On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 10:49:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18. This isn't a
>>>>>real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>
>>>>Citations please?
>>>
>>>I know what I'm talking about, I was referring to within the U.S.,
>>>though, it should be noted.
>>
>>So you can't support your claim??
>
>
>I defy you to refute it.
>

Refute what? You've made an unsupported claim.

I don't do the homework of liberals.

>
>>>>Honestly hormone therapy should not be used before 18 either.
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>I'm glad we agree!
>
>
>We do not.

Laugh.

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:li2efjln9s4odngkhth65vhjivs8piqt40@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:02:26 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>So you're saying kids as young as 12 and possibly even lower should be
>>allowed to undergo irreversible life altering surgery?
>>
>>After all, since they can drive that must make them old enough, right?
>
> 12 is not old enough to drive. In what state is that the legal driving
> age?

A lot of states.. look up agriculture use.

No license required.. and usually no or a very low age limit.

However, since I know you lack the capacity to look up such matters.. let me
cite the law for my state.

"Article 2. When License Not Required.
§ 46.2-303. Licenses not required for operating road roller or farm tractor.
No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license to operate a road
roller or road machinery used under the supervision and control of the
Department of Transportation for construction or maintenance purposes. No
person shall be required to obtain a driver's license for the purpose of
operating any farm tractor, farm machinery, or vehicle defined in §§
46.2-663 through 46.2-674, temporarily drawn, moved, or propelled on the
highways. The term "road machinery" shall not include motor vehicles
required to be licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles."

Now, if you don't need a license then there is no age restriction. I started
driving tractors on road when I was around 10-11 years old.

So.. once again, I ask should a 12 year or possibly lower be allowed such
surgery?

On 9/30/2024 8:02 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:li2efjln9s4odngkhth65vhjivs8piqt40@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:02:26 -0500, "Scout"
>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So you're saying kids as young as 12 and possibly even lower should be
>>> allowed to undergo irreversible life altering surgery?
>>>
>>> After all, since they can drive that must make them old enough, right?
>>
>> 12 is not old enough to drive.  In what state is that the legal
>> driving age?
>
> A lot of states.. look up agriculture use.
>
> No license required.. and usually no or a very low age limit.
>
> However, since I know you lack the capacity to look up such matters..
> let me cite the law for my state.
>
> "Article 2. When License Not Required.
> § 46.2-303. Licenses not required for operating road roller or farm
> tractor.
> No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license to operate a
> road roller or road machinery used under the supervision and control of
> the Department of Transportation for construction or maintenance
> purposes. No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license for
> the purpose of operating any farm tractor, farm machinery, or vehicle
> defined in §§ 46.2-663 through 46.2-674, temporarily drawn, moved, or
> propelled on the highways. The term "road machinery" shall not include
> motor vehicles required to be licensed by the Department of Motor
> Vehicles."
>
> Now, if you don't need a license then there is no age restriction. I
> started driving tractors on road when I was around 10-11 years old.
>
> So.. once again, I ask should a 12 year or possibly lower be allowed
> such surgery?

Nope, and anyone who thinks they should, needs their head removed and
examined with red hot ice picks.

On 2024-09-30, Bill Pfister <nobody@there.org> wrote:
> On 9/30/2024 8:02 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:li2efjln9s4odngkhth65vhjivs8piqt40@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:02:26 -0500, "Scout"
>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So you're saying kids as young as 12 and possibly even lower should be
>>>> allowed to undergo irreversible life altering surgery?
>>>>
>>>> After all, since they can drive that must make them old enough, right?
>>>
>>> 12 is not old enough to drive.  In what state is that the legal
>>> driving age?
>>
>> A lot of states.. look up agriculture use.
>>
>> No license required.. and usually no or a very low age limit.
>>
>> However, since I know you lack the capacity to look up such matters..
>> let me cite the law for my state.
>>
>> "Article 2. When License Not Required.
>> § 46.2-303. Licenses not required for operating road roller or farm > "The
Snit List
> 163 People Who Condemn Snit Michael Glasser's Psychopath Behaviors"
>
> This list needs updating but you can follow the links to the original threads
> as most, not all, but most still exist and you can see how snit behaves and
in
> his own words.
>> tractor.
>> No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license to operate a
>> road roller or road machinery used under the supervision and control of
>> the Department of Transportation for construction or maintenance
>> purposes. No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license for
>> the purpose of operating any farm tractor, farm machinery, or vehicle
>> defined in §§ 46.2-663 through 46.2-674, temporarily drawn, moved, or
>> propelled on the highways. The term "road machinery" shall not include
>> motor vehicles required to be licensed by the Department of Motor
>> Vehicles."
>>
>> Now, if you don't need a license then there is no age restriction. I
>> started driving tractors on road when I was around 10-11 years old.
>>
>> So.. once again, I ask should a 12 year or possibly lower be allowed
>> such surgery?
>
> Nope, and anyone who thinks they should, needs their head removed and
> examined with red hot ice picks.
>

And in any case, the parents should be the first people contacted.
Keeping this information from parents is not right.
These people need mental health therapy and it should be the first line of
treatment.

Of course it does not generate as much income as transitioning does so follow
the money.

--
pothead
Kamala Harris Word Salad Special Of The Day
Served Complete With Venn Diagram Dressing

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:atbbfj560p2ebge86bmn36eapk28m6ib6m@4ax.com...
>> Mittens Romney <robberbaron@invalid.ut> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm not God.
>>>>>
>>>>> But His will will come to pass.
>>>>
>>>> Look at my first and last initials below - I definitely am doing "His"
>>>> will.
>>>
>>>You are not of God, that much is evident.
>>
>> Guess again, I'm the second coming of Christ. The New Testament talks
>> explicitly about me.
>
>That would be the anti-christ then.

No, that's Trump.

>Meanwhile, let's just add this to the list of things you're delusional
>about.

Which is zero, in reality.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>>>>>It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18. This isn't a
>>>>>>real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Citations please?
>>>>
>>>>I know what I'm talking about, I was referring to within the U.S.,
>>>>though, it should be noted.
>>>
>>>So you can't support your claim??
>>
>>I defy you to refute it.
>
>Refute what? You've made an unsupported claim.
>
>I don't do the homework of liberals.

In other words, you can't hear a wise person when you see one.

>>>>>Honestly hormone therapy should not be used before 18 either.
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>I'm glad we agree!
>>
>>We do not.
>
>Laugh.

Enjoy it.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18. This isn't a
>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>
>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.

Wrong.

>If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to pay for
>this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any future
>costs than may result from it.
>
>Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say 'no'
>then the above conditions above would apply.

What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?

> If they chose to proceed, then
>a Court would have to render an independent judgment for the minor as to the
>acceptability of such, and the parents would have to accept whatever
>current and future costs and liabilities that might exist due to this to
>whatever amount the judge decides. If they don't like that decision they can
>still say 'no'.
>
>After 21 the person can mutilate their body however they want as long as
>they can afford to pay for it. The parents would have no legal obligation to
>be involved or provide funds to do so nor would they ever be liable for such
>a decision or the ramifications of that decision even if taken to court, as
>they are now a legal adult and totally responsible for their own decisions
>and the consequences of those decisions.
>
>In short. once you are a legal adult you can make your own decisions and
>assume the expense and results of those decisions.
>
>As a minor, your parents/law decide. If it's a matter of law, then the
>parents should not be liable for any part of it, including monetary.

Drivel.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:

>"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18. This isn't a
>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>
>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>
>
>Wrong.

Correct. It's wrong, and any parent OR doctor even attempting to
perform such surgery should be put to death.

[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:

>>Meanwhile, let's just add this to the list of things you're delusional
>>about.
>
>
>Which is zero, in reality.

You have no idea what reality is

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:
>[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>>"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18. This isn't a
>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>
>>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>
>>Wrong.
>
>Correct. It's wrong, and any parent OR doctor even attempting to
>perform such surgery should be put to death.

Wrong, these are 16 and 17 year-old individuals who are strongly
identified as and supported as transgender. You can fuck right the
fuck off.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[Default] ??????????Jen?????????? Dershmender ????????????????????
<root@127.0.0.1> typed:

>Are you sure you have the intestinal fortitude to try killing someone, Klaus?

That's why we have the Government.

[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>>>"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18. This isn't a
>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>
>>>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>Correct. It's wrong, and any parent OR doctor even attempting to
>>perform such surgery should be put to death.
>
>
>Wrong,

No, correct.

> these are 16 and 17 year-old individuals who are strongly
>identified as and supported as transgender.

Wrong. They are children. Any tranny supporters who try to manipulate
them and convince them to share the same mental illness you suffer
from need to be tortured, tried, and put to death.

> You can fuck right the fuck off.

No, I don't think I will. Why don't you try to turn me into wine,
instead, Jesus?

"Bill Pfister" <nobody@there.org> wrote in message
news:vdercu$17lqv$1@news.mixmin.net...
> On 9/30/2024 8:02 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:li2efjln9s4odngkhth65vhjivs8piqt40@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:02:26 -0500, "Scout"
>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So you're saying kids as young as 12 and possibly even lower should be
>>>> allowed to undergo irreversible life altering surgery?
>>>>
>>>> After all, since they can drive that must make them old enough, right?
>>>
>>> 12 is not old enough to drive. In what state is that the legal driving
>>> age?
>>
>> A lot of states.. look up agriculture use.
>>
>> No license required.. and usually no or a very low age limit.
>>
>> However, since I know you lack the capacity to look up such matters.. let
>> me cite the law for my state.
>>
>> "Article 2. When License Not Required.
>> § 46.2-303. Licenses not required for operating road roller or farm
>> tractor.
>> No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license to operate a
>> road roller or road machinery used under the supervision and control of
>> the Department of Transportation for construction or maintenance
>> purposes. No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license for
>> the purpose of operating any farm tractor, farm machinery, or vehicle
>> defined in §§ 46.2-663 through 46.2-674, temporarily drawn, moved, or
>> propelled on the highways. The term "road machinery" shall not include
>> motor vehicles required to be licensed by the Department of Motor
>> Vehicles."
>>
>> Now, if you don't need a license then there is no age restriction. I
>> started driving tractors on road when I was around 10-11 years old.
>>
>> So.. once again, I ask should a 12 year or possibly lower be allowed such
>> surgery?
>
> Nope, and anyone who thinks they should, needs their head removed and
> examined with red hot ice picks.

Well, Rudy.. here's someone that wants to shove red hot spikes into your
skull..

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kbpnfjtpqul18c9ptjhki32rguv5gief9l@4ax.com...
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:atbbfj560p2ebge86bmn36eapk28m6ib6m@4ax.com...
>>> Mittens Romney <robberbaron@invalid.ut> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I'm not God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But His will will come to pass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at my first and last initials below - I definitely am doing "His"
>>>>> will.
>>>>
>>>>You are not of God, that much is evident.
>>>
>>> Guess again, I'm the second coming of Christ. The New Testament talks
>>> explicitly about me.
>>
>>That would be the anti-christ then.
>
>
> No, that's Trump.

Trump isn't mentioned in the bible you claim to be and since you clearly
aren't Jesus that narrows down the field of who you can be quite a bit.

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:0aqnfj9r6nfdjhhn70ce1ff0h4fa7d09l6@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> [Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>
>>>Meanwhile, let's just add this to the list of things you're delusional
>>>about.
>>
>>
>>Which is zero, in reality.
>
> You have no idea what reality is

He probably thinks it is his delusions about it.

I mean recently he's taken to claiming to be a biblical person.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:egpnfjlhun1akuajni7kqmaujecnkm5mi9@4ax.com...
> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>>>>This isn't a
>>>>>>>real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Citations please?
>>>>>
>>>>>I know what I'm talking about, I was referring to within the U.S.,
>>>>>though, it should be noted.
>>>>
>>>>So you can't support your claim??
>>>
>>>I defy you to refute it.
>>
>>Refute what? You've made an unsupported claim.
>>
>>I don't do the homework of liberals.
>
>
> In other words, you can't hear a wise person when you see one.

Well, we certainly haven't seen you, which means you must not be a wise
person.

I think we will just acknowledge your inability to back up your asserted
Bullshit.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ropnfj94b5bmok288ftcrnoerglras27tu@4ax.com...
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>> This isn't a
>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>
>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>
>
> Wrong.

No, that's exactly factual.

>
>
>>If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to pay
>>for
>>this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any
>>future
>>costs than may result from it.
>>
>>Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say
>>'no'
>>then the above conditions above would apply.
>
>
> What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?

Because in all states 21 is the legal adult age were parents no longer have
any responsibly towards their child.

Now, if you can get all states to agree to 18, then we can lower it, but
since you are talking a national policy here, we have to go with the
highest.

I find it interesting that an adult of your asserted superiority wouldn't
know that.

>> If they chose to proceed, then
>>a Court would have to render an independent judgment for the minor as to
>>the
>>acceptability of such, and the parents would have to accept whatever
>>current and future costs and liabilities that might exist due to this to
>>whatever amount the judge decides. If they don't like that decision they
>>can
>>still say 'no'.
>>
>>After 21 the person can mutilate their body however they want as long as
>>they can afford to pay for it. The parents would have no legal obligation
>>to
>>be involved or provide funds to do so nor would they ever be liable for
>>such
>>a decision or the ramifications of that decision even if taken to court,
>>as
>>they are now a legal adult and totally responsible for their own decisions
>>and the consequences of those decisions.
>>
>>In short. once you are a legal adult you can make your own decisions and
>>assume the expense and results of those decisions.
>>
>>As a minor, your parents/law decide. If it's a matter of law, then the
>>parents should not be liable for any part of it, including monetary.
>
>
> Drivel.

Legal Fact.

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:o6qnfjpdreomg20huhgvebjunh0o8ji5qj@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> [Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>
>>"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>> This isn't a
>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>
>>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>
>>
>>Wrong.
>
> Correct. It's wrong, and any parent OR doctor even attempting to
> perform such surgery should be put to death.

Hey once they are an adult if they want to pay someone to slowly chop them
up alive into hamburger.. who cares?

Seems one less nut case to worry about.

Of course, despite any cosmetic changes they would still have to adhere to
the legal requirements of their legal sex as set forth on their birth
certificate.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4lqnfj5uek0a6bg65mfgu082acv7fadp6t@4ax.com...
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>>>"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>
>>>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>Correct. It's wrong, and any parent OR doctor even attempting to
>>perform such surgery should be put to death.
>
>
> Wrong, these are 16 and 17 year-old individuals who are strongly
> identified as and supported as transgender. You can fuck right the
> fuck off.

So children who are being tortured and mutilated by their parents and
doctors?

[Default] "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> typed:

>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
>in message
>news:0aqnfj9r6nfdjhhn70ce1ff0h4fa7d09l6@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>> [Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>>
>>>>Meanwhile, let's just add this to the list of things you're delusional
>>>>about.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which is zero, in reality.
>>
>> You have no idea what reality is
>
>He probably thinks it is his delusions about it.
>
>I mean recently he's taken to claiming to be a biblical person.
>
>

Couldn't he just go around and wave his Magic Jesus Wand and turn
these kids into the sex they think they want to be?

On 10/1/2024 8:35 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:

>
>
> "Bill Pfister" <nobody@there.org> wrote in message
> news:vdercu$17lqv$1@news.mixmin.net...
>> On 9/30/2024 8:02 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:li2efjln9s4odngkhth65vhjivs8piqt40@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:02:26 -0500, "Scout"
>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying kids as young as 12 and possibly even lower should be
>>>>> allowed to undergo irreversible life altering surgery?
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, since they can drive that must make them old enough, right?
>>>>
>>>> 12 is not old enough to drive.  In what state is that the legal driving age?
>>>
>>> A lot of states.. look up agriculture use.
>>>
>>> No license required.. and usually no or a very low age limit.
>>>
>>> However, since I know you lack the capacity to look up such matters.. let me
>>> cite the law for my state.
>>>
>>> "Article 2. When License Not Required.
>>> § 46.2-303. Licenses not required for operating road roller or farm tractor.
>>> No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license to operate a road
>>> roller or road machinery used under the supervision and control of the
>>> Department of Transportation for construction or maintenance purposes. No
>>> person shall be required to obtain a driver's license for the purpose of
>>> operating any farm tractor, farm machinery, or vehicle defined in §§ 46.2-663
>>> through 46.2-674, temporarily drawn, moved, or propelled on the highways. The
>>> term "road machinery" shall not include motor vehicles required to be
>>> licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles."
>>>
>>> Now, if you don't need a license then there is no age restriction. I started
>>> driving tractors on road when I was around 10-11 years old.
>>>
>>> So.. once again, I ask should a 12 year or possibly lower be allowed such
>>> surgery?
>>
>> Nope, and anyone who thinks they should, needs their head removed and examined
>> with red hot ice picks.
>
> Well, Rudy..

You weren't replying to Rudy, scooter.

On 10/1/2024 8:36 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:

>
>
> "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kbpnfjtpqul18c9ptjhki32rguv5gief9l@4ax.com...
>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:atbbfj560p2ebge86bmn36eapk28m6ib6m@4ax.com...
>>>> Mittens Romney <robberbaron@invalid.ut> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But His will will come to pass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at my first and last initials below - I definitely am doing "His"
>>>>>> will.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not of God, that much is evident.
>>>>
>>>> Guess again, I'm the second coming of Christ.  The New Testament talks
>>>> explicitly about me.
>>>
>>> That would be the anti-christ then.
>>
>>
>> No, that's Trump.
>
> Trump isn't mentioned in the bible

Actually, scooter, he is. Trump is the anti-christ.

On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 08:10:16 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18. This isn't a
>>>>>>>real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Citations please?
>>>>>
>>>>>I know what I'm talking about, I was referring to within the U.S.,
>>>>>though, it should be noted.
>>>>
>>>>So you can't support your claim??
>>>
>>>I defy you to refute it.
>>
>>Refute what? You've made an unsupported claim.
>>
>>I don't do the homework of liberals.
>
>
>In other words, you can't hear a wise person when you see one.
>

No, in other words, I don't do the homework of those who won't support
their clams.

>
>>>>>>Honestly hormone therapy should not be used before 18 either.
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>I'm glad we agree!
>>>
>>>We do not.
>>
>>Laugh.
>
>
>Enjoy it.

I did thanks.

NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18. This isn't a
>>>>>>>>real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Citations please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I know what I'm talking about, I was referring to within the U.S.,
>>>>>>though, it should be noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>So you can't support your claim??
>>>>
>>>>I defy you to refute it.
>>>
>>>Refute what? You've made an unsupported claim.
>>>
>>>I don't do the homework of liberals.
>>
>>In other words, you can't hear a wise person when you see one.
>
>No, in other words, I don't do the homework of those who won't support
>their clams.

So, *you* won't do "the homework" of checking it out for yourself, you
want me to prove something I already know to be true. Fuck off and
die, burn in hell.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 10/2/2024 4:53 PM, Joel wrote:
> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18. This isn't a
>>>>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Citations please?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know what I'm talking about, I was referring to within the U.S.,
>>>>>>> though, it should be noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you can't support your claim??
>>>>>
>>>>> I defy you to refute it.
>>>>
>>>> Refute what? You've made an unsupported claim.
>>>>
>>>> I don't do the homework of liberals.
>>>
>>> In other words, you can't hear a wise person when you see one.
>>
>> No, in other words, I don't do the homework of those who won't support
>> their clams.
>
>
> So, *you* won't do "the homework" of checking it out for yourself, you
> want me to prove something I already know to be true. Fuck off and
> die, burn in hell.

What you "know" is generally well-lubricated delusion.