Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
In my experience, on this board, facts that support ones own argument are considered causation, and facts that support somones elses argument are correlation.

You have so much to learn. Facts that support your opponent's argument are lies.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
PS - NARAL Pro-Choice America has recently purchased the web addresses "stopgonzales.com," "stopgonzales.org," and "stopgonzales.net"

I would be giving them way to much credit if I hypothesized that they registered these as a preemptive strike against the Baby Jebus jetset, right?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by AliHajiSheik
I would be giving them way to much credit if I hypothesized that they registered these as a preemptive strike against the Baby Jebus jetset, right?

No, the Baby Jebus crowd then will simply register "stopgonzalesforJesus.com" et seq.

(and "gonzalesmakebabyJebuscry.com", "Godhatesgonzales.com", etc.)

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Weird that, since your brethren don't like him, according to Yahoo, because

In March 2000, Gonzales, then a Texas Supreme Court judge appointed by Bush, joined the majority in ruling that a 17-year-old girl could seek an abortion without telling her parents.

Gonzales also upset abortion foes during his confirmation hearing for attorney general when he described the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion as the "law of the land" and promised to enforce it.

17 years old is pushing the envelope, but parental notification is definitely where the left lost me on this issue.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're high. Too old. Too incendiary. Not a chance.

You threatened to take a bet I offered once before and then chickened out.

Think it over....maybe borrow a set of balls, as necessary.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Reid has his list of Senators that he thinks would work:

I asked Slave which hat he would eat and this is your reply?!?!

Anyhoo, the answer to your question is Orrin Hatch. It's a no-lose proposition for W here. You know I love you like a sister......step-sister, but sorry to break it to you, W wins this one.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You know I love you like a sister......step-sister, but sorry to break it to you, W wins this one.

Duh. He's got the House, the Senate and the Court. Of course he wins it. We're talking about who he nominates, not about who the Dems will find acceptable. Reid's talking trash but that's some empty shit.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
17 years old is pushing the envelope, but parental notification is definitely where the left lost me on this issue.

Funny -- it's where the right loses me, with the notion that the government should be involved as family counselor, requiring a pregnant woman to talk to her parents, or requiring her to convince a judge that her relationship with her parents is such that doing so would place her in danger.

If a woman is mature enough to carry a child, she is mature enough to decide, on her own, whether or not to discuss it with her parents.

Women often have good reasons not to discuss this decision with their parents -- but neither the means nor the ability to convince a judge to grant an exemption, assuming that the law provides for a judicial exemption and assuming that the court is not stocked with conservative Christian judges who would never grant them.

If abortion is legal, then the government should not involve itself in the decision of what people discuss with their parents.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Funny -- it's where the right loses me, with the notion that the government should be involved as family counselor, requiring a pregnant woman to talk to her parents, or requiring her to convince a judge that her relationship with her parents is such that doing so would place her in danger.

If a woman is mature enough to carry a child, she is mature enough to decide, on her own, whether or not to discuss it with her parents.

Women often have good reasons not to discuss this decision with their parents -- but neither the means nor the ability to convince a judge to grant an exemption, assuming that the law provides for a judicial exemption and assuming that the court is not stocked with conservative Christian judges who would never grant them.

If abortion is legal, then the government should not involve itself in the decision of what people discuss with their parents.

I would say slippery slope and talk about your daughter being perfectly free to go ahead and get breast implants at 11 (or your son, testicle augmentation at 12), but I think we've been down that road before.

I think Penske is anti-Gonzalez, which is kinda good to know.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You can acknowledge that you believe this bullshit conspiracy right-wing jackoff fantasy, but not that you believe Clinton is a murderer because "you don't have all the evidence." You get a sperm sample and a videotape from Juanita?

Sidd, babyjesus! Its the same reason Judge Greer let the feeding tube be pulled, i.e based solely on testimony and character evidence, Juanita is a more persuasive witness.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm starting to feel like your stalker-sock,

You're developing a pattern.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Duh. He's got the House, the Senate and the Court. Of course he wins it. We're talking about who he nominates, not about who the Dems will find acceptable. Reid's talking trash but that's some empty shit.

And I'm saying he will reward his base. And Reid, he's the loser.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Funny -- it's where the right loses me, with the notion that the government should be involved as family counselor, requiring a pregnant woman to talk to her parents, or requiring her to convince a judge that her relationship with her parents is such that doing so would place her in danger.

If a woman is mature enough to carry a child, she is mature enough to decide, on her own, whether or not to discuss it with her parents.

Women often have good reasons not to discuss this decision with their parents -- but neither the means nor the ability to convince a judge to grant an exemption, assuming that the law provides for a judicial exemption and assuming that the court is not stocked with conservative Christian judges who would never grant them.

If abortion is legal, then the government should not involve itself in the decision of what people discuss with their parents.

Sidd, read what I posted, 17 is pushing the envelope, because, yes, 17 year olds are arguably women. Read some of the statutes related to this. They don't make the distinction between women and not yet women. It's not the 17 year old I am talking about its the 10 year old.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I would say slippery slope and talk about your daughter being perfectly free to go ahead and get breast implants at 11 (or your son, testicle augmentation at 12), but I think we've been down that road before.

I think Penske is anti-Gonzalez, which is kinda good to know.

Why not, if breast implants are legal, then the government should not involve itself in the decision of what people discuss with their parents.

Originally posted by ltl/fb

I think Penske is anti-Gonzalez, which is kinda good to know.

I posted my list, in order or preference, over the weekend. Go back and re-read or read for the first time if you like. Or not. I believe he was between my 11th and 17th choice. That speaks relatively clearly to my opinion.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I would say slippery slope and talk about your daughter being perfectly free to go ahead and get breast implants at 11 (or your son, testicle augmentation at 12), but I think we've been down that road before.

I think Penske is anti-Gonzalez, which is kinda good to know.

There is no slippery slope at all. You are confusing notification and consent.

If the law says that a kid cannot get her ears pierced without parental consent, then we've made a particular judgment, one I have no problem with.

If the law says that a kid needs her parents' consent to get an abortion, then we have made another judgment. One that I do have a problem with, not because I think that abortion is a less significant decision than ear-piercing (I state the obvious there because certain posters will otherwise claim that I do think that), but because I don't think someone should be forced to bear a child because of her parents' religious beliefs. She can get her ears pierced when she's 18, but she can't not have a baby.

If, on the other hand, the law says that a kid can have an abortion without her parents' consent, then having the state jump in and play family counselor ("well, you have to tell your parents, unless you can convince a judge that the family dynamics are such that you should not have to") seems, to me, an unwarranted extension of government into the home.