Probable overturning of Roe v Wade

OUBubba said:
But the property taxes of schools not in city limits go to public schools, right? Those people also have the right to vote on these things.

The turf football/soccer fields get me. A decade ago it was $1 million and we saved the football coaches mowing it year round and striping it 3-4 times per year. Poor investment as it's bad for kids and the environment.
Click to expand...
Where did I say they did NOT have a right to vote on it?

Go ahead. Show ALL of us. We'll wait.

Oh, hell...no we won't. You won't admit that you allowed your anti-MB bias to show through AGAIN.
 
mb227 said:
Where did I say they did NOT have a right to vote on it?

Go ahead. Show ALL of us. We'll wait.

Oh, hell...no we won't. You won't admit that you allowed your anti-MB bias to show through AGAIN.
Click to expand...
Chill the hell out.

"remember that the rural ISD's are not just limited to city population...the service area also tends to include a lot of people OUTSIDE of the city limits, as evidenced by your population of the city barely being four digits but with almost 800 students."

You imply with CAPITAL letters that there's some difference between living in Thrall or not living in Thrall. I didn't CAPITALIZE the letters for emphasis, you did. I grew up in one of the largest rural districts in Oklahoma that I think has only passed one bond issue in my lifetime (and I'm old).

You forgot [checks notes]. :)
 
Mr. Deez said:
Not comparable. The Underground Railroad was an act of civil disobedience largely by private individuals though public officials did sometimes look the other way. Even when public officials helped, they didn't claim to be acting with the authority of law. That isn't comparable to the Feds coming in without any constitutional authority to force its will on a state that is acting within its constitutional authority.

Accordingly, if pro-life activists want to go into California and try to stop the abortion agenda, that's fine. I'm all for it. However, does Congress have the right to step in and say California cannot permit abortion? No. That is abusive and tyrannical.
Click to expand...

A straight comparison of slavery to abortion wasn't the point. The original comment was, "someone needs to intervene" to which you replied, "it's not my place to say someone without constitutional authority should intervene and deny them the right to make the decision."

Here is an example with the Underground Railroad where many people broke the law including some government officials to do just that - intervene without constitutional authority to deny states the right to make a decision (to get escaped slaves back). Would you not agree that bypassing constitutional authority was the correct course of action in this case or should the abolitionists have said "We'd love to get you to Canada, but we don't want to break the law. Let's wait until we get constitutional authority to move you to another country. In the meantime, we are legally compelled to send you back to your master"?
 
guy4321 said:
A straight comparison of slavery to abortion wasn't the point. The original comment was, "someone needs to intervene" to which you replied, "it's not my place to say someone without constitutional authority should intervene and deny them the right to make the decision."

Here is an example with the Underground Railroad where many people broke the law including some government officials to do just that - intervene without constitutional authority to deny states the right to make a decision (to get escaped slaves back). Would you not agree that bypassing constitutional authority was the correct course of action in this case or should the abolitionists have said "We'd love to get you to Canada, but we don't want to break the law. Let's wait until we get constitutional authority to move you to another country. In the meantime, we are legally compelled to send you back to your master"?
Click to expand...
The concept of non-violent civil disobedience was a great advance. As long as you are willing to pay the price of disobedience (non-violent), then do as you want.
 
My father was 1/2 creek. He was a man who grew up being treated less than by the dominant culture. As such, he also punched down. He was nice to black people but he was raised a racist and it was just part of him. One night we were having one of our long talks about race, religion, etc. as he was sipping Old Charter. I asked something akin to “what was going to happen with the black/white thing?” His response: “the same thing that happened with the Indians. Look at you. We’re gonna f it out of them.” I say that say that we are slowly melding together culturally.
 
mb227 said:
remember that the rural ISD's are not just limited to city population...the service area also tends to include a lot of people OUTSIDE of the city limits, as evidenced by your population of the city barely being four digits but with almost 800 students
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. I don't live in Thrall but am in the school taxing district. The vast majority of residents outside the city are farmers who are tax exempt. No money there.
 
Vol Horn 4 Life said:
Yes, I know that. I don't live in Thrall but am in the school taxing district. The vast majority of residents outside the city are farmers who are tax exempt. No money there.
Click to expand...
Let me summarize: you are not enthralled to be in the thrall of Thrall ISD. Is that the gist of it?
 
guy4321 said:
A straight comparison of slavery to abortion wasn't the point. The original comment was, "someone needs to intervene" to which you replied, "it's not my place to say someone without constitutional authority should intervene and deny them the right to make the decision."

Here is an example with the Underground Railroad where many people broke the law including some government officials to do just that - intervene without constitutional authority to deny states the right to make a decision (to get escaped slaves back). Would you not agree that bypassing constitutional authority was the correct course of action in this case or should the abolitionists have said "We'd love to get you to Canada, but we don't want to break the law. Let's wait until we get constitutional authority to move you to another country. In the meantime, we are legally compelled to send you back to your master"?
Click to expand...

I don't know if you joined the conversation late, but the original comment was not that "someone" needed to intervene but that the "Feds" needed to intervene. To me, "Feds" means some federal official acting under federal law (meaning an act of Congress). This is why your comparison isn't a good one. The Underground Railroad wasn't the Feds. It was largely the work of private actors with the help (usually the passive help) of local public officials. I don't have a problem with civil disobedience if the disobedient are willing to take the consequences of their disobedience. I do have a problem with Congress abusing its power and shredding the rule of law to appease busybodies even if I agree with the busybodies' underlying policy goals.
 
Vol Horn 4 Life said:
Correct, I'm actively looking for property in other parts of the state.
Click to expand...
Discretion may be the better part of valor. Much like mb pointed on on the electric car decisions that will see people spending $10,000 extra on electric to save $100/month on a car you expect to have 3-4 years. The closing costs will likely exceed a decade's worth of tax "increases" even though you say it was sold as a tax neutral
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't know if you joined the conversation late, but the original comment was not that "someone" needed to intervene but that the "Feds" needed to intervene. To me, "Feds" means some federal official acting under federal law (meaning an act of Congress). This is why your comparison isn't a good one. The Underground Railroad wasn't the Feds. It was largely the work of private actors with the help (usually the passive help) of local public officials. I don't have a problem with civil disobedience if the disobedient are willing to take the consequences of their disobedience. I do have a problem with Congress abusing its power and shredding the rule of law to appease busybodies even if I agree with the busybodies' underlying policy goals.
Click to expand...

If the original comment was "Feds," then you're right I missed it. The quote I found was from bystander saying "someone needs to intervene." Your response I found interesting, which was "it's not my place to say someone without constitutional authority should intervene." If the law is unjust, people - both private citizens and government officials - have the moral duty to skirt the law while working to get the law changed. The Underground Railroad may be the largest example of this in US history. From the above, I see you agree and honestly, wouldn't expect anyone in the 21st century to type "the Underground Railroad was wrong." The discussion of Congress acting is another debate.
 
I know what they're going for, but what does a person pick if they believe an abortion should be legal under rape, incest, or to save mom but only during the first trimester? Then what does another pick if they believe an abortion should be legal if rape, incest, or to save mom during any of the nine months?
 
OUBubba said:
Discretion may be the better part of valor. Much like mb pointed on on the electric car decisions that will see people spending $10,000 extra on electric to save $100/month on a car you expect to have 3-4 years. The closing costs will likely exceed a decade's worth of tax "increases" even though you say it was sold as a tax neutral
Click to expand...

My property taxes have increased almost $800 per month over the last 18 years. That hurts. I'm not looking to move because of taxes, its because my property value has risen nearly 400% since I built and if I pick the right place with low enough taxes I might be closer to retirement than I thought plus I could double the amount of property owned.
 
Vol Horn 4 Life said:
My property taxes have increased almost $800 per month over the last 18 years. That hurts. I'm not looking to move because of taxes, its because my property value has risen nearly 400% since I built and if I pick the right place with low enough taxes I might be closer to retirement than I thought plus I could double the amount of property owned.
Click to expand...
Yikes...that is close to what Travis County was getting TOTAL for my Westlake Hills-area house (it was one of the unincorporated Travis properties that Westlake didn't want because of the difficulties in connecting to their sewer system).

But, what you cite is one of the reasons I am concerned about what is going on in Harris County with our accidental County Judge who has not met a waste of funds she could sign off on. That money has to come from SOMEWHERE. And so each year, the appraisals go up, although mom is at least capped on some of it because of her age (although she got screwed nine years ago with a new valuation after dad died...seems wrong to treat a death-related change as if it were a sale to a new party).
 
mchammer said:
Click to expand...


Two things can be true at the same time. First, when pro-abortion people bring up rape and incest, it's done in bad faith. Second, we should not be pushing a nationwide ban on abortion. Leave the issue to the states where it belongs. It's very stupid politics, unconstitutional, and tyrannical.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Two things can be true at the same time. First, when pro-abortion people bring up rape and incest, it's done in bad faith. Second, we should not be pushing a nationwide ban on abortion. Leave the issue to the states where it belongs. It's very stupid politics, unconstitutional, and tyrannical.
Click to expand...

I've yet to figure out why incest is brought up in the same sentence as rape. In one case, the woman was forced. In the other, she chose freely. Don't get me wrong - incest is gross, but if she can abort in any incest case, she should be able to abort under any free choice sex situation.

What they're going for is the increased odds for medical issues for the baby created during incest. Then why not say "rape or if the baby is diagnosed with severe deformities?" That covers the non-incest case, which pro-choice folks are also going for.

I guess it's really what you mentioned. Bad faith.
 
Last edited:
guy4321 said:
I've yet to figure out why incest is brought up in the same sentence as rape. In one case, the woman was forced. In the other, she chose freely. Don't get me wrong - incest is gross, but if she can abort in any incest case, she should be able to abort under any free choice sex situation?

What they're going for is the increased odds for medical issues for the baby created during incest. Then why not say "rape or if the baby is diagnosed with serve deformities?" That covers the non-incest case, which pro-choice folks are also going for.

I guess it's really what you mentioned. Bad faith.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that "typically" the incest involves molestation by family members to young women. So, technically still some level of rape as you have to be of age to issue consent.
 
OUBubba said:
I'm thinking that "typically" the incest involves molestation by family members to young women. So, technically still some level of rape as you have to be of age to issue consent.
Click to expand...

Leave it to someone from Mobilhoma to be familiar and concerned with the nuances of incest. Lol.

Coach, I understand your point, and there's a lot of truth to it, but these cases fall under the category of "rape." If you include incest, you necessarily are including cases that are not rape.
 
Yes, I don't see how incest involving molestation by family members is outside the definition of rape.

Edit: But if it is someway or somewhere, the language should be " rape or incest involving molestation."

"by family members" seems redundant.
 
Last edited:
guy4321 said:
Yes, I don't see how incest involving molestation by family members is outside the definition of rape.

Edit: But if it is someway or somewhere, the language should be " rape or incest involving molestation."

"by family members" seems redundant.
Click to expand...
I agree. Seems like we're arguing about the shade of taupe on the fabric on the deck chairs of the Titanic here.
 
So I've read that the Dallas and Bexar County DAs won't enforce abortion laws if Roe is overturned. Pretty gold coming from the "democracy and rule of law" crowd.
 
Mr D
Even if it is overturned doesn't the state law still stand?
I have not heard Dallas County DA will ignore Texas law.
When was that announced.
 
Horn6721 said:
Mr D
Even if it is overturned doesn't the state law still stand?
I have not heard Dallas County DA will ignore Texas law.
When was that announced.
Click to expand...

If it's overturned, Texas's trigger law (which almost completely bans abortion) would become effective.

As for the Dallas DA, that was reported in the WSJ.
 
There is a lot of talk about tribes in Oklahoma ignoring stitt’s anti abortion law. Legally they could. However, native nations in Oklahoma are composed of, you know, Oklahomans and they my lean left compared to most Oklahomans but they are still a conservative group. More so on social issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top