Fogbow

Some clips from Pence interview with Bartiromo.

Because mass shooters always seem so concerned about preserving their own lives. This will stop them for sure.

Because mass shooters always seem so concerned about preserving their own lives. This will stop them for sure.

I know Pence is just trying to stay relevant, but most murders are prosecuted at the state level. And many states that have the death penalty impose it for those who kill more than one person.

And what Pence is suggesting is almost certainly unconstitutional. "Mass shooting" has no fixed meaning, but it certainly implies multiple shooting victims, and not necessarily multiple murder victims. SCOTUS already has said the death penalty is unconstitutional for basically any crime (excepting treason, etc.) that isn't murder.

The federal death penalty is rarely sought because there has to be a nexus to the federal government, like blowing up a federal building. Pence's imaginary proposed law would need to be well-drafted to avoid being an overreach by the federal government.

And, to state the obvious, many mass shooters don't survive; it is a form of suicide-by-cop. So this is another "solution" looking for a problem.

Another principled small-government, federalist conservative.

bob wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 1:48 pmPence's imaginary proposed law would need to be well-drafted to avoid being an overreach by the federal government.

And, to state the obvious, many mass shooters don't survive; it is a form of suicide-by-cop. So this is another "solution" looking for a problem.

Rememer who would be drafting such legislation in this congress: Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gomert and Emptygee. So "well drafted" is not going to happen.

Its a solution looking for an audience. A MAGA audience.

It also serves, at least in Pence's mind, to draw attention away from the "shooters" part of the equation, i.e. gun control.

noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 2:36 pm

Rememer who would be drafting such legislation in this congress: Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gomert and Emptygee. So "well drafted" is not going to happen.

Its a solution looking for an audience. A MAGA audience.

It also serves, at least in Pence's mind, to draw attention away from the "shooters" part of the equation, i.e. gun control.

Gomert is no longer in Congress....

Frater I*I wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 3:42 pm

noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 2:36 pm

Rememer who would be drafting such legislation in this congress: Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gomert and Emptygee. So "well drafted" is not going to happen.

Its a solution looking for an audience. A MAGA audience.

It also serves, at least in Pence's mind, to draw attention away from the "shooters" part of the equation, i.e. gun control.

Gomert is no longer in Congress....

Oops. I forgot. The point is still valid.

noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 4:44 pm

Oops. I forgot. The point is still valid.

Indeed

Pence says he will not appeal ruling that he must testify to Jack Smith's grand jury (stories everywhere).

I hope he's upping his security.

Pence: The Supreme Court.. returned the question of abortion to the states.. but it didn't just return it exclusively to the states. This isn’t a states only decision. We have elected representatives in the US Congress and we’ll elect a president in 2024

Pence: I’d like to see this medication off the market.. but I also have deep concerns about the way the FDA went about approving Mifepristone 20 years ago.

Kendra wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 7:12 pm

Pence: I’d like to see this medication off the market.. but I also have deep concerns about the way the FDA went about approving Mifepristone 20 years ago.

Last time I checked Pence had a law degree, not a medical degree, so maybe I’m not too concerned about his deep concerns.

"Sanctity of life...."


From an asshole who supports the death penalty....

@LEBassett
Sir we do not give a shit what you think about the abortion pill people have been taking very safely for over two decades, it has absolutely nothing to do with you, you are not a scientist or doctor or pharmacologist or even a person with a uterus, please get another hobby

My question is that if the FDA was so bad in how they handled approving this drug, why did nobody protest it or try to get it removed from the market before now? I know the answer is basically that Dobbs gave them the hope the newer more conservative court would agree to ban it even if they should never have taken the case in the first place, but I want to hear THEIR explanation for the 20 year delay. I mean, did they *just* discover these problems? If the problems are so bad that it needs to be banned, why did it take 20 years to find them? And if they knew about them sooner, then why did it take 20 years to file the damned suit?

Bullshit. It's all just so much bullshit.

And why aren't they going after Viagra?

keith wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:18 am And why aren't they going after Viagra?

There are an awful lot of us wondering that exact same thing.

I don't get what Viagra has to do with the other drug. Other than a lazy attempt to find some kind of equivalence to say Men are evil and hypocrites. The effects of Viagra are nothing like the effects of the Abortion drug. I guess Lube would be the equivalent of Viagra for Women, not the Abortion drug.

And aside from anything else, women are against Abortion too, ya know. Including women who have had one. So making it an easy battle of the sexes is pretty much wrong. And Men benefit from abortion at least as much as Women, if not more.

Suranis wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:07 pm

Let me simply this for you...

Here in the US fundies consider pregnancy the will of god for having them having sex, and as such the woman should be forced to give birth, even if she is unable to support the child, or can't carry it to term, ect...

So the other side of the coin is impotence is god's will, and hence any medical procedure that would circumvent that will should be outlawed...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I agree with our FogBelles on this one...

Suranis wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:07 pm I don't get what Viagra has to do with the other drug.

Viagra has a higher death-rate than Mifepristone. Simples...

How safe is the abortion pill compared with other common drugs

Domenico wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 11:37 pm

Suranis wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:07 pm I don't get what Viagra has to do with the other drug.

Viagra has a higher death-rate than Mifepristone. Simples...

How safe is the abortion pill compared with other common drugs

This. What bad FDA procedures allowed this poison to be approved?

Frater I*I wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:37 pm

Suranis wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:07 pm

Let me simply this for you...

Here in the US fundies consider pregnancy the will of god for having them having sex, and as such the woman should be forced to give birth, even if she is unable to support the child, or can't carry it to term, ect...

So the other side of the coin is impotence is god's will, and hence any medical procedure that would circumvent that will should be outlawed...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I agree with our FogBelles on this one...

Thank you.

As I understand it, there is six year statute of limitations to contest and FDA approval.

Obviously, this is one of the main problems with this case. The drug was approved 20 years ago.

Another problem is our old friend, standing. According to one legal talking head that I heard, the party who brought the lawsuit didn't have standing to do so. The plaintiff, the Alliance Defending Freedom, can hardly claim that their organization suffered real hard from the drug. A drug can't harm an organization. They should have found some woman who took the drug and suffered a bad outcome.

noblepa wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 8:11 pm As I understand it, there is six year statute of limitations to contest and FDA approval.

Obviously, this is one of the main problems with this case. The drug was approved 20 years ago.

Another problem is our old friend, standing. According to one legal talking head that I heard, the party who brought the lawsuit didn't have standing to do so. The plaintiff, the Alliance Defending Freedom, can hardly claim that their organization suffered real hard from the drug. A drug can't harm an organization. They should have found some woman who took the drug and suffered a bad outcome.

You're saying these things as if we live under the rule of law, and not the rule of random partisan judges that make things up and do whatever they want.

But perhaps I am jaded.

keith wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:18 am And why aren't they going after Viagra?

IT is time for someone to start this quest!

wonder how we can get this to go viral-national?