like fun, WB. Lolz. I mean, you act like a sad bloke that just broke up, going 7 levels of obsesso over the fact.

Funny, I dont remember ever dating a dipshit redneck pinhead that would fit your bill. Luckily I dont have cats and boiling pot of water given your apparent obsession.

(07-12-2025 07:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im so unimportant you have the overriding urge to respond to pretty much every post of mine, and comment to everyone who posts about me.

Sounds like fun, WB. Lolz. I mean, you act like a sad bloke that just broke up, going 7 levels of obsesso over the fact.

Funny, I dont remember ever dating a dipshit redneck pinhead that would fit your bill. Luckily I dont have cats and boiling pot of water given your apparent obsession.

I do not come even close to responding to every post you make. I remark on a few here and there. More obvious lies. Prove it if you can.

Hell, I barely read your posts, other than the extremely short ones, which are very few and far between. I don't have to read your posts to make fun of you. You are that damn easy.

Plus I'm not gay so dating me is out of the question. We have a gay Mod here, maybe you should talk to him.

my God, this thread has derailed. Why do Mods here allow this to happen? Specifically, why let one doing the derailing continue thread after thread after thread after......

(07-12-2025 07:58 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 07:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im so unimportant you have the overriding urge to respond to pretty much every post of mine, and comment to everyone who posts about me.

Sounds like fun, WB. Lolz. I mean, you act like a sad bloke that just broke up, going 7 levels of obsesso over the fact.

Funny, I dont remember ever dating a dipshit redneck pinhead that would fit your bill. Luckily I dont have cats and boiling pot of water given your apparent obsession.

I do not come even close to responding to every post you make. I remark on a few here and there. More obvious lies. Prove it if you can.

Hell, I barely read your posts, other than the extremely short ones, which are very few and far between. I don't have to read your posts to make fun of you. You are that damn easy.

Plus I'm not gay so dating me is out of the question. We have a gay Mod here, maybe you should talk to him.

(07-12-2025 07:58 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 07:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im so unimportant you have the overriding urge to respond to pretty much every post of mine, and comment to everyone who posts about me.

Sounds like fun, WB. Lolz. I mean, you act like a sad bloke that just broke up, going 7 levels of obsesso over the fact.

Funny, I dont remember ever dating a dipshit redneck pinhead that would fit your bill. Luckily I dont have cats and boiling pot of water given your apparent obsession.

I do not come even close to responding to every post you make. I remark on a few here and there. More obvious lies. Prove it if you can.

I’m truly sorry you are either lying about, or oblivious to, your obsession.

Quote:Hell, I barely read your posts, other than the extremely short ones, which are very few and far between. I don't have to read your posts to make fun of you. You are that damn easy.

Cool. So obsessed you don’t bother to read — just respond. That’s quite the defense.

Quote:Plus I'm not gay so dating me is out of the question. We have a gay Mod here, maybe you should talk to him.

Talking about the level of obsession you exhibit. Sorry that supposed eddycayshun you get defensive about missed that point. Lolz.

As I said, the warrior pappy of yours would be right proud to sire an internet epeen troll who equates his forays to a warrior ninja ethos. Double lolz. Double lolz. More like GI Troll. Cool cool.

See, that post was entirely too long to read, but was almost certainly full of lies.

(07-12-2025 10:41 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  See, that post was entirely too long to read, but was almost certainly full of lies.

It makes my eyes bleed to try to read all that stuff. He says the same things over and over:

"I'm right...You're wrong...You did it first...Trump bad...Whiny boys...Howler monkeys."

(07-12-2025 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 03:13 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-11-2025 11:25 PM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  If the blue states want to burn money on the murder of babies, they should fund it. Not a dime should come from federal.

Agreed,
What the heck happened to the “Hyde Amendment” anyway?

No Federal $$$’s for being stupidly irresponsible?

Hyde Amendment still in force. PP offers loads of other medical services across the board the women aside from abortion.

Right, and we all know money is fungible. They should be told to sever the baby killing part from all other services, two entities or more and no more one stop shopping for ALL your abortive needs.

That would at least make this mildly tolerable.

If the Feds can break up AT&T and Microsoft, why not the baby killing mills?

Sounds good(better) to me.

(07-12-2025 05:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 04:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I have never blown up on on you one time, bozo. You would know if I did. I normally either shake my head at you, or just laugh at you. Or make fun of you.

You, OTOH, once let off a couple of choice cuss words on Trump (which you don't normally do), b/c you let your emotions get the best of you. Your TDS slipped out.

Nice deflection. The issue is making non-substantive shade, insults. Somehow you now change that to '[you] have never blown up on on [sic] [me] one time, bozo'

When you change the goalposts -- imagine that -- you are correct. In that newly formed standard, I have never done the same to you. Cool cool.

Somehow my calling trump a few cuss words, is now evidence of....... something. Something not really the subject of this conversation. But if it makes you feel better, champ -- go for it. Cool cool again.

And I also noted that ou missed the couple of times that we agreed on some of Trumps policies and views. I, for the most part, am not a fan of either the man, nor many of his thin stupid policies. I tend to note my exceptions to his policies here. But, true to form, the dude who whines cannot simply accept that I have an issue with his policies -- but somehow chooses to cast it and minimize it as nothing more than TDS.

Funny thing, I look at your just past diatribe on me.

"b/c you ignore anything anybody else says" -- like you ignore my issues that I actually agree with Trump,

"or discount it out of hand" -- just like you ascribe to me the issue of 'TDS'.

" or if you can't rebut it, you pick out some minor point and go off on a tangent" -- and what is the point of Trump policies, or TDS, or anything else in your post above dealing with the issue of me acting like a jacksass to those who treat me like a *******?

Lolz. Wow, your post above about " b/c you ignore anything anybody else says, or discount it out of hand, or if you can't rebut it, you pick out some minor point and go off on a tangent" given your jsut now delivered pile of garbage seems to be a very humorous parcel of lack of self-reflection, my friend.

Lolz.

Are you a middle-school age girl?

I’ve raised a couple, sounds awfully familiar

Good grief.

(07-12-2025 11:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 03:13 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-11-2025 11:25 PM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  If the blue states want to burn money on the murder of babies, they should fund it. Not a dime should come from federal.

Agreed,
What the heck happened to the “Hyde Amendment” anyway?

No Federal $$$’s for being stupidly irresponsible?

Hyde Amendment still in force. PP offers loads of other medical services across the board the women aside from abortion.

Right, and we all know money is fungible. They should be told to sever the baby kidding from all other services, two entities or more and no more one stop shopping for ALL your abortive needs.

That would at least make this mildly tolerable.

If the Feds can break up AT&T and Microsoft, why not the baby killing mills?

Sounds good(better) to me.

If PP were a monopoly you might have a point.

As for fungible -- so what? They already cannot perform abortions under Medicaid. Now you want to magically strip any and every ob-gyn from performing any abortions in order to be eligible to be a Medicaid provider overall?

PP Texas is a different company that PP overall. In Texas PP doesnt do abortions. They cant -- pretty much illegal. Yet they are barred from being a Medicaid provider under the law. Good with that?

The funny thing is that conservatives used to be the ones being the bulwark against the government trying to mandate what legal things someone can do. Now apparently not so much.