BigRedBuster
Active member
[No message]
It's proving a point.I don’t care what your stance is on if a fetus is a baby or not, everyone should understand that this woman is an idiot.
It is actually. It's apparently not a person. Which is the only definition for using the HOV lane.No it’s not.
No….that’s not the intent of the law and she and everyone knows it. Which…..makes her attempt to make a point idiotic.It is actually. It's apparently not a person. Which is the only definition for using the HOV lane.
I disagree. It's an excellent point about unintended consequences of judicial rulings.No….that’s not the intent of the law and she and everyone knows it. Which…..makes her attempt to make a point idiotic.
No, it’s a stupid attempt at making a point.I disagree. It's an excellent point about unintended consequences of judicial rulings.
You can keep saying that but others such as myself can see the point she's making and it's a good one.No, it’s a stupid attempt at making a CB point.
I’m with the other guys on this one. The state can’t pick and choose when it is another person and when it isn’t. Yes, we all know what the intent is but, if that’s the case, then they need to reword their HOV laws to reflect that. The saying, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander seems applicable.No, it’s a stupid attempt at making a point.
The cops answer was all that needs said. Move on.
You're no fun Mr. CrabbypantsFine. All the state has to do is change the law to say humans that have been born.
end of story.
Fine. All the state has to do is change the law to say humans that have been born.
end of story.
Actually it's easier than that, but it's Texas so they'll probably screw it up. Just say something to the affect of 2+ seats occupied by people.Fine. All the state has to do is change the law to say humans that have been born.
end of story.