Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:27 pm

*fire emoji*

I still love the KY state representative who proposed a bill requiring a wife's written permission to get a script for viagra.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:43 pm I still love the KY state representative who proposed a bill requiring a wife's written permission to get a script for viagra.

Don't married men have to have their wife sign off on getting a vasectomy?

And they aren't 100% reversible. I think there is a chance the reversing procedure doesn't work....?

I do know someone who had it reversed fwiw.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:26 pm I out my Catholic friend on the spot about it:

How can you be pro-life if you also support a guy who let 215000+ And counting die on his watch, and is also pro-war, pro gun, pro-death penalty, and also also seems cool with cops brutalizing citizens, among other things?

...but...but...abortion!

Republicans believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. They legislate accordingly

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:55 pm

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:43 pm I still love the KY state representative who proposed a bill requiring a wife's written permission to get a script for viagra.

Don't married men have to have their wife sign off on getting a vasectomy?

Dunno, but it's totally irrelevant.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:55 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:55 pm

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:43 pm I still love the KY state representative who proposed a bill requiring a wife's written permission to get a script for viagra.

Don't married men have to have their wife sign off on getting a vasectomy?

Dunno, but it's totally irrelevant.

I wasn't brining it up as a rebuttal to anything....just as a stand alone statement. In IL i am 99% sure your wife has to sign off on it. Not sure about other states.

I think women AND men should have 100% control over their own body. So i don't necessarily agree with a wife having to sign off on a vasectomy. Just as i wouldn't agree with a husband being required to sign off on an abortion.


I think the extreme pro-life people should be more supportive of various forms of birth control availability for women. That way less abortions for unwanted babies are needed. I don't think hardly ANY women (like almost NONE) use abortions as their main form "birth control".

there is actually a valve that can be put in the vas deferens, rather than just snipping

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:24 pm there is actually a valve that can be put in the vas deferens, rather than just snipping

It makes me quiver even thinking about it. I am not sure i would have the guts to go thru with it.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpdw7/ ... ing-people

not that any of these red flags are going to matter, but...

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:27 pm https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpdw7/ ... ing-people

not that any of these red flags are going to matter, but...

Yikes. Scary stuff.

"Thicklen’s abhorrent acts were in no way actuated by a purpose to serve [the] County,” the judges wrote. “He raped Martin for purely personal reasons, the rapes did not benefit [the] County but harmed it, he knew the rapes did not serve [the] County, and the rapes were outside the scope” of Thicklen’s employment and duties.

Should the county have better safeguards in place or was there really no way the county should have been responsible for preventing this? Is that why the county wasn't responsible for financial compensation to the victim?

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:55 pm "Thicklen’s abhorrent acts were in no way actuated by a purpose to serve [the] County,” the judges wrote. “He raped Martin for purely personal reasons, the rapes did not benefit [the] County but harmed it, he knew the rapes did not serve [the] County, and the rapes were outside the scope” of Thicklen’s employment and duties.

Should the county have better safeguards in place or was there really no way the county should have been responsible for preventing this? Is that why the county wasn't responsible for financial compensation to the victim?

They overturned it because he didn't explicitly rape her as part of his job, just while he was working his job. The notion that they were not responsible for their employee is completely insane.

I am no attorney, and neither are you, but apparently it is not quite as cut and dry as you want it to be?

And it wasn't simply because he didn't rape her as part of his job, it was because his actions caused harm to the county and not benefits to the county. He raped her for personal reasons....so like i said, maybe not as cut and dry as you want it to be?

And obviously you are looking for reasons to hate her (which i guess i understand to an extent), so i realize it is a bit hard for you to be objective. And it is tough for non attorneys like you and I to truly understand laws and details of civil suits such as this.

Oh yes it is. You have an obligation to ensure safety and oversight of imprisoned people. And not decapitating water park goers.
Barrett itching to take away social security too. She doesn’t judge so much as veto the majority of Americans.

Sounds like if you pull someone in your office and rape them tomorrow that it would be hard to win a civil suit against your employer for millions? That doesn't seem all that insane to me. YOU should be the one held criminally snd civily responsible...but it does have shock value to see that case was overturned. So i get it. Like i said, i am no attorney, so i will defer to attorneys and judges on that stuff i suppose.

Theoretically shouldn't the employer be able to collect damages from the employee in a situation where something like that happens?

Uh.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:20 am Uh.

Keep the ACA though.