Ohio Bill introduced to regulate men's reproductive health - Page 8 - SLUniverse Forums
Navigation » SLUniverse Forums > Off Topic Discussion > Politics, Religion & Society » Ohio Bill introduced to regulate men's reproductive health


Politics, Religion & Society Topics pertaining to politics, religion, philosophy, and social issues. Not for the faint of heart. Also, do not post while drunk, suffering from food poisoning, or while on a low carb diet. You have been warned.

 
Sponsor:
Lionheart Virtual Estate - Experience the Difference!
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-15-2012, 02:36 AM   #176 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,557
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Quote:
Originally Posted by livia View Post
Courts in the US can strike down laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional, which is entirely different to the laws being repealed. As I already explained, courts set case precedent, they do not repeal law. Legislators can repeal laws but that does not set case precedent. You need a court to make a ruling on a case for that.

Courts may choose to give weight to legislators' arguments, but they are not obliged to enshrine such things in case rulings and certainly they are not obliged to enshrine arguments made about the repeal of a law.

Ideally, constitutionality is determined through the content of the constitution. When that is not adequate, the courts have discretion to look to other sources and this might include arguments or commentary made by legislators with related but non-binding case law or even obita dicta from other cases/rulings also being likely sources. In no way does this oblige them to enshrine arguments pertaining to the repeal of any particular bill into case law.
Super. Be so kind as to demonstrate the differences between a State Legislature and the Federal here?

Quote:
The Congressional Record is generally considered to serve twobasic purposes.28 First, it preserves an historical record of the
legislative debates.29 Historians and students alike consult the
Record to gain an appreciation of the congressional proceedings
surrounding politically significant events. Second, it is used to
determine the purposes that Congress intended to promote when
Congress enacted particular federal statutes.30 The Record is
availed as legislative history both by administrative agencies
when implementing the law and by courts when interpreting it.3!
When a new statute is enacted by Congress, federal agencies
whose duties are affected by the new statute are often required to
draft regulations to provide guidelines for the statute's practical
enforcement. These agencies frequently look to the Congressional
Record for guidance when drafting regulations to accompany
congressionally mandated programs.32 The Record becomes particularly
important when the bill from which the statute was
derived and the reports of the congressional committees which
considered the merits of the bill leave doubt as to Congress'
intent.33
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/...9&context=ealr

Again, you miss the point that all of these issues act as a part of legislative record, intent of law is considered to be given primacy in any legal holding in these matters, important when considered in the pursuit of repeal, especially as they align with State and Federal Supreme Courts.

And while you are marginally technically correct that the Federal and State courts don't repeal laws, challenges striking laws rely considerably on the intent of the laws and their Constitutionality based on the Constitution and any relevant case law therein. Enshrinement is always, therefore a part of any motion to strike down a law, or rather reverse decisions based on the law if the findings are not in keeping. Obligation isn't a factor, relative research for standing is. Again, the idea that enshrinement is at stake isn't frankly the issue.

And again, you are being very careful to skirt around the issue here, focusing primarily on the legal aspect while ignoring the overall point of the argument, mainly that these laws act as a part of the legislative record, and because they act as a part of the legislative record and if challenged, or repealed through other legislative action that builds a case against.

Put it this way. If I create a law that says red people are illegal and in opposition someone adds an amendment that blue people are illegal they share a common standing based on the legislative record, rather than intent and justification making red people illegal would be steeped in the same sort of justification for making blue people illegal. If the red people, those in power got upset by this and struck down the legal standing of the argument, the standing for keeping the blue people illegal is greatly weakened. That is the intent of laws like this, to lure justification of one particular set of arguments into equivalency.

Its a political ploy, but one that relies on a strong legislative record as backing. So yes, because the legislative record is an official and required document, enshrinement becomes automatic. In arguing the cases before the courts, enshrinement doesn't occur as a part of the direct record nor is it an obligation to enter into the courts arguments, however, this is a misnomer because standing and holding still incorporate intent of the legislature as a part of the process.

If you can't see the nuance, then I really can't help you.

I figured this addition might clarify.... same link

Quote:
The Supreme Court has stated that the remarks of a single
legislator, even those of a sponsor of a bill, are not controlling in
analyzing legislative history.37 Generally, however, the courts do
give some weight to such remarks when the stated intention of
the legislator is to clarify or explain the bill's purpose.38 The
Supreme Court cites the Congressional Record regularly.
39 In the
three year period between January 1, 1981 and January 1, 1984,
for example, the Court cited the Record in 151 opinions.

Last edited by Wrong Weatherwax; 03-15-2012 at 02:41 AM.
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Yay!:
2 Users Said Thanks :
1 User Agreed:
Old 03-15-2012, 02:43 AM   #177 (permalink)
01001100 01001111 0100110
 
Darnk Yun's Avatar
01000011 01101111 01101111 01101100 0100001
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Location! Location!
Posts: 4,369
My Mood:
SL Join Date: '06
Business: Darnkeyes!
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Io Zeno View Post
But I need my tongue, I'm not spitting it out!
Well played m'lady!
__________________
Ahaha, such a simpleton. It'z so much fun playing jokez on you. I waz only here to see how she waz doing, but I had fun while I waz at it. So long, Sere, au revoir, mon ami! Pleaze dream of moi every night! Oui! ~ Harle

http://leechmouth.deviantart.com/
Darnk Yun is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Hugged You:
Old 03-15-2012, 02:59 AM   #178 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
livia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 241
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cristiano View Post
livia, stop with the homophobic personal attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Nightshade View Post
I get the impression you're an idiot.

And actually, I get the impression that any internet "woman" who looks at these discussions and feels anything but outrage over the constant and unnecessary laws being passed IE, not satire that actively hurt and restrict women isn't actually a woman at all.
Not homophobic, nor a personal attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by livia
princess
Homophobic and a personal attack.

It's homophobic to dish back to Joshua exactly the kind of insult Joshua dishes out first? Have I got that right?
livia is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Hugged You:
Old 03-15-2012, 03:02 AM   #179 (permalink)
Lustful Cockmonster

*SLU Supporter*
 
Joshua Nightshade's Avatar
Unedited
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 51,807
My Mood:
SL Join Date: October 2004
Blog Entries: 1
Questioning your real life gender on an internet forum because you support misogyny is a bit removed from you repeatedly going on and on about what an effeminate princess diva you think I am because I disagree with you.

ETA: And because you have demonstrated in the past a difficulty with understanding context and a willingness to remove things from it to deliberately falsify a chain of events, this was my first message to you and your first reply prior to me calling you an idiot:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Nightshade View Post
I get the impression you're flapping around having a conniption fit over a piece of satire that has about as much chance of becoming law as I do buying Fox News.

Meanwhile, you're so busy hyperventilating that you don't even get what the satire actually is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by livia View Post
I get the impression you have a flare for the melodramatic and see hysteria all over the show. No doubt a text book case of projection.
So, in your words, me calling you an idiot was simply me dishing back to you exactly the kind of insult you dished first.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teeny Leviathan View Post
Those Super Gays are as tough as a T-800 terminator and they are gay.
Joshua Nightshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 03:02 AM   #180 (permalink)
01001100 01001111 0100110
 
Darnk Yun's Avatar
01000011 01101111 01101111 01101100 0100001
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Location! Location!
Posts: 4,369
My Mood:
SL Join Date: '06
Business: Darnkeyes!
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by livia View Post
Not homophobic, nor a personal attack.

Homophobic and a personal attack.

It's homophobic to dish back to Joshua exactly the kind of insult Joshua dishes out first? Have I got that right?
He said your a dude, not prince dick wiggler.

and accusing a gay man of acting like a princess diva kinda comes off as homophobic bro dude.

What's the male version of Diva? HMMMMmmmmm....
Darnk Yun is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Hugged You:
1 User Agreed:
Old 03-15-2012, 10:05 AM   #181 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Amity Slade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,638
It would be rather pleasant if everyone stopped making personal attacks on each other, rather than debating whose personal attacks are least inappropriate.
Amity Slade is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
1 User Agreed:
1 User Likes This:
Old 03-15-2012, 11:03 AM   #182 (permalink)
Dead Guy
 
Asher Bertrand's Avatar
Expert Witless
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,383
My Mood:
Blog Entries: 2
I think this pretty well sums up how a lot of women in America are feeling these days.

Quote:
Dear GOP,

Allow me to tell you a little about myself. I am a mom in my mid-thirties who, for lack of a better term, is a WASP. As a businesswoman and writer, I work hard, pay my taxes and split my ticket.

I am, in other words, exactly who you need to win over to take back the White House this fall.

So I can't say that I appreciate being called a slut.

True, no one has called me that to my face, but you really may as well have when your de facto party leader, Rush Limbaugh, tore into a law student who had the gall to ask that birth control be covered by insurance like any other medical expense.

Limbaugh was only saying what too many Republicans have implied -- including the two GOP presidential frontrunners, Messers. Romney and Santorum -- by declaring war on birth control.

Somehow, we womenfolk can't be trusted to make our own medical decisions -- and not just about abortion. And those of us who want to decide when we will or won't be parents -- say, after we earn college degrees and become contributing members of society -- are now whores.

Are you kidding me? Is this really the way you plan to win elections -- by insulting the very group that decides the presidency every four years? Do you think that independent and Republican women in the suburbs who work hard, play by the rules, but doggone it, have been on the Pill, are going to vote for a party with so little respect for them?

...

The fact that he (Romney) would want to jeopardize their health care to score ideological points is disheartening. The fact that more Republicans won't stand up to declare how stupid and offensive this whole war on women is, is even more so.

So in conclusion, if you would like me to vote for your party for anything this fall, please stop treating me like a slut or a damn child.

I am a woman. And I vote.
__________________


Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
Asher Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 03-15-2012, 12:12 PM   #183 (permalink)
That Bitch

*SLU Supporter*
 
Void's Avatar
Innocent as far as you know
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Online
Posts: 9,471
My Mood:
SL Join Date: late 04 original account, mid 05 current
Quote:
Originally Posted by livia View Post
There's a difference between listening and altering an opinion based on what was heard. It's not a lack of listening just because someone does not change their opinions to suit you.[...]
it is when they (like you) have no contextual understanding of the topic, and ignore it when it's presented.

Quote:
What a bunch of say nothing. The discussion has not increased my awareness of the broader issue. You claimed the stunt was useful because it brought exposure to the issue itself. Your evidence of this useful exposure is that some non-US voter has gained no awareness of the wider issue, but does now know about the stunt that was supposed to bring exposure and hence awareness about the wider issue. Sure that makes sense Void, in dellusionvile. I prefer not to dwell there.
may I remind you of your own words....
Quote:
This is not "how to make a point"
Quote:
People seem to think that this will help by showing how absurd the whole project of such state regulation is, but...
Quote:
How are they to feel effected if it's a stunt, political theatre, and has no chance of passing or will be easily repealed if it does pass?
Quote:
I only heard about this stuff because I visited this forum.
Quote:
You claimed the stunt was useful because it brought exposure to the issue itself.
and because I've despise repeating myself when there is such a clear inability to recognize your own words, let alone all other facts that have been demonstrated to you (except one), I'm invoking three strikes law: ie, you're out.

I'll leave you with this final thought to consider alone by yourself:
One should never become so attached to an initial position that one fails to consider any evidence along the way. One's own opinion is never evidence of anything, only the facts that support it are.
__________________
- These eyes can do more than see
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajsa Lilliehook View Post
It's not enough to care about liberty if the only liberty you care about is your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jupiter Firelyte View Post
Why doesn't anyone ever ask, "What is the real meaning of the winter solstice?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eboni Khan View Post
Thanks for being passive agressive.
Void is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 12:53 PM   #184 (permalink)
Nasty Brit
 
Innula Zenovka's Avatar
Grande Cabalista
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,968
SL Join Date: 17 June 2007
Business: Something Spunky
Apparently,
Quote:
In 2006/07, three quarters (76 per cent) of women aged 16-49 in Great Britain used at least one form of contraception
I wonder if equivalent statistics are available for the USA.
Innula Zenovka is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 12:56 PM   #185 (permalink)
Dead Guy
 
Asher Bertrand's Avatar
Expert Witless
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,383
My Mood:
Blog Entries: 2
The figure I've heard used is that 99 percent of sexually active women in the US use some form of birth control at some point in their life. I don't know if that includes the "rhythm" method, too.
Asher Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 01:20 PM   #186 (permalink)
Just call me Beth
 
Aribeth Zelin's Avatar
Singing along with old music
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Out in the mists
Posts: 6,914
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Oct 4 2009
Client: Firestorm
What bothers me about all the anti-BC laws is they seem purposefully worded to exclude male contraceptives. Which in turns says 'Women, you don't get a choice, only us men do' and that's even worse, because when you look at that, you KNOW its not about making babies, but forcing women to have them.

Also, no one can even get southern rural men to get their male dogs fixed, you aren't going to get them to get themselves fixed [yes, its a real problem, apparently there is some relationship to your dog's virility and you own O.o]
__________________
Atomic Faery
Aribeth Zelin is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Laughed:
Old 03-15-2012, 01:24 PM   #187 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Kokoro Fasching's Avatar
Watering a Shoe
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Where I lay down my head
Posts: 1,379
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B
livia][/B]
princess

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Nightshade View Post
Okay, dude.

Kokoro Fasching is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Laughed:
Old 03-15-2012, 08:30 PM   #188 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
livia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 241
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Nightshade View Post
Questioning your real life gender on an internet forum because you support misogyny is a bit removed from you repeatedly going on and on about what an effeminate princess diva you think I am because I disagree with you.
Nice strawman, but I've never said anything about you being effeminate. You introduced that doozy, deciding that it's fine for you to imply that certain undesirable traits are exclusively feminine while pretending to be a champion against mysogony. It's interesting that you accused somone else of being a mysogynist while pretending to champion against it. Did that particular hypocritical attack come into your mind while you were looking in a mirror?

You really will use any excuse when it comes to your sense of entitlement and desire for special treatment. It's unfortunate others enable this, because it does nothing to help you be more mindful. Are you now going to claim that being called self entitled and childish is also calling your effeminate? Or is that too blatent and transparent even for you?

Quote:
ETA: And because you have demonstrated in the past a difficulty with understanding context and a willingness to remove things from it to deliberately falsify a chain of events, this was my first message to you and your first reply prior to me calling you an idiot:
Which part of that is untrue?

Of course your implied implication here is that these are all feminine traits, and you've enough nerve to imply that while pretending to be a champion against the world's mysognynists? Only girls and women are melodramatic Joshua? Only girls and women are hysterical Joshua? How very non-mysogynistic of you.

I don't genderize my insults. I do not alter that behaviour-choice based on the sexuality of who it is directed at. You think only girls and women have certain undesirable traits and you expect different treatment because of your sexuality. This naturally makes me a mysogynist and a homophobe rather than making your a mysogynist who trades on their sexuality for special treatment.

I see what you did there. I see what you do around here on a daily basis. The target of your conduct may change, but you just keep trucking on. "Trucking on" is not an insult accusing you of being butch by the way, just in case you were confused on that count.


Quote:
So, in your words, me calling you an idiot was simply me dishing back to you exactly the kind of insult you dished first.
You keep telling yourself that.

And since you love context so much, here's your earlier post to me, and notably, I had not said so much as a word to you in months prior to it:
Quote:
I get the impression you're flapping around having a conniption fit over a piece of satire that has about as much chance of becoming law as I do buying Fox News.

Meanwhile, you're so busy hyperventilating that you don't even get what the satire actually is.
What part of accusing someone of having a conniption fit and hyperventilating because they posted on an internet forum is not melodramatic?

Having a hyperventilation fit and conniptions is melodramatic and hysterical. So the return accusation that you were being melodramatic and hysterical derives directly from, and exactly mirrors the personal attack you launched. I even mimicked your presentation just to make it clear and obvious.

The interesting part is that if these are feminine traits in your mind, then that defines your intial personal attack against me as mysogynistic, but I'm sure you'll ignore that because it does not fit with your victim narrative. And before you go there, it's mysogynistic to claim that having a victimhood mentality is effeminate. Men are just as capable of being crappy self entitled behaviour as women.

Now I have to go read the inbox message I have about falling into your homophobia trap, because it's not the first time you've pulled this crap, and your bullying obviously has had the desired effect with at least some posters who you've intimidated into not discussing your conduct where you can bully them some more for it. I guess reading about you in my in box makes a change from reading about you and your persistent bullying on external websites.
livia is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
1 User Likes This:
Old 03-15-2012, 08:32 PM   #189 (permalink)
01001100 01001111 0100110
 
Darnk Yun's Avatar
01000011 01101111 01101111 01101100 0100001
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Location! Location!
Posts: 4,369
My Mood:
SL Join Date: '06
Business: Darnkeyes!
Blog Entries: 1
Lol
Darnk Yun is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Hugged You:
1 User Agreed:
Old 03-15-2012, 08:32 PM   #190 (permalink)
Lustful Cockmonster

*SLU Supporter*
 
Joshua Nightshade's Avatar
Unedited
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 51,807
My Mood:
SL Join Date: October 2004
Blog Entries: 1
You're a total jackass.

And since I'm sure Lias was the one who PM'd you I can't say I'm at all surprised; you two can be victims together!
Joshua Nightshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 08:33 PM   #191 (permalink)
Dead Guy
 
Asher Bertrand's Avatar
Expert Witless
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,383
My Mood:
Blog Entries: 2
A diva is a word for a female opera singer. I don't know how you can get more gender specific than that.
Asher Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 03-15-2012, 08:51 PM   #192 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
detrius's Avatar
boo
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 8,367
My Mood:

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Winner 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soen Eber View Post
In comparison, Perphides now seems respectful and classy. My head is exploding.
The keyword is 'seems'.
__________________
"V Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy."
detrius is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 03-15-2012, 08:53 PM   #193 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
detrius's Avatar
boo
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 8,367
My Mood:

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Winner 
Holy catchphrase, Batman, what a train wreck of a thread.
detrius is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Laughed:
1 User Agreed:
Old 03-16-2012, 03:04 AM   #194 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
livia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 241
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrong Weatherwax View Post
Super. Be so kind as to demonstrate the differences between a State Legislature and the Federal here?

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/...9&context=ealr

Again, you miss the point that all of these issues act as a part of legislative record, intent of law is considered to be given primacy in any legal holding in these matters, important when considered in the pursuit of repeal, especially as they align with State and Federal Supreme Courts.

And while you are marginally technically correct that the Federal and State courts don't repeal laws, challenges striking laws rely considerably on the intent of the laws and their Constitutionality based on the Constitution and any relevant case law therein. Enshrinement is always, therefore a part of any motion to strike down a law, or rather reverse decisions based on the law if the findings are not in keeping. Obligation isn't a factor, relative research for standing is. Again, the idea that enshrinement is at stake isn't frankly the issue.
It's odd you say enshrinement is not the issue here because that's exactly the phrase that issue was taken with in the post replying to me.

As to "marginally technically correct", I'm completely correct on that point and your attempts to argue otherwise rely entirely on technicalities that miss the point.

The point is that litigation before the Supreme Court, of issues pertaining to abortion, at this time, would pose a real risk to the existing protections derived from Roe v Wade. There'd be nothing to worry about otherwise, since the war on women has either already been decided by Roe v Wade, or there is a real risk that Roe v Wade is not sufficient protection against these legislative sallies.

To spell it out for you in a step by step process, entailing repealing the law:
1) the bluff is called by the war wagers and they allow a law to pass that interferes in the privacy of men on the basis of a public health concern. Since this law was initiated by Democrats and it is anethema to their usual support base, and would probably be very off putting to swing voters, the war wagers are able to reap the rewards and gain control of both legislative houses and the Presidency. Arguments for both viagra "invasive" and abortion "invasive" laws exist in the legislative record accordingly.

2) litigation before the Surpreme Court (which now include Bush appointees) ends in a ruling that relies on distinguishing these new laws from the case heard in Roe v Wade and a gives a contrary ruling that does not follow Roe v Wade.

3) a rider is attached to an entirely irrelevant law, for instance a law about what can be sold as "ground beef". None of the war wagers enter any argumentation about this repeal into the legislative record which then only contains arguments about retaining it entered by the resistance legislators.

4) the war is won.

Alternatively, and more likely, and since you are such a fan of nuance:

Step 1 occurs. At step 2, for laws directed at women, Roe v Wade is departed from and Jacobson v Massachusetts is followed, relying on the nuance that the decision in Roe v Wade relied in part on refusing to accept that an unborn, genetically human entity has legal personhood, and the fact that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, while excluding its punitive provisions from being applied in the instance of abortion, none the less legislatively established legal personhood for unborn, genetically human entities.

At the same time, "viagra laws" are struck down as unconstitutional, following Roe v Wade.


The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is very likely the intended vehicle for slipping past Roe v Wade, and these viagra stunts offer no protection against that means of short running around Roe v Wade while themselves being unconstitutional because of Roe v Wade.
livia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2012, 03:23 AM   #195 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,557
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
So, simply put, your entire argument rests on scary Bush appointees? That's not exactly a realistic assessment of the situation, but as I noted before, if you can't get it, then I really can't help you.

Its funny that instead of focusing on the issue, you bring a completely unrelated issue here, namely personhood to make your arguments for you. Are these laws intended to address the question of conception and humanity, no its hinged entirely on privacy issue rights in line with Roe v Wade, something any first year law student would be able to point out.

Keep on trucking Livia. That's the second attempt to shift the topic, I'm done with you.
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 03-16-2012, 03:40 AM   #196 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
livia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 241
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Nightshade View Post
You're a total jackass.

And since I'm sure Lias was the one who PM'd you I can't say I'm at all surprised; you two can be victims together!
I've never heard of Lias. But I can conclude from your assumption that this Lias person is yet another person you've pulled this crap with.

You and I both know that the monotonous regularity with which you bully people and then play the victim card makes the odds of you guessing who IMed me a very long shot indeed. So good luck with that.
livia is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 03-16-2012, 03:42 AM   #197 (permalink)
Lustful Cockmonster

*SLU Supporter*
 
Joshua Nightshade's Avatar
Unedited
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 51,807
My Mood:
SL Join Date: October 2004
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by livia View Post
I've never heard of Lias. But I can conclude from your assumption that this Lias person is yet another person you've pulled this crap with.

You and I both know that the monotonous regularity with which you bully people and then play the victim card makes the odds of you guessing who IMed me a very long shot indeed. So good luck with that.
Lias = bladyblue, and I'm going to go out on a total limb on that point since she's mashing emoticon buttons on all your obnoxious twit posts.

The only bully in this thread is you, which would be why the only person in the thread told by the site owner to stop doing something is also you. In any event it's immaterial, "I have loads of secret messages from people who say you suck" is an argument played by a coward, rooted in cowardice. It's irrelevant whether you do or not because ultimately high school students passing notes in secret and cackling to one another because they lack the spines to say anything directly isn't going to change my opinion of someone or move me to post differently. If anything you engaging in that sort of immaturity only underscores what a ridiculous individual you actually are. Talk about a bully.

Last edited by Joshua Nightshade; 03-16-2012 at 03:50 AM.
Joshua Nightshade is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
1 User Likes This:
Old 03-16-2012, 05:13 AM   #198 (permalink)
Senior Member
GZ Terrorist
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cloud Nine USA
Posts: 685
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 2007
Client: Cool VL
Send a message via Skype™ to Karen
Now Arizona,
"PHOENIX (AP) — Women in Arizona trying to get reimbursed for birth control drugs through their employer-provided health plan could be required to prove that they are taking it for a medical reason such as acne, rather than to prevent pregnancy."
Ariz. bill could require reason for birth control - Yahoo! News
Karen is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On