Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

The distinction I'm trying to make is that the law clearly defines rights by age, minors having a limited set of rights vs an adult.

Please read me the rights of a fetus. Good luck finding them, because they are not even a person. If a fetus is a person then wanking off is murder.

As I understand it, if you kill a pregnant woman, and the fetus dies, you can be charged with 2 murders. So much for the argument that a fetus isn't a person.

And wanking off is not murder, any more than the woman's monthly discharge of an unfertilized egg is. It's not until AFTER Mr. Sperm meets ms. Egg. Or at least that's how humans work. Perhaps lizards are different?

[Chaka-Z0]

As I understand it, if you kill a pregnant woman, and the fetus dies, you can be charged with 2 murders. So much for the argument that a fetus isn't a person.

And wanking off is not murder, any more than the woman's monthly discharge of an unfertilized egg is. It's not until AFTER Mr. Sperm meets ms. Egg. Or at least that's how humans work. Perhaps lizards are different?

Well if someone can murder the unborn who knows maybe that's the case too.

I'm actually reviving the living right now.

[Annoyed]

Well if someone can murder the unborn who knows maybe that's the case too.

I'm actually reviving the living right now.

If they are living, why do they need reviving? Or is this some strange lizard ritual?

[Gatefan1976]

Or help, or healthcare, or a living wage, or a chance to be homeowners.
You don't give a damn about life, you just want to interfere with others.

[Annoyed]

Or help, or healthcare, or a living wage, or a chance to be homeowners.
You don't give a damn about life, you just want to interfere with others.

Not sure which post you're responding to, but it sounds like abortion; babies who are NOT aborted.

Very few (basically the offspring of the rich) are guaranteed any of these things.

How many times do I have to say it? If a couple can't afford to feed, clothe and raise a child, maybe they shouldn't be engaging in activity that results in children? Or at least purchase & use effective contraception?

Again, same question I asked aretood2. Why is the concept of responsible behavior outside your universe? It never even occurs to you that it is a solution to the problem. People are not animals, they have minds and free will. They can make choices. What is wrong with making responsible choices?

[Chaka-Z0]

Again, same question I asked aretood2. Why is the concept of responsible behavior outside your universe? It never even occurs to you that it is a solution to the problem. People are not animals, they have minds and free will. They can make choices. What is wrong with making responsible choices?

What is wrong with giving a second chances to those who made the wrong choice? If you get a woman pregnant you can't fix that, there's only two options keep it or leave it.

Are you exempt of making mistakes? Never did stupid things when you were drunk at party? Never woke up next to a coworker and realized you had unprotected sex which could've resulted in an unwanted pregnancy from both parts(oh wait that's me)?

[Annoyed]

What is wrong with giving a second chances to those who made the wrong choice? If you get a woman pregnant you can't fix that, there's only two options keep it or leave it.

Are you exempt of making mistakes? Never did stupid things when you were drunk at party? Never woke up next to a coworker and realized you had unprotected sex which could've resulted in an unwanted pregnancy from both parts(oh wait that's me)?

I have made my share of stupid mistakes, believe me. But I've always taken responsibility for them, one way or another. To this day, I am paying the cost of a few of them in one way or another. I've never made that particular mistake, but if I had, there were options besides killing the child, depending upon what the mother chose to do. If she chose to abort, I couldn't have stopped it, if she chose to carry to term and give it up for adoption, I couldn't have stopped that either. But if she chose to carry to term and raise it, I would have had to marry and or otherwise support the child.

[Chaka-Z0]

If she chose to abort, I couldn't have stopped it, if she chose to carry to term and give it up for adoption, I couldn't have stopped that either. But if she chose to carry to term and raise it, I would have had to marry and or otherwise support the child.

I think exactly the same thing, I remember at the time I was mentally preparing myself to get two jobs but luckily for us both nothing came out of it.

It's her choice after all isn't it? Then why are you supporting the ban on abortion from Alabama?

[Annoyed]

I think exactly the same thing, I remember at the time I was mentally preparing myself to get two jobs but luckily for us both nothing came out of it.

It's her choice after all isn't it? Then why are you supporting the ban on abortion from Alabama?

No matter whose choice it is, it's still murdering a child.

[Annoyed]

And in another fine example of NY's idiocy...

New York Passes Bill Giving Congress a Way to Get Trump’s State Tax Returns

Article 1 of the US Constitution forbids ex-post-facto (or retroactive) legislation, so this can't apply to Trump's past returns.

[Chaka-Z0]

And in another fine example of NY's idiocy...

New York Passes Bill Giving Congress a Way to Get Trump’s State Tax Returns

Article 1 of the US Constitution forbids ex-post-facto (or retroactive) legislation, so this can't apply to Trump's past returns.

First off, I just read the whole article 1 and there's not a single mention of that anywhere, and secondo, you don't understand what past legislation / retroactive legislation means.

Retroactive legislation would be criminalizing something and then actively pursuing folks that have committed said crime in the past. In a nutshell, you couldn't sue someone for their past legal actions because they became illegal today.

[Annoyed]

First off, I just read the whole article 1 and there's not a single mention of that anywhere, and secondo, you don't understand what past legislation / retroactive legislation means.

Retroactive legislation would be criminalizing something and then actively pursuing folks that have committed said crime in the past. In a nutshell, you couldn't sue someone for their past legal actions because they became illegal today.

And as you just said, they couldn't go after Trump's PAST tax returns under that legislation. They could go after FUTURE returns, but not past ones.

[Chaka-Z0]

And as you just said, they couldn't go after Trump's PAST tax returns under that legislation. They could go after FUTURE returns, but not past ones.

I didn't say that and that's wrong as well buddy. Normal timeframe for the IRS to drop charges is 3 years, up to 6 if it's 25% or more of the total taxes, and can go unlimited depending on the nature of the charges.

It gets worse. Although the IRS is limited to how far back it can look when filing charges in criminal court, there is no statute of limitations for civil tax fraud. This means the IRS can look back as far as it wants when suing for civil fraud. In practice the IRS rarely goes back more than 6 years because it has a high enough burden of proof to meet in fraud cases without having to deal with the added difficulties of proving older charges.

https://www.optimataxrelief.com/tax-...e-limitations/

[Annoyed]

I didn't say that and that's wrong as well buddy. Normal timeframe for the IRS to drop charges is 3 years, up to 6 if it's 25% or more of the total taxes, and can go unlimited depending on the nature of the charges.


https://www.optimataxrelief.com/tax-...e-limitations/

But the NYS law in question is to allow STATE returns to be release to the House. Different ballgame. The House is NOT the IRS, and the IRS has no jurisdiction over STATE returns.

[Chaka-Z0]

But the NYS law in question is to allow STATE returns to be release to the House. Different ballgame. The House is NOT the IRS, and the IRS has no jurisdiction over STATE returns.

The State and the IRS share tax informations between them btw, and that legislation piece isn't targeting Trump directly, lawyers made sure it was ironclad. Also considering his headquarters are in NY, the state taxes and the federal taxes should be nearly identical, perhaps giving grounds to further push for the federal tax disclosure. All this BS because your King refuses to disclose his taxes.

Also, it's absolute BS that Trump won't release his tax reports as privacy to those reports isn't covered by Constitutional law.

Ultimately I mean we're not lawyers so I might be wrong and you as well, constitutional law is a mess as it is, but the goal is to give bad press to Trump for the upcoming election, which I completely support. Lock him up.