Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    They kinda say that...for now.

    The legal standard is an impossible one for a physician to follow with certainty.  Dr. Jones thinks it's plainly within his reasonable medical judgment that Jane Doe needs an abortion to save her life and/or avoid destroying her uterus.  So, he performs the abortion.  Ken Paxton and/or another zealous Republican prosecutor solicits the opinion of Dr. Smith, member of the board of Jesus Hates Women Bible Fundamentalist church, to opine that Dr. Jones opinion was NOT a reasonable medical opinion.  Case submitted to grand jury, with only Dr. Smith's opinion presented.  Grand Jury indicts Dr. Jones.  Dr. Jones is now in the fight of his life, with literally his freedom FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE on the line.

    The standard is impossible to know with certainty, and can be opposed/refuted by the offer of an opinion from a "friendly" Dr. on the side of the prosecution.  "Reasonable" is a matter of opinion.  So, that means there is always, 100% of the time, a risk of prosecution of a Dr. for performing a life-saving or health-saving abortion.  Which is how the GQP wants it.  There is no fixing this because they do not think it's broken.

    You use your typical histrionics but I don't disagree with the sentiment.  There are certainly things the hospitals and doctors can do to insulate them from this.  In house medical panels that review, rigorous documentation etc.  And if you read the statute jail time is only for doctors or others that "wantonly" violate the statute.  But your point stands that there is risk.  From a purely legal standpoint, I don't think this particular line of thinking is a winning strategy. 

    Obviously getting the law repealed is ideal.  Short of that, I think a woman is going to have to sue a doctor or hospital for denying her an abortion under the vagueness of the statute and force the courts to put in language that removes the ambiguity.   We already have laws that deal with medical reasonableness and things like experimental drugs and procedures.  These are not, at all, issues that the medical world hasn't dealt with before.

  2. 4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

    they're empowering this case against Ms. Cox, not because they have issue with the hospital protocol or don't recognize that her life, fetal liability, and future fertility are very much at stake.  They completely know that.  What they are doing is laying a groundwork so that down the road if any physicians or their patients get any funny ideas about claiming "mother's life is in danger" or "fetus will not be viable after month 3" or whatever, they can use this as a base claim that she has to carry to term anyways.  They know the harm here, but the idea is that later on doctors and women will start using the exceptions as a rationale for more abortions.  And they can't abide that.  So they have to make some early examples and that's what you're seeing unfold here.  Next will be interstate travel, then menstruation tracking, and then contraception.  They're already getting on the interstate while we're still pulling out of the garage.  

    This is just not true or accurate.  SCOTX as well as the AG's office have all agreed that Ms Cox is entitled to an abortion under the law.  What SCOTX and the AG's office are saying is that she and the doctor and the hospital have to follow the requirements for the abortion as defined under the law.  This case sets no precedent on dealing with exceptions to the rule because the plaintiffs admit they didn't follow the rule.

    I agree with you that the intent of the statute is to make it difficult to get an exception.  That was by design.  Possibly a case can be made that the requirements are too onerous but that is not the case they are bringing. 

    • Fuck You 4
  3. 2 hours ago, C-Man said:

    Please re-read what you wrote here. Paxton has a lengthy track record of criminality and cruelty and WE didn't "give him the chance" to do the right thing. "We." Give me a fucking break.

    You missed the point.  The staute will never be changed or repealed based on someone's belief that something might happen.  Have a woman get an abortion based on the exceptions to the statute that clearly exist and then if the AG tries to interfere, a suit can be brought that has a chance of winning.

  4. 11 hours ago, safe sex said:

    It's too late for changing minds, holy shit. Women are having to flee the state to get abortions now. And lmao, even if "minds are changed," like in Ohio (sort of...), the Republican-stacked government is trying to find ways to ignore the will of the votes.

    I guess we'll just have to let them try here, too, right? Cause I mean...we wouldn't know if they'd try it or not until they do.

    Gimme a break.

    So what is your solution?  You and others seem pretty emotional about this and rightfully so.  I am sure the women this law affects are happy that you are screaming about it on a message board but I don't see how that actually helps them.

    Let's assume that the federal SCOTUS is not likely to change their stance on abortion anytime in the near future.  SCOTUS said abortion needs to be defined by the states.  As a result if you really want a change to the Texas law then it is going to have to come from Texas voters and by their proxy the Texas state legislatureor through SCOTX.  I assme we can all agree on that?

    If your stance is that a majority of Texas minds will never be changed on this subject and further that even if the majority of Texans favor change, that the legislature is going to somehow ignore the will of the people and then insulate themselves from having to be re-elected so that the current statute/law will never face repeal or change then why are you even discussing it? 

    You and so many others keep saying that you KNOW how the issue is going to be decided in a hypothetical scenario.  That isn't knowing, that is speculating.  You could be 100% correct in your speculation but you don't know it and it isn't fact until it happens.  And, more importantly, your speculation does not have the power to change anything.  Only allowing the actions to actually happen has the potential to change things.  I would like the actual statute/law changed.  I am advocating for a path forward that might actually produce a change.  But what is happening now with the current cases isn't going to work imo.  I haven't read every single scenario in the current suit but I have read most of them.  Again, imo, those cases are going to lose because in those instances the plaintiffs are saying they want an abortion for a specific circumstance with their prgnancy and SCOTX has said that based on their reading of the statute all of the women are/were entitled to a leal abortion under the statute.  So there is no case.  What the plaintiffs are saying is that they do not want any restrictions on the abortions and that they do not want to go through the procedures required to get a legal abortion under the statute.  That isn't goling to fly imo.

    I think a much better case would be a woman that has a viable prgenancy and did not realize she was pregnant until after the reporting timeline based on the statute but would have opted for an abortion if she knew.  I think the statute is very shaky on this issue.  It has been written in such a way to make it almost impossible for anyone in this scenario to get an abortion.  I think a challenge on the vagueness of the statute and the hypocritical nature of the wording has a chance to win at SCOTX. 

    • Fuck You 1
  5. 2 minutes ago, safe sex said:

    I mean, no one gives a shit because it's completely beside the point. Even if the paperwork had been fully completed, Paxton would've appealed for some other reason or the Court would have found some other flaw.

    You shouldn't have to appeal to a fucking court to get necessary, life-saving healthcare!!

    This is the point.  You may very well be right that the AG would have come up with some other method.  But we don't know and we didn't give him the chance.  If minds are going to be changed then there must be a case where the statute was complied with and still the abortion was interfered with.  Then you have a case to fight with.

  6. 34 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    We are well into the enforcement part of the law.  We have four counties (good ole Lubbock leading the way) who have laws on the books that encourage private citizens to file lawsuits against anybody using various roads within the counties to transport/assist somebody having an abortion - and the folks behind it are the folks driving the unborn sanctuary city bullshit, tc.

    Notably, they can't sue the woman seeking the abortion, so there has to be some self-awareness there, that it's a bad look if they sue a woman whose pregnancy is not viable.

    We have Paxton making damned sure that, whether the abortion is technically legal or not, he wants all hospitals on notice that he will go after them with the power and resources of the State of Texas if he so desires.  Paxton and his supporters can claim the abortion was legal and it was simply a matter of her doctor fucking up, but he sure as hell was not acting like it.

    This is the canary in the coal mine.  

    I'm pretty high and not sure I understand the point you are making.  I thought that you and the other guy were saying that because this case has legs and is getting a lot of national press and that this is an election year that it might actually change the minds of the Texas voters that approved the people in the legislature that put the statute into law.  But then you post above about how truly crazy the people are.  Which leads me to believe that no amount of national pressure is going to shame enough people to actually change the legislature, which was my point. 

  7. 1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

    No way man, this case has some serious legs in the country right now. It's getting a ton of play/conversation.

     

    41 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    It is getting a lot of play in the national conversation, and 2024 is an election year, so FAFO.

    Hopefully you guys are right.  But it seems to me that the only way to repeal the law is through the legislature.  That is going to require a pretty serious conversion.  I think the national dialogue will produce 2 things.  Texas is going to look stupid and the ones responsible for being stupid are just going to hunker down and tell the world they don't understand the law.  Shame does not work when people aren't ashamed of what they are doing.

  8. 16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I was responding to TexasHammer's mischaracterization of the law and facts based on Paxton's "advocacy."

    It does not actually appear that a serious effort was made here to comply with the statute.  I have not read the pleadings, but this seems to be an appeal to the equities of a factual abomination more than a serious effort to invoke the medical exception.

    There may have been some "publicity stunt" aspects to it.

    ETA:  and that's ok by me.  Without bringing these court cases involving real situations, this runs the risk of being a bunch of gnarly anecdotes that are easily dismissed by those so inclined.

     

    Agreed to a point.  I think you, as a good poster, should be above the crazies.  I would like the law/statute repealed or replaced.  But by bringing these types of cases, it actually gives the AG a defense by pointing out that, legally, the bad outcomes did not have to occur based on the statute.   In order to actually get the statute repealed, hearts and minds are going to need to be changed.  Perhaps they never will.  But they certainly never will when the tactic used to try and change them is based on outcomes that could have been avoided if the current statute was applied correctly.

     

  9. 4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    Well, I hope you feel nice and snug and warm in your odd little tower of knowledge.

    My poor little auto-lobotomized pea-brain recollects, or "seems" to recollect, I suppose. Who can be sure when lobes are missing?

    Anyway, I'm pretty sure we had a reasoanbly successful effort going in Afghanistan finally using special forces in the role they are designed for.

    Suddenly, the president of the US and his minions start telling lies about Iraq's WMD capabilities and constantly suggesting that Iraq had something to do with 911. So Bush did lie. The neo-cons stated a purpose about the delightful welcome that our boys and democracy would get after we finished killing people.

    That was on the surface. After the invasion, pallets of cash were shipped to Iraq with virtually no accounting because a PO Box operation was hired by the GOP administration to track it. (Vanity Fair) Also, sweet deals for buying up Iraqi industries were handed out to the rich GOP faithful. (Atlantic) Cheney's old friends at Haliburton where he had been a board member raked in 100s of millions of dollars.

    Oh, and we squandered the unity of the world behind us after 9/11 and created more terrorists than we killed.

    Annnnd, any possible success in Afghanistan was squandered because we pulled the special forces out of that country to attack Iraq from the north where Turkey, one of those gravely threatened by Iraq's WMDs wasn't worried enough support the invastion in any way.

    I can't imagine anyone other than fucking lobotomized morons not privy to your elevated knowledge believing that maybe things would have been different without neo-cons holding sway, an administration willing to lie to set neo-con wet dreams into action (at least on the surface), and big money wanting to use their GOP puppets to do stealing on a large scale.

    The Dems opposed the invasion but were too weak and cowardly to risk their seats to say and vote so.

    Everything would have been exactly the same, I'm sure. Thanks for the convincing argument, my friend.

    I think Rimbo is more right on this issue.  Of course we will never know.  But Gore believed, unequivocally (and as VP he had access to all of the intel), that Saddam had WMDs and was actively looking to share them with terrorists.  Gore stated that in multiple speeches at the time.  He couched support for the invasion by saying we needed more of an international consensus (and he was probably right about that in hindsight) but the die was cast and the US was going after Saddam regardless of who won the election.  Further, no one could plausibly argue that the Clintons would not have had a major impact on Gore as POTUS and both Bill and Hillary supported the invasion, with Hillary being in the minority of dems that voted for the resolution (21 dem senators and 126 dem house memberts voted against the resolution). I did agree with Gore that we should not have slowed down our fight against Al Queda but that fight was proving to be harder than we thought.

    As to Haliburton, I think that line of thinking is just completely flawed and weak.  When the authorization to invade was made there was absolutely no way to do a formal "bid" process to support the troops and handle the oil fields and Haliburton was, in fact, the best US corp to handle the work.  Haliburton obviously made a shit ton of money but I do not believe, at all, that Haliburton getting the work played any role in the decision to invade.  I think Cheney was an idealogue and truly thought he was helping the country.  I don't think he actually did help the country but he was not motivated, nor was Bush, by Haliburton profiteering off the war. 

     

  10. 19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures. 

    And this whole thing is fucking nasty. They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. 

    Humanly indefensible. 

    To be clear, I disagree completely with the Texas abortion law and think it perfectly illustrtaes the backwords thinking and political grandstanding and blatant hypocrisy of the Texas GOP.  It is ghoulish.  The law is too vague and needs serious reform.  It is likely written to put fear into doctors and hospitals.  It is terrible.   I would never support any of the people responsible for it.

    But there are definitely people on here that look to the few level headed attorneys on the board for information and I think you are greatly mischaracterizing the Texas law.  To your points:

    1)"Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures."- I think it actually does.  The law requires the doctor performing the procedure to have "active admitting privileges" at the time of the procedure and the hospital only grants privileges to doctors that agree to comply with all hospital policies.  The truth is that if the hospital knowingly allows a doctor to perform surgeries/procedures that do not comply with their (the hospital's) own guidelines then the hospital is certainly at risk for penalties.  This is true whether the procedure is an abortion or any other medical procedure.

    2) "They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. "- Disagree again.  The Texas statute (as ghoulish as it is) clearly states that  an exception to the guidelines exists for any unborn child that " has a severe fetal abnormality".  No woman would ever be forced to to give birth to a stillborn child under the statute. 

     

    18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    No they're not.  They're saying it's only permissible if the mother's life is in danger.

    Again, they are not saying this at all.  You, as a lawyer, know this.  That was simply an answer to the specific filings in this case.  There are many cisrcumstances that allow a legal abortion that do not require the mother's life to be in danger. 

    As mentioned, the law is certainly vague and I can understand the hesitancy of the doctors. 

    As stated, I think the statute is absolutely repulsive.  But it was passed into law.  And in making a PURELY legal and unemotional judgement on the actions of the AG (again I disagree to the law completely) in this case I would agree that the AG is correct in its arguments.  There are laws and procedures required for legal abortions.  Ms Cox and her doctor did not follow them and they certainly could have.  The doctor could easily have noted the conditions present in Ms Cox's pregnancy that were a danger to "impairment of a major bodily function" and had another doctor concur and performed the abortion.  I get it that they don't want to do that because it might show that the statute allows it and then they have a far more limited avenue to sue.  They want to use the emotional scenarios to help draw attention to the law and the need for reform and I hope they succeed.   What I do not like is the suffering that some of these women incur when they shouldn't have to legally or otherwise. 

  11. On 11/18/2023 at 10:48 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

    This op-ed in The Guardian is very clear eyed and scathing about Netanyahu. And I agree.  I will also say that there appears to be serious momentum and pressure on Netanyahu internally and hopefully this will spell the end of his tenure, one way or another. 
     

    It is equally clear-eyed about Hamas and the need to eliminate them as a capable governing authority.  It really is adequate to compare them and their ideology to the Nazis.  Adolf Hitler was quite clear in his ideology that if Germans could not win the war, they did not deserve to exist. They were willing to sacrifice every single German to accomplish their aims and did end up with their country ruined. People need to be clear-eyed about what it means to live next door to a political entity with similar fanatical aim and outlook. 
     

     

    Good read.  Just my opinion but I believe that after this conflict is resolved, Bibi will step down.  I hope so.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. On 11/18/2023 at 12:50 PM, Brian Fantana said:

    Killing a bunch of them without addressing the environment and conditions that lead to a far-right fundamentalist group like Hamas gaining power is just kicking the can down the road. They'll either return or something worse will replace them.

    I have a real problem with this sentiment.  Maybe I am not understanding your point.

    The vast majority of people who are condemning Israel for their offensive and seemingly being supportive of Palestinians (as opposed to Hamas) all seem to suggest that Hamas represents a small percentage of Palestinians.  I hear this a lot.  Israel is killing "innocent" non combatives.  I hear most Palestinians just want to live in peace and go to work and raise kids etc.  So, IF that is true (I do not believe it to be) then why or how could another Hamas type group emerge in a post Hamas Gaza?  Israel is going to shred Hamas including both people and weapons.  It will be effectively destroyed.  

    So if we assume that post Hamas Gaza gets vast international aid to rebuild their territory and some sort of international police force is present in Gaza during the rebuilding, how would a new Hamas get a foothold there?  The only way would be if there really are a larger percentage of Gazans that are fine with killing Jews and trying to destroy Israel.  

    I firmly believe that we are going to find out.  Hamas is going to be wiped out.  Gaza is going to be given an opportunity at true self determination after this conflict is over.  International aid in the billions will flow into Gaza.  If in 10 years, Gaza is living peacefully then they will be left alone by Israel.  If in 10 years another Hamas type emerges to some position of control then Israel is going to decimate the whole population.

    • Like 1
  13. On 11/17/2023 at 5:49 PM, InkaUtexas said:

    Yep. And with the same logic so could Israel. Neither will of course. 

     

    You truly think if Israel "surrendered" that Hamas would stop trying to kill them?  What has Hamas ever done to make anyone think that?  

    • Hook 'Em 3
  14. 38 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

    we are talking about right now.

    you're saying you're not defending the jews.  you should be.  it's not a monolith.  if you don't agree with what israel or netanyahu is doing, that's ok.  but saying you're not defending the jews is not what you're trying to say i don't think.  but i could be wrong.

    why is some hate of jews justified from history?

    I understand your point.  And you are correct.  I am saying that it is likely that events have occurred throughout history that would cause some hatred of jews.  Just like there is hatred of any societies that have had conflict.  I am sure there are chinese that hate japanese due to the atrocities prior to ww2.  I am sure there are americans that hate japanese for pearl harbor or japanese that hate americans for Hiroshima etc.  And sure the hatred should be reserved for the leaders but that just defies human nature.  But all of those societies have seemed to evolve to some extent and are willing to be mostly peaceful.  The palestinians seem to not want to evolve.  They continue to foment hatred and wish violence on the jews and they teach it to their children as a religion. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 30 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    I guess I don't consider refusing to exterminate 2 million people as any form of restraint, its just following international law. The US could have leveled a lot of places over the years, I don't really consider it restraint that we didn't. I agree there are mostly bad guys in this, but the Israelis haven't been blockaded and starved for decades, so I have some sympathy for civilians in Gaza, children especially, even if the adults there otherwise harbor bad feeling or whatnot. And yes, of course I also have sympathy for victims of Hamas terrorism, just as I do victims of terrorism anywhere else in the world. I don't view terrorism in Israel as all that different, but the western world does, and I'm not a fan of that in general.

    This is an interesting post and one that I think a lot of people agree with.  To me, it is just a feel good response by people who are detached from the issue and have no skin in the game.  It is also a very general use of the word terrorism.

    When you say the Israelis havent been blockaded and starved, you offer no reason why that has occurred.  You seem to insinuate that the Israelis are doing it out of spite or meanness.  It is not a disputed fact that rocket fire and suicide bombers were routinely coming out of Gaza and into Israel for years and years before Israel cut off the passageways.   It is not a diputed fact that Iran/Hezbollah were sneaking weapons into Gaza through the passages that were open.  What is Israel to do? 

    Why has Egypt kept their border with Gaza closed during the same period?  Why are they not called out by you and others to help with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza due to the blockade?  Gaza is tiny.  More than enough aid could come through Egypt to care for the whole country.  Would you try to equivocate the response if Hamas had attacked Egypt on Oct 7?  Would you or anyone have condemned their response?  Maybe I have missed it but I do not recall any pro palestinian spokesperson or leader or Hamas or anyone that has condemned Egypt over the last decades due to the blockade. 

    And Jewish Israel and Arab Egypt enjoy normal realtions and have hundreds of millions of trade between them. 

    And what I mean by detached is that we in the US have the luxury of making comments like "I dont view terrorism in Israel as all that different".  But you would think it was different if you lived in Israel and had family members killed by those terrorist acts that you seem so indifferent about.  Attacks that have gone on for decades unabated. 

    I am frankly amazed that people who constantly poke a bear are then horrified when the bear eats them.

    I do not see any chance of Israel stopping short of eradicating Hamas from Gaza.  My hope is that it is done as quickly as possible and with as few casualties as possible.  Then I hope the world pours a lot of money into Gaza to rebuild and establishes a temporary international police force in Gaza to keep a Hamas like group from reforming and allows the Palestinians to actually self govern and live in peace. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  16. 5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

    to add to this, hamas knows israel cares about civilians.  why else would they hide their bases of operation in hospitals and schools.

     

     israel.  or netanyahu.  both would be better words here.  not sure why so many have a problem differentiating.

    You are correct if we are talking about right now.  My point was that the Palestinians have hated the Jews and have been calling for their extermination almost throughout history.  They have raised their children preaching violence and death to Jews for a long time.  Certainly well before Israel or Netanyahu.  No one can possibly understand all of the history between the two.  Perhaps some hate of Jews is justified from history.  But no hate is justification for calling for mass extermination of a group of people. 

  17. 37 minutes ago, immamac said:

    I’m starting to think that neither side is taking this serious and they are just fucking around and causing as much emotional and physical pain and distress in some kind of global atrocity contest. They don’t want peace, it’s 2 extremist groups going at one another and every ounce of news or media that comes out of Israel is a psyop to convince people of their righteousness. 

     

    26 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

    They definitely don't want peace.  Netanyahu and his hardliners need Hamas, and Hamas needs Netanyahu and his hardliners.  The average civilian on both sides might not like the other side, but for the most part I think they just want to go to their classes or work at their textile factory, or whatever, and come home to their families.

    I really disagreee with both of these points. 

    On the first, your feelings are understandable in todays world where we are able to view everything in real time.  Coupled with the fact that it really doesn't impact 99% of the people here (USA) personally.  It is not our children and neighbors being killed.  But imagine what the reaction would be to WWII say 4 months after D Day or after Dresden or during the bombing of Britain.  War is hell on earth.  Germany was indiscriminatetly killing civilians and, in turn, German civilians were getting killed in response.  Imagine a bunch of people from Mexico calling the Allied forces barbarians when German civilians were killed.  But Roosevelt and Churchill knew that a ceasefire against Hitler was pointless.  He was never, ever going to stop.  So "innocent" Germans were going to get killed.  Hamas is never, ever going to stop killing Jews.  Never.  It would be great if Israel could eradicate Hamas in a week but that just isnt how it works.  I hope it is quick and that the body count is low but Israel is not going to spare Hamas this time.

    On the second, I just don't think that sentiment reflects reality.  It is 2023.  The citizens of Gaza have cell phones and internet and all kinds of communication capabilities.  Yet very, very few criticize Hamas publicly and, to my knowledge, none have given intel to outside organizations about tunnels and weapons.  One can certainly argue that criticizing Hamas is dangerous but it is certainly less dangerous now as everyone sees everything now.  Further, the Palestinians are taught in school at very early ages and taught at home to hate the Jews and that the Jews are the sole cause of every bad thing that happens to Palestinians.  To be clear, I am not defending the Jews.  I am saying that the Palestinian population, from their very childhoods, have had hate for the Jews ingrained into their very psyches.  That is a mental cycle that is immensely hard to break. 

    It is hard for me to comprehend the depravity required to use hospitals and schools as shields for tyranny.  I don't think many Americans can understand this.  Hamas literally hate Jews more than they love their fellow countrymen. 

    High

    On 8/10/2023 at 7:24 PM, CooterBrown said:

    My neighbor micro doses daily and it’s improved her happiness significantly. Her co worker grows his own mushrooms, dehydrates them in the RonCo Food Dehydrator. Gives them a spin in the Vitamix until they’re powder and fills empty capsules he buys on Amazon. She takes a capsule a day.

    That is a shockingly descriptive post. 

    • Haha 1
  18. 2 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:


    Bare with me, on my phone so hopefully links work and what not.

    So it is your contention that Christianity, and religious groups had no role in abortion law? Only because the decision doesn’t explicitly state it? It is very convenient to think this way. However, it seems pretty obvious to many folks that Paxton and Abbott are definitely pushing their religious beliefs onto others.

    Paxton in 2015 is clear about how he views the separation of church and state:

    https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/20/paxton-addresses-grapevine-church/

    And his homie Abbott mentioning the “creator” in regard to SB8:

    https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/

    Was SB8 not part of the Roe being overturned? It’s fairly easy to connect the dots here. If you can’t see it, I’m not sure what to say. Maybe one of these law dogs can say it better than myself.

    Regarding gay marriage, Abbott has been an opponent his whole career. Very easy to find articles that quote him saying as such.

    It’s not called a culture battle, it’s a war. Many battles are fought within a war. You don’t think given the chance Abbott and Co. won’t revisit this? I think Brisket handled it up thread.

    How about these proposed bills:

    https://www.equalitytexas.org/legislature/legislative-bill-tracker-2023/

    Those must all be secular since God isn’t mentioned. This is also heavily discussed in the LGBT thread.

    This took a weird turn which is sort of predictable here.  I have no desire or interest to defend Abbot/Paxton and I think many of the platforms of the Texas gop are stupid and wrong.  I would not argue that many in the the Texas gop would like to revert to a more traditional (certainly traditional in our country) form of governance but I do not think they will be successful and, very clearly, the country as a whole is moving on without them.  If you just wanted to do a Texas gop is bad and religion is bad thread then I would not have responded.

    Your original post asked "It feels like more and more we are headed towards theocracy in this country. At the very least, the right are determined to commingle church and state much more. This goes for all religions, but since we are in the US, that mostly means Christianity. They weaponize it for whatever cause and policy they are trying to push on the country."  I do not think that is true.    And Texas isn't the country.  I would say the country is actually heading in an opposite direction of a theocracy.  Plus, what group that wants something politically doesn't weaponize their support for it?  I do not have any issue with religious people being politically active on issues just like I have no issue with any group that wants to become active politically and fight for what they believe in.  

    When I think of a theocracy, I think of some society ruled by the teachings/rulings of some divine being or some group that considers themselves as divinely guided.  Like making it illegal to eat meat on Fridays during lent or mandating prayer at govt functions or similar.  In our country's history we had some ideals like that but they have mostly been eradicated.  We are a far, far more secular govt today than in the past.  That is undeniable.  Maybe it isn't happening as fast as some would like, and I tend to think that is a good thing in most cases, but it is moving in that direction and there is absolutely no traction nationwide for a return to some sort of theocracy.

    Abortion-  Again, I have made my personal beliefs known and I think the Texas law is grossly bad.  However, I can understand an argument from people who think abortion is killing a potential life.  An atheist can believe and be scientifically and medically supported that life occurs at conception.  I doubt we will ever get a consensus on that.  But I do not find arguments against abortion to be specifically religious.  It certainly aligns with the beliefs of many religious people but taking it literally- believing that abortion is killing a potential life- there is no society or religion that would agree that killing a potential life is legal.  I can respect that argument.

    Gay Marriage- Our society's feelings on gay marriage have changed quickly in a short period of time.  Even Obama was against it as recently as 2008 and you would not consider him a right wing religious zealot.  But attitudes change and our govt laws change.  Gay marriage is legal everywhere now.  Yes there are Neanderthals in the Texas gop that would want to change that but they don't have much chance of that happening.  Texas courts would likely shut it down and certainly the SC would and did.  If someone argues against gay marriage on its face then I would ridicule them and would not support them.  If a religious person argued that they should not be compelled to perform a service that contradicts their religion then I would absolutely defend that persons rights.

    LGTB- This is such a new issue, especially transgenderism, and the country is going to have to figure it out.  I would never ever support legislation that stripped rights from a trans person.  I read over some of the bills you linked above.  Many of them are just too stupid and have zero chance of passing.  The ones worth discussing, imo, have to do with medical/surgical care for adolescents.  I saw Troph's post about how she feels about it and I agree very much with what she believes.   There should be very good communication about it, there should be long term professional counseling involved and then informed decision making between the child, parents and their doctor.  My personal belief is that medication or surgery before 16 is misguided.  Truly being trans is not really anything anyone wants.  It is a brutal thing for them to deal with.  Troph does not want anyones pity but we can be very empathetic to her and others in a similar situation.  But the subject needs to be treated carefully.  I think troph would completely agree that people who are pushing medication/surgery on adolescents that do not go through the proper procedures (like long term counseling, parental input, medical input etc) are dangerous and need to be stopped.  When people read about abuses like that they are naturally going to react emotionally and they will rush to support legislation to stop it.  However, over time, a rational plan will be clawed out and we will be much better at dealing with these types of issues.  To round out the discussion, that is an example of how I feel the country is moving away from a theocracy.  We may stumble along the way on both sides, but, in the end, our society will have a plan to deal with trans youth that is both helpful and practical.

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  19. 1 hour ago, Patricio Swayze said:

    Abortion...again, it has been discussed at length in the abortion thread.  However, I do not know a single person that advocates for abortion on demand or supports late term, viable fetus abortions that do not endanger the life of the mother.  I do agree it is very difficult to get everyone to settle on the definition of life or viable fetus (although the latter seems much more possible).  However, you are conveniently leaving out special interest groups and the amount of money the pour into the the Republican party.  A politician or a judge doesn't have to actually site God or the bible as a reason, even if it is a big part of it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/25/roe-v-wade-abortion-christian-right-america

    Regarding LGBT agendas, I am not sure if you are serious or not, but again, tons of money and endorsements for right wing politicians to push legislation through.  You say these laws read rational.  Can you explain how they are rational?  I am struggling to think of a legitimate reason why two adults, regardless of gender, shouldn't be able to get married. 

    https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor_abbott_statement_on_supreme_court_ruling_on_same_sex_marriage

    Regarding how to stop it?  Well, the 1A for one.  But you are right, they will always be there.

    Your first paragraph is kind of making my point.  It seems you want to believe that the court made its ruling based on religion.  It did not.  The decision was based on pretty straight forward legal theory.  And Alito went out of his way to remark that abortion is very different from other "social" liberties due to the fact that it deals with potential life.  You also want to imply that money from special interest affected the decision.  There is obviously no proof of that but the same argument could be made for any number of court decisions that are controversial and important to some group.  Energy companies, unions, trial lawyers, tech, etc.  They all give tons of money to their causes.  

    On the gay marriage issue, I have already pointed out my personal belief.  I read your link and have read many other links.  Abbott/Others did not say, at all, that gays should not have the right to get married.  They can and they can get married in the church.  What they said is that the govt should not be able to compel someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs.  That is an argument I can understand and respect whether I agree with it or not.

    You say there efforts to push legislation through.  That is why I asked for specifics.  Most times that I read about some egregious bill, when I read the actual text of the bill it is a lot different from what was reported.  

     

     

    • Fuck You 3
  20. 4 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:


    No problem.

    Legislation that restricts the liberties of LGBT community such as outlawing gay marriage. Venture into that specific thread for a myriad of laws that affect and hurt them. Abortion was mentioned, but in general women’s rights and bodily autonomy. You see saber rattling about going after contraception now.

    That should be a good start, I am sure others will chime in.

    Appreciated.  Lets start with abortion.  I was raised catholic and lost all interest at one time and am more or less back now.  Admittedly agnostic and do have to question those that believe beyond any doubt.  I am not opposed to abortion within certain limitations and think the current Texas law is terrible.  That being said, I read a lot about the recent overturn of Roe and religion is never mentioned in any of the court documents I could find.  No question the battle against abortion is being waged by many that profuse to be religious, but that doesn't mean that they are pushing their religion on anyone. It is an issue that many religious people feel very strongly about, and, they are engaging in their right to make their voices on the issue heard.  Abortion is never going to be settled as there just seems no way to make a scientific case for when life begins.  We tried with "fetal viability" but it is still arbitrary.  It is not my belief, but I can understand someone thinking abortion is killing a life, and I can respectfully disagree with that position.  But if you feel abortion is killing a life then that is not only a religious wrong but also a societal wrong that we already make illegal.

    On the LGTB issues, we are probably going to have to be more specific.  Interesting that you used the phrase "restricting liberties".  It seems almost all conflict in this regard is when 2 or more different groups/people both feel their liberties are being restricted.  If we are talking about Gay Marriage (which I am in complete agreement with) and potentially the Supreme Court with Obergefell, if the case gets overturned it will be on ideological/legal basis rather than religious.  Obviousy there has been a lot of LBGT, especially trans, in the public eye lately.  Maybe there is legislation out there that is different, but when I read the actual text of the various laws, they seem to be based on fairly rational thinking.  I may disagree with them, but I do not think they are "religiously" written.  No question they are favored by many on the religious side of things but every contentious issue has rabid sides.

    I actually think the ability of religious people to get certain pet ideologies passed into law is is lesser now than in the past.  Before most of these laws were passed in darkness to the masses.  Now we get to see and read everything.  I strongly believe that the influence of purely religious fanatics is waning.

    To your last point about how we can stop this (even though I do not feel it is something that is really getting worse), I think the answer is that you cant.  And, more importantly, you shouldn't.  Religion is never, ever going away.  It is a bit of a pendulum at times and has wide sways in followers, but it always swings back the other direction.  The religious right is pretty big and they are always going to have some influence.  The best way to curtail them is to watch what they do and call them on things when they go too far.  But our system of government already does a really good job (certainly compared to the rest of the world) of protecting the rights of the minority in 2023.  

  21. On 3/21/2023 at 9:19 AM, Patricio Swayze said:

     

    It feels like more and more we are headed towards theocracy in this country. At the very least, the right are determined to commingle church and state much more. This goes for all religions, but since we are in the US, that mostly means Christianity. They weaponize it for whatever cause and policy they are trying to push on the country.

     

    As a father, I am concerned about indoctrination of my kids. I have said it before, but I feel like most religions, including Christianity, are a net negative for humanity. Not only would I be worried my kids could be sexually assaulted, I have daughters and am very worried about how all this bullshit might affect their bodily autonomy and health. Now with all the destruction and take over of the education system, it sometimes feels like soon I will have to explain to my girls that the world isn’t 6,000 years old. I know I am not the only one who feels this way.

     

    How is this stopped?

    Why do y’all on the right insist on pushing your beliefs onto others in the form of policy and law?

    Good thread mostly.  I'd like to debate with you but need some clarification.  Can you be specific about examples of the right trying to comingle church and state?  It is easier to respond to specifics than generalities.  

    I agree 100% that religion should be completely separated from policy.  I hate it when politicians mention their religious beliefs in conjunction with some policy. The rub is when morality/ethics are embedded in laws/policy.  It is certainly possible that some politician could author legislation that is good and moral and deserving of thoughtfulness.  That same politician might say that he authored the legislation as a result of his religion.  He might actually feel in his heart that this is true.  He might just be saying it to gin up his base.  I suppose only the author knows for sure.  But, just because he used religion is not a reason to automatically disregard his legislation.  It is hard for me to come up with actual policy that is pushed by the right that is predominantly religious in nature.  By that I mean the actual text of the bill/legislation.  

    Not at all playing gotcha here.  But would you give a few examples of what you see happening?

  22. On 1/22/2023 at 3:12 PM, RomaVicta said:

    Negged for improper use of quotation marks. You're not quoting anyone that doesn't live in your own head. It's dishonest. Easy for the perpetrator, but fundamentally dishonest and idiotic.

    Thank you!  Now crack him on his knuckles and deny recess.  I don't think I am the only one who sleeps better at night knowing you are out there protecting us from "improper use of quotations".

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 1
  23. On 10/27/2021 at 12:38 PM, sheeeit said:

    Really tragic situation.  Obviously AB had no intention to harm anyone and it truly seems like a tragic accident.

    I have no opinion on AB as a good or bad person as I do not know him, but a realistic case can and almost certainly will be made that he has some legal responsibility for the shooting and that, it is possible, he has some criminal liability.

    Also, it is important to note that my guess is that the things that were going on on the set probably happen on most sets.  Shootings like this are extremely rare so human nature says people will get sloppy with the rules.  However, when a tragedy like this occurs then the set will be held to the standards that are the written rules for safety. 

    Some of this will be based on reported actions (never believe any news report more than 50% for accuracy) and will need to be verified and some not.

    From a legal liability standpoint, AB's production company, based on reports, was in charge of hiring/firing (including director) and was the on site supervising authority for the film.  If true, AB was the "highest authority" on the set and, as such, is ultimately responsible for the workplace.  If some of the reports are true like 1) people on set using the guns for target practice at lunch, 2) combining the role of the armorer and property master, 3) live ammo being recovered from the scene etc.  There are very specific SAG and industry rules on guns on set including:

    1) No "live" ammo is ever supposed to be on a set (this is a biggie)

    2) Rubber guns are supposed to be used exclusively in rehearsals (this is a biggie)

    3) The armorer and property master are the only people supposed to handle the guns except for the actors (it is reported an assistant director handed the gun to AB- which again probably happens all of the time but it doesn't matter if the rules were broken from a legal standpoint)

    4) Actors, by SAG rules, are never to point a gun at anyone, including directors.

    5) Actors, per SAG guidelines, are supposed to pull the trigger on any guns handed to them at least 6 times pointed at the ground before using.

    6) When filming scenes with real guns, industry rules say plexiglass must be installed to protect directors and others that may possibly be in the line of fire.

    From a legal liability standpoint this will be ugly and messy.  The insurers are going to point to clauses in their contracts that say standard industry practices and SAG rules etc must be followed.  I am sure they will try to deny any claims on that basis.  Obviously, AB set up a company to produce the film which, in part, is always done to protect individuals from any personal liability.  However, since AB was on set and actively involved in the actions, both from an oversight position and as the actually person that fired the gun, I think he will be sued personally and will likely have liability.

    From a criminal standpoint, if all of the rules that were set in place for gun safety on a set were not followed, then I think AB could be charged with something like involuntary manslaughter.  A pretty strong case could be made that because (again assuming reports are true) standard gun safety rules were not followed on set and that AB was on set and obviously witnessed these rules being ignored then it would be reasonable to expect that some tragedy could occur and then he still accepted the gun and then it killed someone that he is at fault.  

    I doubt he does any jail time but I predict he pleads to something.

     

    On 10/27/2021 at 3:03 PM, RomaVicta said:

    I don't know where you're getting your sense of reality if you've bothered to read anything posted on here by anyone other than fanatics.

    Read the affidavit posted more than once above. The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd. 

    Civil responsibility may very well be determined along the lines you describe. I have no idea how that will go. I don't know how much weight the affidavit recording that Baldwin showed great concern about set safety will have in that determination.

    Baldwin has had his bad moments as a person. A virulent group hate him for what they have been told are his politics or that he's not a member of the virulent group. This thread is lengthy because of that group.

    This was a horrible accident followed by a band of fuckwads rushing to speculate ahead of any facts so they could get their unfounded digs in at somebody they hate. It's just another day for the hate engine.

    I look forward to more hilarious t-shirts from the degenerates who will balley-hoo this while continuing to shit in the overflowing toilet they're making of this country.

     

    On 10/27/2021 at 3:15 PM, DDD Dad said:

    You know how I know you didn't you pass criminal law in law school?

     

    On 10/27/2021 at 6:31 PM, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    He’s just positing question, c’mon, man!  There’s no agenda.  

     

    On 10/27/2021 at 9:30 PM, RomaVicta said:

    TL;DR

    Answer to question: no and no

    Classic CR.  Went back and read the whole thread.  Roma the schoolmarm was really doing God's work with the negs.  We need him on that wall.

  24. 2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

    Well, he's also doing it because he feels an affinity with Putin. Both of them think it's good and right for the rich and powerful to simply take what they want and they think there should be no legal or even social checks on people like them doing whatever they want.  

    @Brisketexan @InkaUtexas

     

    I am having a really hard time understanding your positions here.  You keep telling everyone that Musk is cozying up (affinity) with Putin/Russia and cares nothing about the people.  Yet, he is essentially spending hundreds of millions personally to provide Ukraine with internet access via Starlink that every person with any knowledge of the situation has aid is absolutely vital to Ukraine's success.  It has resulted in saving thousands of Ukrainian lives and led to the killing of thousands of Russian soldiers and caused Putin to lose massive amounts of money/power/influence etc in the world.  The whole invasion could possibly topple Putin.

    Listen to what you posted and liked "Both of them think it's good and right for the rich and powerful to simply take what they want and they think there should be no legal or even social checks on people like them doing whatever they want. "  No one single person (and really many countries) has done more to oppose Putin/Russia in this invasion than Musk.  

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Fuck You 2
×
×
  • Create New...