(07-13-2025 01:46 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(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.

Are you an on the bubble 'anxiety' sundowner?

Ive been around a couple. Sounds awfully familiar.

Good grief.

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
Butane in my veins and I'm out to cut the junkie
With the plastic eyeballs, spray-paint the vegetables
Dog food stalls with the beefcake pantyhose

Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Stock car flamin' with a loser and the cruise control
Baby's in Reno with the vitamin D
Got a couple of couches, sleep on the love-seat

Someone came in sayin' I'm insane to complain
About a shotgun wedding and a stain on my shirt
Don't believe everything that you breath
You get a parking violation and a maggot on your sleeve

(07-12-2025 07:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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....)

Both Houses passed the Bill. I see no where that PP has any right to receive federal tax dollars. I also fail to see how your three questions apply to the subject at hand. I also fail to see how their freedom of speech is being denied. They still have freedom of speech with or without the federal tax dollars.

Freedom of speech and freedom to kill the unborn. Same same, right?

(07-13-2025 10:37 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 07:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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....)

Both Houses passed the Bill. I see no where that PP has any right to receive federal tax dollars. I also fail to see how your three questions apply to the subject at hand. I also fail to see how their freedom of speech is being denied. They still have freedom of speech with or without the federal tax dollars.

Try answering the questions solely in the general as first step.

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.

It is amazing how no one here will answer any form of general basic question.

(07-13-2025 10:46 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Freedom of speech and freedom to kill the unborn. Same same, right?

Nope. One isnt even a right. But great 4-star deflection.

Lets start at a basic level:

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.

Killing the unborn is wrong. I don't care about your lawyerly bullsh!t.

(07-13-2025 11:27 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Killing the unborn is wrong. I don't care about your lawyerly bullsh!t.

Lawyerly? Just a question over what you think right or wrong. Apparently too much for that cranium to deal with. My apologies. But please run away some more, warrior boy.

lol! You are really bad at this. Maybe you're a baddass in a courtroom, but out here you're helpless.

(07-13-2025 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2025 10:37 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 07:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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....)

Both Houses passed the Bill. I see no where that PP has any right to receive federal tax dollars. I also fail to see how your three questions apply to the subject at hand. I also fail to see how their freedom of speech is being denied. They still have freedom of speech with or without the federal tax dollars.

Try answering the questions solely in the general as first step.

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.

It is amazing how no one here will answer any form of general basic question.

Your three questions have nothing to do with PP receiving federal tax dollars. All you're trying to do is move the goal post in this Thread to some how help your argument.

(07-13-2025 11:40 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Your three questions have nothing to do with PP receiving federal tax dollars. All you're trying to do is move the goal post in this Thread to some how help your argument.

In this Thread? Try every Thread he posts in.

(07-13-2025 11:40 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-13-2025 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2025 10:37 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 07:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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....)

Both Houses passed the Bill. I see no where that PP has any right to receive federal tax dollars. I also fail to see how your three questions apply to the subject at hand. I also fail to see how their freedom of speech is being denied. They still have freedom of speech with or without the federal tax dollars.

Try answering the questions solely in the general as first step.

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.

It is amazing how no one here will answer any form of general basic question.

Your three questions have nothing to do with PP receiving federal tax dollars.

Not at all. It actually has everything to do *with the bill* in question.

Quote:All you're trying to do is move the goal post in this Thread to some how help your argument.

Again, see above. And the above questions are central to the lawsuit.

If you want to treat the questions as kryptonite, go ahead and continue in that manner.

How about this one as a starter -- do you believe in the concepts of the 14th amendment issue of equal protection, yes or no?

(07-13-2025 11:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2025 11:40 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-13-2025 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2025 10:37 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 07:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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....)

Both Houses passed the Bill. I see no where that PP has any right to receive federal tax dollars. I also fail to see how your three questions apply to the subject at hand. I also fail to see how their freedom of speech is being denied. They still have freedom of speech with or without the federal tax dollars.

Try answering the questions solely in the general as first step.

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.

It is amazing how no one here will answer any form of general basic question.

Your three questions have nothing to do with PP receiving federal tax dollars.

Not at all. It actually has everything to do *with the bill* in question.

Quote:All you're trying to do is move the goal post in this Thread to some how help your argument.

Again, see above. And the above questions are central to the lawsuit.

If you want to treat the questions as kryptonite, go ahead and continue in that manner.

How about this one as a starter -- do you believe in the concepts of the 14th amendment issue of equal protection, yes or no?

My understanding the lawsuit was a 1st amendment issue are you telling me it's also a 14th amendment issue? Did the judge update the lawsuit to include the 14th?

(07-13-2025 12:11 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-13-2025 11:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2025 11:40 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-13-2025 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-13-2025 10:37 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Both Houses passed the Bill. I see no where that PP has any right to receive federal tax dollars. I also fail to see how your three questions apply to the subject at hand. I also fail to see how their freedom of speech is being denied. They still have freedom of speech with or without the federal tax dollars.

Try answering the questions solely in the general as first step.

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.

It is amazing how no one here will answer any form of general basic question.

Your three questions have nothing to do with PP receiving federal tax dollars.

Not at all. It actually has everything to do *with the bill* in question.

Quote:All you're trying to do is move the goal post in this Thread to some how help your argument.

Again, see above. And the above questions are central to the lawsuit.

If you want to treat the questions as kryptonite, go ahead and continue in that manner.

How about this one as a starter -- do you believe in the concepts of the 14th amendment issue of equal protection, yes or no?

My understanding the lawsuit was a 1st amendment issue are you telling me it's also a 14th amendment issue? Did the judge update the lawsuit to include the 14th?

Maybe you should read even in these pages what it includes.

Yo your last question.... no.

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
Butane in my veins and I'm out to cut the junkie
With the plastic eyeballs, spray-paint the vegetables
Dog food stalls with the beefcake pantyhose

Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Stock car flamin' with a loser and the cruise control
Baby's in Reno with the vitamin D
Got a couple of couches, sleep on the love-seat

Someone came in sayin' I'm insane to complain
About a shotgun wedding and a stain on my shirt
Don't believe everything that you breathe
You get a parking violation and a maggot on your sleeve
So shave your face with some mace in the dark
Savin' all your food stamps and burnin' down the trailer park

(07-13-2025 11:40 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  lol! You are really bad at this. Maybe you're a baddass in a courtroom, but out here you're helpless.

Not a chance

Three federal appellate court judges — all three of them appointed by the Biden Admin. — have just unanimously reversed the decision of Judge Talwani.

(09-12-2025 12:23 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Three federal appellate court judges — all three of them appointed by the Biden Admin. — have just unanimously reversed the decision of Judge Talwani.

Knew it wasn't unconstitutional.

Quote:A federal appeals court on Thursday allowed a provision in Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill to defund Planned Parenthood.

In July, a federal judge expanded a preliminary injunction and blocked Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Provision, barring funding for Planned Parenthood nationwide.

Judge Talwani, an Obama appointee, previously issued a TRO and temporarily blocked the reconciliation bill’s provision barring funding for Planned Parenthood.

A couple of weeks later, the judge granted a preliminary injunction in part extending a block on funding for Planned Parenthood.

In late July, Judge Talwani expanded her injunction nationwide.

The judge’s ruling comes after the US Supreme Court largely restricted lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 3-0 decision, lifted Judge Talwani’s injunction against the Big Beautiful Bill’s ban on federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The three-judge panel was stacked with Biden-appointed judges.

Planned Parenthood sued the Trump Administration over its funding cuts written into the newly passed reconciliation bill.

The House passed the Big Beautiful Bill earlier this month, and President Trump signed it into law on July 4th at the White House.

“Everyone deserves access to high-quality, affordable health care. That’s what we’ve been fighting for the last century — and we’ll never stop,” President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Alexis McGill Johnson said over the summer. “We’ll be suing the Trump administration to stop this unlawful attack. See you in court.”

Link

Tanq is, like, 0-278…he’s wrong more than a weatherman.