Stevo_the_gamer's forum posts

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#1 Edited by Stevo_the_gamer (45138 posts) -

So they extrapolated one report from the GAO and used that to come up with a guestimation of all the various trips? Thenuse a headline like: "Trump’s golf costs: $102 million and counting, with taxpayers picking up the tab."

Quality journali- oh wait, Huffpost. Nevermind.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#2 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45138 posts) -

@joebones5000: Again, while I would love to go into the lengthy and dull discussion of the semantic, and rather pedantic, meaning of child in utero in its extensive legal doctrine... I find little value in it. Again, agree to disagree.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#3 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45138 posts) -

@joebones5000: Oh, you're one of those folks. I won't waste my time, agree to disagree.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#4 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45138 posts) -

@joebones5000: It's definitely not by any stretch a single layered issue, as the implications like I mentioned can be far reaching with respect to the 4th, 8th, and 14th amendments.

Care to address my concerns though on abuse of an unborn child?

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#5 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45138 posts) -

@joebones5000: You misunderstand; does the state have a compelling interest, a la obligation, to step in and mandate sobriety and criminally charge a pregnant mother for substance abuse - not simple possession - but more importantly, child abuse of an unborn child. The idea is whether the fetus is protected under state law.

The elements involved are fluid across the United States; thus this is merely food for thought, as the idea of "it's a woman's body, state has no right to force things!" is a very imperceptive way to look at the overall context.

To drive back to Alabama, which for all intents and purposes, is probably the most asinine and heavy regulated way to address the entire issue (ironic when Republicans want full Government control over a construct). I wouldn't be surprised to see a Conservative court address the natural rights of an unborn child.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#6 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45138 posts) -

@joebones5000: Rights are not absolute, especially when said construct is a legal right. What you feel is a "good" or "bad" reasoning is irrelevant; such moral relatively is akin to building on sand. To shed light in a different context, curious if you stand by the mantra of "victimless" crimes and whether such lenses can be directed at whether the state has an obligation to step in to prevent substance abuse during pregnancy.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#8 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45138 posts) -

@zaryia: Again, using tragedy for political gain/talking points is disgusting.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#9 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45138 posts) -

@joebones5000: Extremely bad reasoning? Where? Are you saying your reasoning for upholding or overturning Constitutional law is superior than that of 5 (or more) Supreme Court justices? Impressive.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#10 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45138 posts) -

@joebones5000: I do not see the logic in equating the interpretation of an unenumerated right to a construct that's explicit. Nor do I see the value of fear mongering and pandering to MSNBC talking points.