Numark3

No because that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of how law works and what the bill says. This is such a ridiculous argument. Look, the bill allows abortion right up until birth (though that’s an extreme and would be beyond rare). Why can’t you all just complain about that as immoral or whatever without making the argument it allows after birth abortions? Christ.

Im starting to like this governor!

Yea I mentioned that pushing any statute to its extreme regarding time limits can produce unrealistic and dumb scenarios. My example was a law that allows you to return a car if you discover a previously unknown defect within 6 months...of course returning it after minutes would be nonsensical. but I don’t even see a sentence in that bill that you can even argue allows you to kill a baby after it’s been born.

I think we’ve beaten it to death at this point. Strong disagree it permits anything after the birth, but agree to disagree! I disagree with a lot of their positions, but same with republicans. Both have some idiotic stances. Both have become so overly sensitive too it’s hiloarious; each having a laundry list of stuff to whine about...kneeling verse staring!!!

He needs to resign for being such a bad liar. Gotta do better than this to make it in this world!!!

She may be the person that has annoyed me for the longest span of time. She has always been annoying, and she’s been around forever somehow.

Absolutely, I guess that would fall under my second part of deciding if or what the consequences should be. while iv never dressed in black face, imagine having a snapshot of stuff you’ve said or done taken out of context. None of us would have jobs now! the more concerning thing about this guy was his ramblings about infanticide when the bill doesn’t permit it...

I think the people that go on these crusades represent the loud minority of liberals. I posted this in the abortion thread: As a liberal, this is one of the most obnoxious things about the party: the willingness to destroy careers because of stuff that happened a long time ago without and reasonable dialog about it. i think when someone is accused of something we should ask two things: (1) did they actually ***** do it; (2) what should the appropriate consequence be, if any. However, people skip both and just demand people’s careers get ruined. The worst part is that what I just typed would be considered offensive and I am careful of who is around me when I say that. So so stupid On a side note, as someone who has lived in the south, Virginia, and now a liberal bubble that is Minneapolis...this current controversy is so Virginia.

As a liberal, this is one of the most obnoxious things about the party: the willingness to destroy careers because of stuff that happened a long time ago without and reasonable dialog about it. i think when someone is accused of something we should ask two things: (1) did they actually ***** do it; (2) what should the appropriate consequence be, if any. However, people skip both and just demand people’s careers get ruined. The worst part is that what I just typed would be considered offensive and I am careful of who is around me when I say that. So so stupid On a side note, as someone who has lived in the south, Virginia, and now a liberal bubble that is Minneapolis...this current controversy is so Virginia.

Maybe down at Old Bills Tavern with 2 dollar beers. i like a nice craft cocktail some nights. Occasionally they will have a straw in it.

I do wish this investigation would just end for the love of god lol

God she is not great at speaking

Oh gotcha, I missed that. I saw B-man post the same thing about the Supreme Court saying shall equals may, which is really misleading because (1) that doesn't apply to virginia statutes and (2) it depends on the federal statute. many of the "shall"s in federal statutes still mean must, not may. But I wasn't aware of the federal government's switch to must, which is good to avoid all this confusion. I mentioned a few pages ago that my state, Minnesota, is going through a switch as well. I think I said it was going from "must" to "shall," but I could have it backwards. And when I was in school, I was taught the meaning of shall depends on the statute. My only personal experience is that "shall" is much more common than "must" at the federal and state level, and generally means must. The plain language movement as a whole is very new. But to your main point, I strongly disagree the switch from must to shall in the VA bill was to provide more wiggle room for the same reasons I mentioned before. I don't think there can be much debate on it. The fact the statute uses shall so many times in a mandatory sense is critical.

This is good twitter

I think I may have explained something incorrectly! I don't think the feds are changing "shall" to "must." I just meant that for the second amendment, the word "shall" looks to be the equivalent of "must." But I am not sure because its tough to assume anything about the constitution. I believe the word "shall" is much more common across both federal and state laws. And virginia isn't switching from "must" to "shall." It already mainly uses "shall." The abortion bill already used the word shall around 80 times or so (just using control F, could be off). It used the word "must" once. My explanation for why that "must" was being revised to "shall" was to keep it consistent with the rest of the statute. Geesh that's a mouthful and I doubt it made sense. But I am confident that the proposed "shall" in the proposed virginia bill meant must, and it was just being changed to "shall" because that is the word the rest of the statute used. Basically, the two words mean the same in the virginia bill!

I know very little about interpreting the constitution, but my assumption is shall would mean must. I'm not as confident about that relative to the virginia bill though.

Law is a strange tater to my friend! Yea, she is carrying the unborn child. Wrong place, wrong time? He ***** someone who wanted to have a child. And yea, I think there is great public polict in forcing parents to care for their children financially Well, here we are no longer talking about financially supporting a child, its a medical procedure that the women decided in favor of. I think these are all pretty consistent views. The woman has the choice to make, and the financial burden isn't shared with the man. But once a child is in this world, we want the mom and dad being financially responsible.

Yea, but I don't know what he is asking at all. Its probably me lol, sometimes I am slow!

Shall equals must in most circumstances (its not me proclaiming it, its just a fact). Including that proposed bill (and the statute that exists). So in your example, shall not be infringed generally would mean must not be infringed. But I don't really know specifically what you are talking about.

what do you mean

I mean, that's a whole different topic. Of course he should have fiscal responsibility. For a number of reasons. One of which is we don't fathers to be able to escape child support by stating they wanted an abortion. If he has to pay for abortion-related costs if he opposes the abortion? I don't know, I don't have any strong feelings on that. I would lean on saying he shouldn't have to assist with the expense.

Like I said before, an abortion is a tragic event and sucks. Including for the unborn. But as far as my opinion on what the law should be, I view the mother’s right as absolute, and hopefully it aligns with the dad’s wants. Haha no victory lap, you just misread something. I do it all the time! I mean I saw she made a lot of comments but I never read them. The only thing I know about her is she is okay with late term abortions, which I’m okay with.

Sams club does have a good seasoning selection I suppose. And some good frozen foods.

I empahthize with the mother and family more with an unborn child. It’s priority of empathy you have a problem with it. Beats me if you are! I just didn’t accuse you of lacking one, how would I know. I just don’t know anything about her, or her words. Other than I believe she is the lady who sponsored the bill.

Yea! Though interesting is a strong word haha. These statutes are almost always written poorly with a ton of issues, so you'll see states choose shall or must, and overtime, try to make all of their statutes say one thing. My state, minnesota, I believe passed a bill just going through all of the statutes and changing all of the musts to shalls. As in, that was the only point of the bill.