Liberal Forum

Z09 » 12 Dec 2023, 4:11 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:11 pm

Congratulations

Another non answer when asked a direct question

Post the rule on that.

When you show an inclination to reciprocate, I'll reconsider your staus.

R.Suave » 12 Dec 2023, 4:07 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:07 pm

Keep reading, Cornhole

It's your contention the Texas Law is a whistleblower law.  I've provided a link showing it is not.  It's now up to you to provide a link showing it is a whistleblower law.

We'll wait.
 

Skans » 12 Dec 2023, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 11:38 am

While it was not life threatening, there was no chance the fetus would survive.  It would continue to grow, but end up dying in utero. This does present a health risk to the mother.  And, there his hardly any chance of the fetus surviving even birth.  So, in this case, I would agree that the mother should have the option to abort. She should not be forced to carry the baby until it dies naturally inside of her.

In any event, the damage is done.  Democrats will orchestrate a huge propaganda campaign around this. And, once again, Republicans should have anticipated this and aren't ready for the propaganda onslaught.  That's my prediction, anyway.  We'll see how it plays out.

this is something that biden will use and may affect the results. I don't like biden and I wonder why republicans leave the door open, that said I would rather some else other than trump and biden get the nominations.

murdock » 12 Dec 2023, 4:08 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:08 pm

Lol, **** stains **** and deflects. Typical.

It's not a deflection, you idiot.  Abortion clinics, doctor's clinics, chain free-standing clinics, hospitals, labs services, etc. are all businesses.  The fact you're to stupid to understand that doesn't change anything.

ConsRule » 12 Dec 2023, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:22 pm

It's your contention the Texas Law is a whistleblower law.  I've provided a link showing it is not.  It's now up to you to provide a link showing it is a whistleblower law.

We'll wait.

No, it isn't.

It's commentary, parsing an irrelevant distinction to make a point with which you will take issue.

**** cretin.
 

R.Suave » 12 Dec 2023, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:26 pm

No, it isn't.

It's commentary, parsing an irrelevant distinction to make a point with which you will take issue.

**** cretin.

You mean an "irrelevant distinction" like the law?  I have to hand it to you, you take being an idiot to a world class level.
 

ConsRule » 12 Dec 2023, 4:25 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:25 pm

It's not a deflection, you idiot.  Abortion clinics, doctor's clinics, chain free-standing clinics, hospitals, labs services, etc. are all businesses.  The fact you're to stupid to understand that doesn't change anything.

Eat this, inbred pile of ****..

ProLifeWhistleblower.com



 

ConsRule » 12 Dec 2023, 4:25 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:25 pm

It's not a deflection, you idiot.  Abortion clinics, doctor's clinics, chain free-standing clinics, hospitals, labs services, etc. are all businesses.  The fact you're to stupid to understand that doesn't change anything.

I know what they are ya stupid ****. You can't even understand what I posted. They aren't regulating business they are forcing this woman to give birth to a child who likely won't have a healthy long life and will have a miserable existence, not to mention the heart break and burden on the parents.

ConsRule » 12 Dec 2023, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:27 pm

You mean an "irrelevant distinction" like the law?  I have to hand it to you, you take being an idiot to a world class level.

Because you're a slack jawed imbecile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistlebl ... %20police.

Today each state gets to decide what they want ....

If things are so bad in Texas ... I would suggest you quit coming here and you are all welcome to leave should you wish..

It like the dems telling me how raciest America is ... while 100,000's of people are trying to get in .. It would seem that there are some places where they have it worse...

R.Suave » 12 Dec 2023, 4:30 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:30 pm

Because you're a slack jawed imbecile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistlebl ... %20police.

Now who can't understand a distinction?  FYI...that would be you.

A person who files suit in Texas under the law meets the definition of a whistleblower.  I have never said they didn't.  You said the law was a whistleblower law.  It is not.  The whistleblower law relies on the government investigating and pursuing legal action, then if the government prevails in the legal action, the individual receives money.  Under the Texas law, the individual is responsible for investigating and pursuing legal action in a civil trial.  If the individual prevails in the legal action they can collect up to $10,000. 

Maybe you should let your Mommy proof read your post and explain things to you.
 

murdock » 12 Dec 2023, 4:29 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:29 pm

I know what they are ya stupid ****. You can't even understand what I posted. They aren't regulating business they are forcing this woman to give birth to a child who likely won't have a healthy long life and will have a miserable existence, not to mention the heart break and burden on the parents.

No..they are not.  She was always free to seek an abortion in another state...which is exactly what she did.
 

ConsRule » 12 Dec 2023, 4:40 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:40 pm

Now who can't understand a distinction?  FYI...that would be you.

A person who files suit in Texas under the law meets the definition of a whistleblower.  I have never said they didn't.  You said the law was a whistleblower law.  It is not.  The whistleblower law relies on the government investigating and pursuing legal action, then if the government prevails in the legal action, the individual receives money.  Under the Texas law, the individual is responsible for investigating and pursuing legal action in a civil trial.  If the individual prevails in the legal action they can collect up to $10,000. 

Maybe you should let your Mommy proof read your post and explain things to you.

Do you understand the point of the citation?

It is made clear in the concluding paragraph.

The beneficiaries, enabled exclusively by the law, are calling themselves whistleblowers.

now **** off....

92 counts.

LOL!
 

R.Suave » 12 Dec 2023, 4:49 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:49 pm

Do you understand the point of the citation?

It is made clear in the concluding paragraph.

The beneficiaries, enabled exclusively by the law, are calling themselves whistleblowers.

now **** off....

92 counts.

LOL!

They can call themselves whatever the **** they want.  Besides, you said the law was a whistleblower law when it isn't.  It's not my fault you screwed up your post and posted something factually incorrect.


 

Z09 » 12 Dec 2023, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:52 pm

You remind me of the liberal that was asked to define a woman awhile back in front of Congress.

She couldn't answer.
Got confused.

Your memory really sucks.

It was a SCOTUS nominee.

A woman, asked that question by another woman.

Nothing illustrates the utter bankruptcy of modern conservatism like that episode.

Except, perhaps, your proud membership.
 

Z09 » 12 Dec 2023, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:52 pm

You remind me of the liberal that was asked to define a woman awhile back in front of Congress.

She couldn't answer.
Got confused.

He/she/it apparently lives in a fantasy world where whatever he/she/it believes is really true.  You know, like the idiots who believe a male can transition to a female (and vice versa) when it is scientifically impossible.

ConsRule » 12 Dec 2023, 4:53 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:53 pm

They can call themselves whatever the **** they want.  Besides, you said the law was a whistleblower law when it isn't.  It's not my fault you screwed up your post and posted something factually incorrect.

Answer the **** question and spare me your ignorant commentary.
 

R.Suave » 12 Dec 2023, 4:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:55 pm

Your memory really sucks.

It was a SCOTUS nominee.

A woman, asked that question by another woman.

Nothing illustrates the utter bankruptcy of modern conservatism like that episode.

Except, perhaps, your proud membership.
 

Who was a liberal...and who could not answer the question.  What he posted is factual. 
 

ConsRule » 12 Dec 2023, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:57 pm

Who was a liberal...and who could not answer the question.  What he posted is factual.

Who was a liberal

prove it.

**** idiot.

Marsha Blacburn is a cretin.

Fact.

Z09 » 12 Dec 2023, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 3:54 pm

That's your response when you get caught in a jam..

that's always your response 

you never have an on point comment 

so you go with 

BUTWHATABOUT