Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I thought her MO sounded awfully left-leaning.
No matter how smart you make yourself sound, you are still an idiot.
Says who? A fetus is a person. Two people = a carpoolA fetus can't carpool.
That makes no difference according to Texas law.A fetus is a human being that is attached to the mother.
According to the most recent federal data, there are currently more than 400,000 children in foster care in the United States. They range in age from infants to 21 years old (in some states). The average age of a child in foster care is more than 8 years old, and there are slightly more boys than girls.
About the children
View attachment 668832
Cuts in Nutrition Assistance Would Make It Harder for Families to Afford Food
The 2019 Trump budget cuts SNAP by more than $213 billion over the next ten years — or by nearly 30 percent. It imposes large benefit cuts on most households even though current benefits average just $1.40 per person per meal, and radically restructures how benefits are delivered. It also includes other benefit and eligibility cuts that would cause at least 4 million people to lose SNAP benefits altogether. The cuts would affect every category of SNAP participant, including the unemployed, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and low-income working families with children.
Cuts in Housing and Energy Assistance Would Make It Harder for Families to Pay Rent
As discussed below, the President’s budget includes substantial cuts in non-defense programs —programs outside defense that are funded each year through the annual appropriations process. Among these are substantial cuts in low-income housing programs that would affect a broad swath of low-income households, including several million working families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The 2019 Trump budget proposes the largest retrenchment of federal housing aid since the U.S. Housing Act was enacted in 1937.
Raises rents on low-income families with HUD rental assistance. Nearly all households receiving rental assistance that are headed by a person who is not 62 or older or disabled would have to spend 35 percent of their income on rent, up from 30 percent under current law. Working families would bear the bulk of such rent increases and be especially hard hit, because they also could no longer subtract child care expenses from their incomes in determining their rent payments (i.e., rents would be raised from 30 percent of income after deductions for costs like child care to 35 percent of gross income).
- Cancels Housing Choice Vouchers — which help low-income households afford private, modest apartments — for about 200,000 low-income households. These cuts would hit extremely low-income seniors, people with disabilities, and working families with children hard, undercut community efforts to reduce homelessness, and weaken housing stability, which is critical to children’s development and school attendance.
The budget also raises the minimum monthly rent to $150, which means rents would triple or more for the poorest families; this change would largely hit households that live below half of the poverty line, and it would likely result in more evictions and homelessness.
The budget also eliminates the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), which provides $1.7 billion in flexible funding to states each year for services such as child care, day programs for seniors and people with disabilities, services for homeless individuals and families, and others.
Trump Budget Deeply Cuts Health, Housing, Other Assistance for Low- and Moderate-Income Families | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
& ^^^ that ^^^ doesn't take into account the 2017 tax cuts.
It is well established that conservatives/Republicans are far more generous in giving what is rightfully ours to give, to support worthy charities to help those who are less fortunate
Says who? A fetus is a person. Two people = a carpool
You can't make a distinction unless the HOV law excludes a fetus as a person for purposes of carpooling (which, I haven't looked recently, but as far as I know, it does not).
That makes no difference according to Texas law.
That's the point.
Texas law is unclear.
We let states decide on their own and let them clean up their own messes. This is a mess.
Only when you count giving to their local church as "charitable" giving. And 90% of that money stays with the church. It is a scam
I cannot speak for all churches, but look up Deseret Industries. That's the primary charitable arm of my church. It makes far better use of money, time, and other valuable resources that are donated to my church for charity than any corrupt government scam.
And it is supported exclusively by voluntary donations.
What I said is very different. As I'm sure you realize.So, if I'm the only white person in my car, but I have passengers who are black, Jewish, or some other sort that have historically been denied personhood, should I not be allowed to use the HOV lane?
How is what you said any different?
Good to know you're a virtue signaling useful idiot, gaytime.
That's why no one ever accuses me of being a virtue signaler.This is sort of a new tactic by you all on the alt-right. Any time someone is not a total asshole you accuse them of virtue signaling.
Interesting.
Says who? A fetus is a person. Two people = a carpool
You can't make a distinction unless the HOV law excludes a fetus as a person for purposes of carpooling (which, I haven't looked recently, but as far as I know, it does not).
That makes no difference according to Texas law.
That's the point.
Texas law is unclear.
We let states decide on their own and let them clean up their own messes. This is a mess.
Only in your feeble pee brain.Only when you count giving to their local church as "charitable" giving. And 90% of that money stays with the church. It is a scam
Exactly. But, no car seat. Technically, the baby was sharing a seatbelt, but should have had a state-approved restraint device.They should have dropped the HOV violation but gave her a ticket for the fetus not wearing a seatbelt.
Exactly. But, no car seat. Technically, the baby was sharing a seatbelt, but should have had a state-approved restraint device.
Not an accusation, but an observation. As in, you're both a total asshole and a virtue signaling useful idiot, GaslightGaytor.This is sort of a new tactic by you all on the alt-right. Any time someone is not a total asshole you accuse them of virtue signaling.
Interesting.
Is this whole thread, and the original incident, actually a sort of propaganda in favor of asserting that fetuses are independent citizens? Was that Texas woman really an activist?I have posted the law a couple times now. It merely states there has to be two people or more in the car.
Is this whole thread, and the original incident, actually a sort of propaganda in favor of asserting that fetuses are independent citizens? Was that Texas woman really an activist?
Darn, I thought the whole thing was a joke, a Reader's Digest-type joke.
Now I wonder if indeed she was making a political point, perhaps to test that (and many other) laws that do NOT consider pregnant women as "two people."I have no idea about who the woman was, but she should be able to get out of the ticket based on the wording of the POV Lane laws
