PDA

View Full Version : State Rape in Virginia



Qtec
02-16-2012, 01:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No Virginia, it's not really about the fetus. It's all about the probe. Democrats had sought to allow doctors to use other imaging methods but Republicans insisted that doctors put an instrument inside the woman's vagina. Why? Well, since there's no medical reason for it, the only possible explanation is that they want to "send a message." You know. About who's boss:

The bill, which passed the House of Delegates yesterday and the state Senate two weeks ago, would require an ultrasound to determine a fetus’ gestation age. It would then give the woman the option to view the ultrasound before her abortion.

[Democratic Del. David] Englin said the bill represents a level of government intrusion that “shocks the conscience.”


This bill will require many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent in order to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, even for nonsurgical, noninvasive, pharmaceutical abortions. This kind of government intrusion shocks the conscience and demonstrates the disturbing lengths Republican legislators will go to prevent women from controlling their own reproductive destiny.

I offered an amendment that would have protected women from the unwanted vaginal penetration required by this bill. House Republicans rejected that amendment.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> The next time Virginia Republicans speak the words ‘government intrusion’ I hope voters will remember this vote and hold them accountable for their hypocrisy.</span> </div></div>

Sadists is what they are.

Q.......... link (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/state-rape-in-virginia.html)

LWW
02-16-2012, 05:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This bill will require many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent in order to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, even for nonsurgical, noninvasive, pharmaceutical abortions. </div></div>

Sadists is what they are.

Q.......... link (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/state-rape-in-virginia.html)
</div></div>

Your source lost all cred right there.

LWW
02-16-2012, 05:47 AM
BTW ... did ou follow the click throughs and actually read the bill in question?

Of course you didn't.

LEARN (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+HB462)

Qtec
02-16-2012, 05:50 AM
Be specific. What part do I have to read?

Q

LWW
02-16-2012, 06:00 AM
The part called <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"THE BILL"</span> my spoon fed spaniel of a friend.

Qtec
02-16-2012, 06:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The part called <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"THE BILL"</span> my spoon fed spaniel of a friend. </div></div>

OK. I will play along.


I read the BILL and?????????????

Q

LWW
02-16-2012, 06:15 AM
Can you show me where it says what your source ... a moonbat crazy leftist blog BTW ... claims that it says?

eg8r
02-16-2012, 09:08 AM
Shouldn't you read the whole thing if you are going to act like you know what is in it?

eg8r

LWW
02-16-2012, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shouldn't you read the whole thing if you are going to act like you know what is in it?

eg8r </div></div>

Why would he do that when he can be spoon fed his "OPINION" by his handlers.

LWW
02-17-2012, 04:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you show me where it says what your source ... a moonbat crazy leftist blog BTW ... claims that it says? </div></div>

Find it yet Snoopy?

http://www.321coloringpages.com/images/snoopy-coloring-pages/snoopy-coloring-pages.jpg

Qtec
02-17-2012, 05:38 AM
Are you incapable of looking these things up for yourself?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Virginia House Passes Bills Restricting Abortion



By Sam Favate

Oklahoma’s not the only state passing laws restricting abortions this week. The Virginia House of Delegates passed two of the strictest anti-abortion bills in the nation on Tuesday, and opponents say it’s part of a strategy which would make abortion illegal immediately if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, CBS reported.

The first bill defines personhood at conception and is similar to the one passed by the Oklahoma Senate, which was noted in this morning’s AM Roundup. The Virginia bill doesn’t ban abortions, but it would make certain kinds of contraceptives illegal. If the Roe decision were eventually overturned, this measure would also make abortion illegal immediately.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The second measure passed in Virginia requires that women seeking an abortion be forced to undergo an ultrasound, <span style="color: #990000">which would mean a more physically invasive transvaginal ultrasound in the cases of early pregnancy.</span> </span> </div></div>

The Bill.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">B. Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the community in determining gestational age. When only the gestational sac is visible during ultrasound imaging, gestational age may be based upon measurement of the gestational sac. A print of the ultrasound image shall be made to document the measurements that have been taken to determine the gestational age of the fetus. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> only an invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound can effectively determine gestation age during much of the first trimester, which is when most abortions occur. Englin offered an amendment to require the pregnant woman’s consent prior to subjecting her to a vaginal penetration ultrasound, but House Republicans rejected the amendment by a vote of 64 to 34.

Englin issued a statement in response to the bill’s passage:

This bill will require many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent in order to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, even for nonsurgical, noninvasive, pharmaceutical abortions. This kind of government intrusion shocks the conscience and demonstrates the disturbing lengths Republican legislators will go to prevent women from controlling their own reproductive destiny.

I offered an amendment that would have protected women from the unwanted vaginal penetration required by this bill. House Republicans rejected that amendment. The next time Virginia Republicans speak the words ‘government intrusion’ I hope voters will remember this vote and hold them accountable for their hypocrisy.

Republicans, however, countered that the abortion itself is an invasive procedure.

“If we want to talk about invasiveness, there’s nothing more invasive than the procedure that she is about to have,” said bill sponsor Del. Kathy Byron (R), according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. </div></div>

See, Republicans did not deny that this procedure would be invasive, instead they tried to justify it.

Q

LWW
02-17-2012, 05:42 AM
Have you noticed that it doesn't say what you claim it does ... or does that even matter to you?

LWW
02-17-2012, 05:57 AM
[quote=Qtec]The Bill.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">B. Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth <span style='font-size: 14pt'>shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging</span> ...

Q </div></div>

What's amazing is that you cling to the lie so desperately.

Since you insist on taking a moonbat's definition for terms you do not understand, let's refer to a medical site ... remembering that words mean things:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fetal ultrasound is a test done during pregnancy that uses reflected sound waves to produce a picture of a fetus, the organ that nourishes the fetus (placenta), and the liquid that surrounds the fetus (amniotic fluid). The picture is displayed on a TV screen and may be in black and white or in color. The pictures are also called a sonogram, echogram, or scan, and they may be saved as part of your baby's record. </div></div>

IOW ... clearly NOT what you have been pimped into believing.

What the moonbat is referring to, aand oddly enough not at all mentioned in the bill, is:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Transvaginal ultrasound. The transducer is shaped to fit into a woman's vagina. A woman may have both transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds to look at the whole pelvic area. A transvaginal ultrasound is done to look for problems with fertility. In rare cases, a hysterosonogram is done to look at the inside of the uterus by filling the uterus with fluid during a transvaginal ultrasound. Sometimes, a small sample of tissue (biopsy) may be taken with small tools inserted through the vagina during a transvaginal ultrasound. See ultrasound images of ovarian cysts </div></div>

And they did it safe and content in the knowledge that you would never question the spoon.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>GREAT CAESER'S GHOST! (http://www.webmd.com/baby/fetal-ultrasound)

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://women.webmd.com/pelvic-ultrasound)</span>

Next insane statement you would like to see busted?

Qtec
02-17-2012, 06:02 AM
Can't you put two facts together and come up with a logical conclusion?

Didn't think so.

Just to be even more helpful, here is three.



<span style="color: #990000">Clue No1.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">Clue No2.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">… only an <u>invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound can effectively determine gestation age during much of the first trimester,</u> which is when most abortions occur. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">Clue No3.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I offered an amendment that would have <span style='font-size: 14pt'>protected women</span> from the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>unwanted vaginal penetration required by this bill.</span> <span style='font-size: 20pt'><u>House Republicans rejected that amendment. </u></span></div></div>

I'm pretty sure my point is clear to anyone with two brain cells still working.


Q

LWW
02-17-2012, 06:07 AM
Thank you for pointing out that the claim your source makes isn't included in the bill ... but, I already knew that.

What you are witnessing is a typical demokrook tactic ... get an exclusion included for something that was never required in the first place and then howl about how they prevented what was never going to happen anyway. And, if the amendment isn't included ... howl about how it was rejected.

The bottom line is that, as we all already knew, you have ... once again ... shown a love for the lie in the face of the truth.

To quote Sheriff Andy Taylor ... "Pitiful, pitiful, pitiful ..."

Now ... this is where you repeat the lie again, except louder, hoping that somehow that will make it true.

Proceed.

Qtec
02-17-2012, 06:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">get an exclusion included for something that was never required in the first place </div></div>

BS. I have already explained this but you choose to ignore it.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/files/imagecache/Teaser-Image/teaser-images/2012-02-16-vaginal-ultrasound.jpg

So why did the Republicans vote AGAINST this specific type of intrusion if it wasn't their intention?

All they had to do is vote with the amendment.

Q

Soflasnapper
02-17-2012, 02:20 PM
This bill will require many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent in order to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, even for nonsurgical, noninvasive, pharmaceutical abortions.

If this is what you say isn't true, you are wrong. Not even proponents of the law claim it isn't so. They specifically rejected an amendment to allow for different kinds of imaging that wouldn't involve vaginal penetration by an ultrasound probe.

As I read the language of the bill, the attendant physician SHALL obtain the informed consent of the patient seeking an abortion, or will not be allowed to perform the abortion. Fairly clear language.

While a patient may refuse consent, or change her mind about that consent any time before that unnecessary procedure is performed, she may NOT receive that abortion unless and until the informed consent leads to that procedure taking place.

LWW
02-17-2012, 05:32 PM
Yet you can't show me where it says this in the bill?

I wonder why?

Soflasnapper
02-17-2012, 07:35 PM
Literalism is not how the law works.

Many things a law implies will be, must be, done, require additional knowledge of a) other laws, b) what the law in question means, c) interpretative rulings in the court system, etc.

Q has tried to help you do the logic chain that results in what is claimed, that you've been denying will be the result.

Is he right (or rather, the sources he's quoted, right?)?

You claim no, because it isn't in the law. We both say yes, because it's what the meaning of the law requires.

AND, because when it was explicitly tried to rule out that procedure as an amendment, the leg voted that amendment down.

Why, if that will never be required? They'd take much of the controversy out of this by passing that amendment, but they defeated it.

Logically, it's likely that they INTEND to make that procedure a requirement in the 1st trimester cases, and therefore do not want it ruled out in the law's explicit language.

You have understood in the past that laws will result in things that aren't part of the language of the law. It's a commonplace occurrence. Why don't you see that in this case?

LWW
02-18-2012, 04:58 AM
You have already shown that you can't point me towards what you claim the bill demands.

I have shown you what the bill actually demands.

Why do you continue attempting to convince me that both you and Snoop prefer the spoon fed lie to the truth?

Trust me ... I am thoroughly convinced.

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 03:56 PM
That analysis comes from the dissenting member of the Virginia legislature, who claims it will be required by what the language of the bill says. You remember, the guy who proposed the amendment to clarify it wouldn't be required.

As the Virginia legislature is most familiar with this law and what it will require, do you know of any Virginia legislators who DENY this will be required?

Any? Buehler? Buehler?

As this is a rather shocking claim from a fellow legislator, surely those in favor of passing the bill would be quick to deny any false claims that make its passage less likely?

So, asking again, do any of this bill's sponsors say you are correct? A simple threshhold question.

LWW
02-19-2012, 05:05 PM
I don't need to know any as I have read the bill, am quite literate in English, and realize that the bill does not say what you have been spoon fed to believe that it says.

Now, either you can or you cannot find in the bill where it says this?

What's that?

You can't?

Well D'UH!

LWW
02-19-2012, 05:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That analysis comes from the dissenting member of the Virginia legislature, who claims it will be required by what the language of the bill says. You remember, the guy who proposed the amendment to clarify it wouldn't be required.</div></div>

IOW your "PROOF" is a hyper-partisan moonbat crazy leftist who realizes that he has a large group of useful fools who will swallow whatever lie he feeds them?

But ... I already knew that.

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 07:08 PM
Here's the 'defense' made against the charges, from other Virginia representatives who favor this bill:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Proponents seem to be of the view that once a woman has allowed a man to penetrate her body once, her right to bodily autonomy has ended.

During the floor debate on Tuesday, Del. C. Todd Gilbert announced that “in the vast majority of these cases, these [abortions] are matters of lifestyle convenience.” (He has since apologized.) Virginia Democrat Del. David Englin, who opposes the bill, has said Gilbert’s statement “is in line with previous Republican comments on the issue,” recalling one conversation with a GOP lawmaker who told him that women had already made the decision to be "vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant." (I confirmed with Englin that this quote was accurate.)*

That’s the same logic that animates the bill’s sponsor in the House of Delegates, Del. Kathy J. Byron, who insisted this week that, “if we want to talk about invasiveness, there's nothing more invasive than the procedure that she is about to have." Decoded, that means that if you are willing to submit to sex and/or an abortion, the state should be allowed to penetrate your body as well.
</div></div>

I haven't found any references to proponents of the bill who deny it will have this claimed effect. And yet, if it is an unfounded lie, and not the required implication of the language of the law, why wouldn't they say so, directly and in volume?

Dahlia Lithwick's article (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion _will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason .2.html)

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the 'defense' made against the charges, from other Virginia representatives who favor this bill:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Proponents seem to be of the view that once a woman has allowed a man to penetrate her body once, her right to bodily autonomy has ended.

During the floor debate on Tuesday, Del. C. Todd Gilbert announced that “in the vast majority of these cases, these [abortions] are matters of lifestyle convenience.” (He has since apologized.) Virginia Democrat Del. David Englin, who opposes the bill, has said Gilbert’s statement “is in line with previous Republican comments on the issue,” recalling one conversation with a GOP lawmaker who told him that women had already made the decision to be "vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant." (I confirmed with Englin that this quote was accurate.)*

That’s the same logic that animates the bill’s sponsor in the House of Delegates, Del. Kathy J. Byron, who insisted this week that, “if we want to talk about invasiveness, there's nothing more invasive than the procedure that she is about to have." Decoded, that means that if you are willing to submit to sex and/or an abortion, the state should be allowed to penetrate your body as well.
</div></div>

I haven't found any references to proponents of the bill who deny it will have this claimed effect. And yet, if it is an unfounded lie, and not the required implication of the language of the law, why wouldn't they say so, directly and in volume?

Dahlia Lithwick's article (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion _will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason .2.html) </div></div>

I haven't yet found any references to proponents of OBAMACARE who deny that it requires babies to be barbecued and eaten on the White House lawn either.

Is that really the the standard you are stooping to use to defend the dishonesty of your handlers.

But wait ... here's a thought ... read the bill, it specifically says the opposite of what your "SOURCE" claims. In fact ... it says exactly what I say it says.

Imagine that.

Qtec
02-20-2012, 04:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I haven't yet found any references to proponents of OBAMACARE who deny that it requires babies to be barbecued and eaten on the White House lawn either. </div></div>

Geez!! I wonder why? LOL

Is that the best you can come up with? LMAO

[ BTW, that would be against the law.]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is that really the the standard you are stooping to use to defend the dishonesty of your handlers. </div></div>

Eh....................no.

Nutjob

Q

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:44 AM
Q - Then why are you both using that standard?

A - Because you are both so intellectually bankrupt that you have nothing else.

Qtec
02-20-2012, 05:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q - Then why are you both using that standard?

A - Because you are both so intellectually bankrupt that you have nothing else. </div></div>

We are not using that standard. That's you!

Anyway, if this was even a possibility and someone proposed an amendment to ensure this possibility could never be a reality, I'm sure EVERYONE would vote for it. Unlike the case we have now where when given the chance, the Republicans choose to allow it to be a possibility, if not a necessity.

Q

LWW
02-20-2012, 06:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are not using that standard. That's you!

Q </div></div>

The doublethink is strong in you Snoop ... but HERE (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=378094#Post378094) is where sofanapper used that exact standard.

You have been using it the entire time.

LWW
02-20-2012, 06:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyway, if this was even a possibility and someone proposed an amendment to ensure this possibility could never be a reality, I'm sure EVERYONE would vote for it.

Q </div></div>

Almost a good point.

First, the possibility most certainly did not exist for this to be forced upon anyone at any time by anybody.

Second, by allowing such an absurd amendment to come to a vote ... the demokrooks would have pimped people such as you that the (R) party wanted this but was saved by your beloved party.

LWW
02-20-2012, 06:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unlike the case we have now where when given the chance, the Republicans choose to allow it to be a possibility, if not a necessity.

Q </div></div>

Yet you can't show where the bill makes this happen?

Imagine that.

LWW
02-20-2012, 06:09 AM
And to show how brainwashed you actually are, this was your original claim:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>This bill will require many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent</span>

Q.......... link (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/state-rape-in-virginia.html)
</div></div>

And you have retreated to this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unlike the case we have now where when given the chance, the Republicans choose to allow it to be a possibility, if not a necessity.

Q </div></div>

and still refuse to admit that the party played you like Perlman plays a Strad.

Qtec
02-20-2012, 06:26 AM
I haven't retreated, I was being kind to you. I was giving you leeway but you missed it.

Its quite obvious to all and sundry what I said, except possibly with the exception to you and eg0r.

Its clear that this Bill is intended to make abortion as difficult as possible for women and young girls. That's why they WANT vaginal rape, against the woman's will!! to be a possibility.

If this was not the case they would have voted to ban it. They didn't.




Q

LWW
02-20-2012, 06:30 AM
Then show me where it says this in the law?

What an idiotic argument you are making.

Qtec
02-20-2012, 07:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then show me where it says this in the law?

What an idiotic argument you are making. </div></div>

LOL

You and eg0r have the same ability to IGNORE new info.

TRY and wrap your tiny brain around this.

You go to the airport.
You go through the scanner.
The alarm goes off.



YOU get pulled into a room and are told to drop your trousers and bend over!

LWW,

"I have read the Bill and in no way does it say you can stick something up my a$$ without my permission."

Customs guy says,

"You are right, it doesn't. What it does say is that I can "search you internally".

LWW, desperately says,

"..but..but..but that meant like scanners and x-rays and $hit........

Customs guy,

"<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Did it?</span>

Now STFU and bend over."


Q ..I mean, an amendment was proposed that could have saved you but they voted it down.

Soflasnapper
02-20-2012, 02:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are not using that standard. That's you!

Q </div></div>

The doublethink is strong in you Snoop ... but HERE (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=378094#Post378094) is where sofanapper used that exact standard.

You have been using it the entire time. </div></div>

No, that's incorrect.

I didn't use that as a definitive proof, but as a rhetorical question. Why indeed, when facing such charges of heinous results being required, do the supporters not at least deny those things?

Your example of Obama care barbecuing babies not being denied is almost getting you there. That hasn't been denied, BECAUSE NO ONE IS SAYING IT.

However, when things WERE said about Obamacare-- that it covered undocumented aliens, for instance, and other things-- those things were denied, and by the POTUS in the SOTU address to a national audience. It's what prompted the 'You LIE!' outburst-- Obama denying that undocumented aliens would be covered.

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why indeed, when facing such charges of heinous results being required, do the supporters not at least deny those things?</div></div>

Because denying it gives the accusation credibility.

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:36 PM
Your village keeps calling.

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your example of Obama care barbecuing babies not being denied is almost getting you there. That hasn't been denied, BECAUSE NO ONE IS SAYING IT. </div></div>

OK ... Obamacare requires babies to be barbecued at the White House.

By your logic that statement is now true since nobody at the White House denies it.

What a tool you are.

Soflasnapper
02-20-2012, 06:15 PM
My but you are a tedious and dishonest poster.

There's never a total ignore button around when one needs it.

Manual methods must fill that void!

Qtec
02-21-2012, 02:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My but you are a tedious and dishonest poster.
</div></div>

The tedious part doesn't bother me, the 'dishonest' part does.

The Virginia Vagina Bill is a classic example.

He says,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Einstein was capable of folding new information into his thought processes and change his opinion. </div></div>

..but this is obviously something he is not capable of, at least going by his replies. If this is not the case, then he is being intellectually dishonest, <u>just to avoid admitting he was wrong</u>.

Q

Imagine.

A Bill says banks can foreclose on home owners if they are 3 months in arrears.

Q says,

"so they want to throw people out on to the street?"

LWW..

"doesn't say that in the Bill."

Q,

"No it doesn't but that is the consequence. If people who are foreclosed on have nowhere else to go , they end up on the street."

LWW,

"doesn't say that in the Bill."

and on, and on, and on.................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

LWW
02-21-2012, 02:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My but you are a tedious and dishonest poster.

There's never a total ignore button around when one needs it.

Manual methods must fill that void!

</div></div>

Thank you ... an "IGNORE" button is a surrender button.

Now, man up and admit that this "SOURCE" pimped you and Snoop.

Soflasnapper
02-21-2012, 05:17 PM
Moving along now (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=378263#Post378263) to what you posted an hour after your last post above.

LWW
02-22-2012, 03:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Moving along now (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=378263#Post378263) to what you posted an hour after your last post above.

</div></div>

You are either incapable of honesty or incapable of questioning the soon.

Even the Snoop has admitted the bill doesn't say that.

And, rather than waste further time arguing with someone less rational than my shoes, can you show where the bill says what you claim ... or not?

What's that?

You can't?

What's that?

You prefer the spoon fed lie to reality?

But ... I already knew that.

Soflasnapper
02-22-2012, 10:51 AM
You yourself identified where in the bill it says that. We are having a discussion on that fact in the other thread that I linked to above. Or at least, someone using your handle and posting information is on that thread.

It's quite clear what passage is said to mean this is a requirement, just now an argument over whether that's actually so or not. The alleged language has been identified, and you have identified it, so drop your sophistic dodging, your moronic Q&A with yourself pretending its me, and your various bad faith libels.

LWW
02-22-2012, 02:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You yourself identified where in the bill it says that. </div></div>

And again with the outright lies.

I pointed out where it says the opposite of what the author claimed.

I have challenged both you and the Snoop to show where the bill backs up the claim.

Neither of you can ... yet you proceed with typical leftist illogic:

"The bill says what it says, but that doesn't mean that it says what it says ... and even though we can't find where it says what the spoon says that it says, it still says it."

How pathetic.

Soflasnapper
02-22-2012, 05:28 PM
Other thread for answers.

Qtec
02-22-2012, 10:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- The Virginia House of Delegates passed on Wednesday a revised version of a GOP-sponsored informed consent bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours before having an abortion. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The new bill, which requires women to receive an external, transabdominal ultrasound rather than a more invasive transvaginal ultrasound, passed by a vote of 65-32.</span>

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) revoked his support for the original bill just minutes before the House began debate on it, saying that the government did not have the power to require the transvaginal procedure.

"Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state," McDonnell said in a statement. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure."</span>

"For this reason ... <span style='font-size: 17pt'>I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily.</span> I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision," he said.

Virginia House Speaker William Howell (R) said during floor debates on the measure that McDonnell had helped GOP House members amend the bill based on the recommendations in his statement.

Del. Kathy Byron (R), the sponsor of the original bill, said she supports the new version. "I rise in support of this bill," she said Wednesday. "We will still be one state of seven strengthening their informed consent law."

But Democrats said they were not satisfied with the changes, or with the fact that they were introduced right before the vote on the bill took place.

"I think we need to spend time with this -- we shouldn't be playing doctor on the House floor with this kind of language," said Del. David Toscano (D). "The public has an interest in this bill and has not seen it until 20 minutes ago."

Del. Jennifer McClellan (D) said the amended bill causes more problems than the original,<span style="color: #3333FF"> because performing a regular ultrasound on an early pregnancy does nothing to assess the age of the fetus.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"It tries to fix an issue I've raised on this floor," she said, referring the <u>transvaginal ultrasound mandate</u>, "but in doing so, it not only doesn't fix it but it makes it worse. What you have done is mandated for any abortion done early in a pregnancy <span style='font-size: 20pt'><u>an ultrasound that will be utterly useless.</u></span>"</span> </div></div> link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/virginia-ultrasound-bill-abortion_n_1294026.html)

That fact that they changed the bill shows you are wrong,

Q

LWW
02-23-2012, 04:29 AM
No, what happened is that the republichickens ... as they usually do ... caved in to the howling moonbat left.

Mob politics has long been a staple of leftist ideology ... this is nothing new for either side.

Qtec
02-23-2012, 06:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, what happened is that the republichickens ... as they usually do ... caved in to the howling moonbat left.

Mob politics has long been a staple of leftist ideology ... this is nothing new for either side. </div></div>


LOL

Q