Reason Roundup

First Abortion Doc Sued Under New Texas Law

Plus: The link between college and moral absolutism, environmental activists vs. Facebook, and more...

|

It begins. A Texas physician who penned an op-ed about performing an abortion in defiance of the state's new ban on the procedure after six weeks is being targeted by a civil lawsuit. Physician Alan Braid—a doctor whose clinics are represented by one of the reproductive freedom groups that asked the Supreme Court (unsuccessfully) to intervene—was practically daring someone to sue him, with a piece that drew national attention to his prohibited act.

And his dare was successful: Someone is now suing Braid for performing an abortion once fetal cardiac activity could be detected, in violation of the Texas law.

The man behind the first lawsuit is Oscar Stilley, an Arkansas resident who describes himself as a "disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer" and is currently serving a home-based federal prison sentence for tax evasion. The Texas abortion ban was written to let any nongovernmental actor, regardless of location, bring a lawsuit, with the possibility of receiving $10,000 if successful.

"If the law is no good, why should we have to go through a long, drawn-out process to find out if it's garbage?" said Stilley.

Details of Stilley's suit against Braid "are as unusual as the law itself," The Washington Post comments. Stilley "said he filed the claim not because of strongly held views about reproductive rights but in part because of the $10,000 he could receive if the lawsuit is successful."

You can read his full complaint here.

His suit against Braid sets up the Texas law for another challenge, overcoming the problems with the last one. The Supreme Court—which is set to hear another big abortion case in December—declined to block the Texas law because its challengers had sued state officials, who are not tasked with enforcing the private civil action–based law.

The Texas abortion ban, Senate Bill 8, was written this way for just this reason. It "was expressly designed so that state officials could dodge accountability for the state's law in federal court," Reason's Damon Root points out.

Root also notes that the Department of Justice—which sued over the law last week—"has offered a potentially winning strategy for overcoming that legal ruse":

In an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction filed in United States v. Texas, the federal government stresses the many ways in which the Texas law "impermissibly regulates the Federal Government…and poses unlawful obstacles to the accomplishment of federal objectives." In other words, because federal sovereignty and federal interests are being harmed by the state, the federal government may lawfully sue the state over those injuries in federal court.

Now, Braid's admission that he violated the abortion ban by performing a first-trimester abortion after fetal cardiac activity could be detected invited the first lawsuit under S.B. 8, making it possible for Braid to challenge the constitutionality of this blatantly unconstitutional law.

"Once a private party sues Braid, the constitutional issues raised by S.B. 8 will be unavoidable," Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote yesterday. "The only way to uphold the law will be to renounce Roe v. Wade and its progeny. Although most of the current justices seem to disagree with those precedents, that does not necessarily mean they are prepared to abandon half a century of jurisprudence, along with all the expectations built on it, in one fell swoop."

Update: "A second lawsuit has been filed against Braid by Felipe N. Gomez, an Illinois resident who describes himself as a "Pro Choice Plaintiff" in the suit," CNN reports.


FREE MINDS

"Higher education liberalizes moral concerns for most students, but it also departs from the standard liberal profile by promoting moral absolutism rather than relativism," researchers write in the abstract to a new paper published in American Sociological Review.

The paper—from University of Toronto sociology professor Andrew Miles and Ph.D. student Milos Brocic—looks at four waves of data, collected in 2002–03, 2005, 2007–08, and 2012–13, respectively. Subjects started out in the 13- to 17-year-old range and were between ages 23 and 29 during the last data collection period. Among the traits researchers looked at were moral progressivism (which the paper defines as a belief that "morals should change as societies progress") and moral relativism ("that there is no absolute moral truth").

"Moral progressivism is greater among degree-holders than for others," they found:

The socialization hypothesis also receives support insofar as moral progressivism varies by field of study and is most pronounced among graduates of the humanities, arts, and social sciences (HASS).5 In contrast—and contrary to early conservative critiques—higher educational attainment is associated with less moral relativism, especially for individuals majoring in STEM or HASS fields….

Turning to predictions for moral relativism, Figure 2 shows that getting a bachelor's degree in any field except education predicts lower moral relativism compared to individuals who do not enroll. This effect grows among people pursuing graduate studies, with moral relativism being lower for students in all fields, suggesting a general effect of higher education.

Read the whole paper here.


FREE MARKETS


QUICK HITS

• The COVID-19 death toll has now reached that of the 1918 flu in terms of sheer numbers. (But "the US population a century ago was just one-third of what it is today, meaning the flu cut a much bigger, more lethal swath through the country," The Guardian points out.)

• Dan Drezner revisits last month's Afghanistan hyperbole. "I do not want to suggest that in retrospect the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan was a raging success. It most certainly was not," he writes. "At the same time, let's be clear: This was not even close to the most sordid example of U.S. government maladministration of the past four decades. Indeed, despite a tsunami of negative (but accurate) media coverage, the public polling on Afghanistan is clear: Surveys from Monmouth and Quinnipiac show that more than two-thirds of respondents approve of the withdrawal of U.S. troops regardless of how it was executed (roughly the same numbers as from two months ago)."

Protecting and serving:

Joseph Sobolewski stopped at a convenience store in Perry County last month where he saw a sign for 20-ounce Mountain Dew bottles: 2 for $3.

He grabbed a bottle, slapped $2 on the counter and walked out.

What he didn't know was a single bottle was $2.29, not $1.50. So he had shorted the store 29 cents plus tax, or 43 cents total.

The store called police, who tracked him down. Pennsylvania State police officers charged him with a felony, locked him up on $50,000 cash-only bond. He's facing the possibility of up to seven years in prison.

• The Justice Department recently "told the Supreme Court that the public had no right of access under the First Amendment to secret decisions issued by a federal court," notes The New York Times. Now, Supreme Court justices "are set to consider whether to hear that case, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and concerns decisions issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, at their private conference on Oct. 8."

Reason's Brian Doherty dissects a new study on minimum wage increases, noting that "younger, less-well-educated workers have been especially harmed by recent state-level minimum wage hikes."

• A beautiful headline: "Democrats' once-sweeping agenda continues to shrink." And another: "Joe Biden's Agenda Is Hanging By A Thread As Democrats In Congress Threaten To Tank Two Major Bills."

• Johnson & Johnson vouches for COVID-19 vaccine boosters, which had previously only been talked about for Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. "We now have generated evidence that a booster shot further increases protection against COVID-19 and is expected to extend the duration of protection significantly," said the company's chief scientific officer in a statement.

NEXT: Most Opioid Settlement Funds Aren’t Going to Addiction Services

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The COVID-19 death toll has now reached that of the 1918 flu in terms of sheer numbers.

    And in sheer terror.

    1. Get ready for a lot of “Ackshully, when you adjust for population….” tweets.

      — Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) September 20, 2021

      The population in 1918 is exactly the same as today’s population.

      And once again…. died with vs died of. Who knew covid caused murder suicides in Colorado??

      1. It magically erases the flu. I see no reason that it can’t also cause motorcycle accidents and murder suicide.

        1. There was a drunken asshole who did a drive by shooting in a CDA bar parking lot. His ricochets hit a couple people smoking outside.

          Headline next day: Alleged Shooter Waiting on Covid Results”. The article hinted that Covid may have driven this promising young man to violence, because he lacked a prior record.

          1. Can you please link to it? I have been trying several different searches but cannot find the article you are referring to.

            1. You expect citations from reason commenters?
              How quaint.

              1. He only demands citations from things that disagree with his initial premises so he can dismiss those citations.

                1. Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.CGy Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…

                  Start today………………… IncomeOpportunities

                  1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. XYZ Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

                    Here is I started.…………… JOBS BOX1

                  2. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.AQw Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

                    Just visit this website now………… VISIT HERE

              2. It’s a regular White Mike rhetorical trick for inferring dishonesty on the part of the other commenter, without risking anything.

                If the person doesn’t see his citation request, or can’t be bothered to look it up, they then look dishonest. If the person does post the cite, White Mike thanks them, and pretends he was merely curious.

                On its own it may seem innocuous, but he’ll do it several times a day in almost every comment thread, and only with stances he opposes politically.

                1. Sealions deserve to be clubbed to death.

                  1. Photographic documentation of Mike Laursen in action.

            2. Did you try as hard as you did with the fire extinguisher retraction?

            3. Here’s the perp, you can do your own searching.

              Austin L. Sherper, 24, of Whitefish,

              1. So, this:

                https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jul/15/man-shot-into-cda-crowd-while-awaiting-covid-19-re/

                Not sure why you couldn’t be bothered to provide a cite, since you brought it up. Yup, sounds like whoever wrote the headline didn’t bother to read the story.

      2. Of course. Nothing in the world has ever changed, at least until some whiny Evergreen College brat started paying attention 4 years ago.

      3. Fuck it seems like it’s killing all the Republicans which I agree is no big deal. Fuck the vaccine. Open this mfer up!

        1. Fuck iff and die, shit lord.

          1. So, you have to live and behave like white people to get the health outcomes of white people.

            That must be racist, right?

            1. The racism is spreading… or maybe it’s the virus that’s racist.

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7924296/

        2. This is the first thing you said that made some sort of sense. Open up and let people make their own choices. If you are so convinced that it will kill off all of team red, then you should be happy.

          Unfortunately, not only can you Team Blue types not stop cowering in fear all day, you have to push your paranoia on me. It is a fact that no credible scientist believes that shutting down schools is in the best interest of kids. And yet you team blue cringers keep trying to shut down my school system every fucking month.

          Last month when I yelled at one parent to just use the fucking Virtual School option used by our district, he responded (and I am not making this shit up), “Of course that is what we are doing. But your kids are getting a better education at in person school, so it isn’t fair. All kids should be going to Virtual Academy so they get the same education”.

          1. As of Friday my fucking three-year-old has to start wearing a mask in preschool. What purpose does having the serve? Who is this helping?

            Why, if it stops just one case….

            I’m positively amazed at how thoroughly and completely people have acquiesced to the tyranny of infection control theater. It’s really going to take twenty years for them to realize the futility of these measures and the harm they’re causing.

            But they don’t care. They’ll be dead by then. Killed with COVID and added to the death toll of the never ending pandemic.

            1. It’s totalitarian conditioning. That’s it.

              You people keep pretending that this will all magically stop, and that’s it’s totes random and/or has no deeper motives.

              We see where the road we’re on is going. Yet we do nothing to alter course or escape.

              1. Nardz, with all due respect, you sound exactly like what I would expect a Fed plant to sound like.

                1. Fair enough, but take heed

                2. Though I am curious – what would a fed hope to gain?
                  What non specific discourse would be useful?
                  Are you so scared of the state that you’re fearful to say how things are, and where they’re leading, directly?
                  Do you talk about the fantasy of a normal civil environment because you’re worried that if you don’t you’ll be flagged and hunted down?
                  And if so, doesn’t that prove the point – regardless of whomever/whatever I am?
                  Do you think acknowledging this is dangerous?

                  Dark times ahead, no matter which course we choose.

                3. He is my favorite glow poster.

                  Drunk the milk of RT, SputnikNews, and Zerohedge, but the pisser is, he’s still a hell of a lot more right about where we are than most other establishment right wing sources.

                  1. I’ve been noticing these trends for a long time, no RT or zerohedge needed.
                    Get your heads out of your asses.

            2. “I’m positively amazed at how thoroughly and completely people have acquiesced to the tyranny of infection control theater. ”

              I see it infecting the kids too. My friend’s kid is bullied at school because he doesn’t wear a mask. And this weekend, my son went on a hike with his Scout troop and every kid was wearing a mask. Mind you, none of the adult leaders were wearing a mask. Neither was my son. They met outside, and were going on a fucking hike. And yet every single kid except my son felt the need to put on a mask.

              This brainwashing of children needs to stop.

              1. The brainwashing is the feature, not a bug.

              2. Why does it need to stop?
                Not from your perspective, but from the perspective of the people/institutions doing it?
                Why would they stop when they continue getting their way?

              3. My friend’s kid is bullied at school because he doesn’t wear a mask.

                Considering the frequency of school shootings, they may want to reconsider that stance.

            3. Masking young children is just disgusting.

              It is shocking how readily people accepted this shit. I weep for humanity.

          2. If he actually meant it there wouldn’t be a problem. Problem is, he is just saying it so he can score a point for the blue team shitting on republicans. What he really wants is to cry and make the govt boss around people he doesnt agree with.

            But lets just remember next time he goes on pants shitting about “why cant big daddy make everyone wear masks in their cars like me?!?!” we can remind him that his stance was “fuck it, open the mfer up” like the republicans have been asking for this whole time.

          3. None of us is as dumb as all of us. And if we work together, we can all get even dumber.

            1. One of my favorite demotivational posters. Right up there with, “Every corpse on Mount Everest was once a highly motivated individual.”

        3. Lard ass shitstain wipes his ass on the forums again, comes up short.

        4. Fuck it seems like it’s killing all the Republicans which I agree is no big deal.

          That’s alright, Joe’ll make more.

      4. “Get ready for a lot of “Ackshully, when you adjust for population….” tweets.

        — Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) September 20, 2021”

        From the “Gee, why do so many on the Right think Jonah Goldberg is a cunty piece of shit?” file.

        1. “Ackshully” is a great way to dismiss all arguments against your position before they’re even made.
          Sure it’s dishonest, but very effective.

          1. It’s not that great.

          2. Picking apart insignificant details or phrasing while confidently ignorant the point is a surefire autistic way to get people to avoid you.

      5. What do you think is the underlying cause for the observed increase in the number of deaths?

        “Between March 1, 2020, and January 2, 2021, the US experienced 2 801 439 deaths, 22.9% more than expected, representing 522 368 excess deaths”

        https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361

        1. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/99750

          Only 340,000 of those deaths were covid.

        2. I’m going to say roughly half from the virus and half from the insane overreaction.

        3. Covid killed a lot of old and sick people.
          Our reactions to covid killed A LOT of people (throwing covid patients into nursing homes and onto vents they didn’t need)
          Lockdowns killed people
          Missed medical treatments killed/will kill people

      6. I hope the shade of Bill Buckley, Jr., smites Goldberg with some embarrassing, painful curse that causes Jonah to question just what in the fuck he’s done with Buckley’s magazine.

    2. “The only way to ban segregation was to renounce Plessy v. Ferguson and its progeny. Although all of the Warren court justices seemed to disagree with those precedents, that does not necessarily mean they were prepared to abandon half a century of jurisprudence, along with all the expectations built on it, in one fell swoop.”

      FTFY.

    3. I’m betting that if we tracked regular flu the same way we track covid (whether that tracking is accurate or inaccurate… just literally do it the EXACT same way) you’d easily find 200,000 – 300,000 regular flu deaths a year.

      1. I would not be surprised at all if that was the case.

        1. It would certainly happen because roughly 10% of people get the flu in a year and therefore you’d expect roughly 10% of your total deaths to have a tiny bit of flu virus in them (or a positive test in the last 28 days).

          Right there you’re nearing 300,000 before you even get to the people that the flu actually killed.

  2. The media is agog about the Pfizer vaccine rushing to approve vaccines for children. Buried at the bottom of media reports, this one from the NYT…

    Given how rarely children become severely ill, the trial was not big enough to draw meaningful conclusions about the vaccine’s ability to prevent Covid or hospitalization. Instead, the researchers relied on measurements of the youngsters’ immune response, on the assumption that the protective levels of antibodies seen in older people would be as protective in younger children.

    1. the assumption that the protective levels of antibodies seen in older people would be as protective in younger children.

      “SCIENCE!!”

      1. The models built on the same assumption agreed!

        1. Its models all the way down.

    2. I mean…that seems pretty smart to me.

      Do you take issue with that? Or is this some bullshit anti-vax statement that again, makes no sense?

      1. Do I agree with vaccinating people at virtually zero risk from an infection? No. Especially when the vaccines have shown to cause issues such as heart inflammation and in some cases paralysis.

        Why would you go through a medical procedure that shows no actual benefit to you?

        1. So you can proudly wear your Yellow Star of Covid as has been demanded by the State.

        2. Because raspberrydinners believes that she has a right to force you to do take an action to protect her from nature. Because she is so terrified of nature that she needs big strong government workers to protect her.

        3. Do you have children?

          Because those fuckers are petri dishes. They bring all kinds of shit home with them at the beginning of every school year.

          1. Do you understand that the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission?

          2. I even feed my kids peanuts despite the NIH peanut scare Fauci also caused.

    3. Wasn’t there a line in Broken Arrow about “Assumption is the mother of all fuckups”?

  3. You’re great ENB (on the slim chance you still read the comments once and a while).

    Don’t let the Aborto-Freaks get you down. They don’t care about your freedom.

    1. Abortions for some….miniature American flags for others.

      1. And vaccines for all!

    2. Mr. Buttplug, you literally saved my life this week.

      Because of you, I was aware of the SECOND INSURRECTION BY RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS on September 18. I avoided large gatherings all day, and that’s the only reason I’m still alive.

      #9/18WasWorseThan9/11

      1. If you spot a right-wing nut-job on the street don’t look them in the eye because it triggers them. If they’re ranting about “the Jews” or “BLM/niggers” just nod your head. They tend to explode in anger and start shooting on a whim.

        Good luck.

        1. Oh great. I post a sincere thanks to Real Buttplug, and Impostor Buttplug has to ruin it.

          Real Buttplug would know that it is never permissible for a white person to use that anti-Black racial slur — not even when quoting someone else.

    3. “Don’t let the Aborto-Freaks get you down. ”

      While it is quite freakish that the Pro-Abortion side considers stabbing an unborn baby in the head with a spike and sucking out its brains a matter of parental choice, I just generally think they are morally confused, not freaks themselves.

      You should be nicer to them, since generally they are on your political side.

    4. All you did was confirm that you jack off to abortion now.

      Just when I think you’re finally the shallowest person here you manage to drain a little more water out of the pool.

  4. I can’t wait until White Mike comes in with stories of Texas rangers whipping Haitians.


    The Daily Beast
    @thedailybeast
    A video showing Border Patrol officers on horseback using ropes to whip at Haitian migrants attempting to cross the Rio Grande has garnered a strong reaction from the Biden administration and other politicians.

    Max Burns
    @themaxburns
    Why does the U.S. Border Patrol own even ONE (1) whip?

    Too bad Urban Cowboys aren’t still a thing. Maybe the idiots can learn what reins are.

    1. This begs the obvious question…Anyone know how Haitians got there?

      1. Leftist groups. They have organized and funded most of the mass migration to the border.

        1. Correct, but they’re not all coming directly from Haiti. Apparently many/most have been living in South America for years, only to migrate now due to bribery. They have no legitimate claim for asylum in the US, but they’re being offered a pretty good deal.

        1. Bus, I would assume – – – – – –

      2. Fauci and China developed a bioweapon to kill Republicans. Soros is bringing y’alls replacement. Tucker was right. Why didn’t you listen?

        1. Lard ass shitstain wipes his ass again on the forum, comes up further short, emulates jeffsarc but fails.

        2. Mockery would work better if, say, the UK had not admitted doing PRECISELY that to help Labour.

      3. Voodoo.

      4. If you really want to know the details, there are some articles out there.

        Apparently Mexico has their problem with unauthorized Haitian immigrants, bigger than ours. Their strategy – and to be fair it is not much different from how we’d deport people – is to take them either to a border or an airport and send them out of the country. They’ve put some Haitians on planes, and they’ve taken some to their southern border. The people in Ciudad Acuna/Del Rio are the fraction that got sent north.

        1. And to address JesseAz, yes activist groups are involved as well, and presumably they are prioritizing getting people north, while the Mexican government is merely prioritizing “out”.

  5. The Texas abortion ban was written to let any nongovernmental actor, regardless of location, bring a lawsuit, with the possibility of receiving $10,000 if successful.

    “If you see something, say something, … and GET PAID!”

    1. It works for the ADA.

      1. Yeah this has been a real racket in California for the past 30 years or so. There’s a couple of disabled guys who go around to small businesses all day, checking everywhere for code violations, and then suing the small business for thousands of dollars per infraction. No notice, just immediate lawsuit.

        1. Yeah, but the racket isn’t the suit. The racket is that they’ll take couple thousand to drop the lawsuit and tend to get paid since it’s cheaper than mitigation and legal fees.

          One lawyer, in San Diego, was so brazen he got disbarred about a decade ago. There’s a character named Johnson in the bay area who has filed a thousand lawsuits in the last couple years running the scam right now.

          The whole paying people to be snitches is the epitome of perverse incentives.

        2. Which is why I’m so confused that everyone is talking about the Texas law as if citizen suit provisions were some new thing evil Republicans just made up. Citizen suit provisions have been the backbone of employment and environmental law for decades. You can’t take a shit on federal land without getting slammed with a lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity. I have clients who have been stuck in litigation preventing them from developing their own property for literally decades due to this sort of thing. I would prefer it goes away completely, but turnabout is fair play.

    2. The man behind the first lawsuit is Oscar Stilley, an Arkansas resident who describes himself as a “disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer”

      If you’re a lawyer, especially an Arkansas lawyer, isn’t the “disgraced” part an understood?

  6. Prime Minister Blackface has yet another photo surface. No wonder he didnt answer how many times he went blackface.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-image-appears-to-show-justin-trudeau-wearing-blackface

    1. I guess those Canadian chicks can’t say no to a man in black.

    2. TBF, that looks like a different photograph of the same costume.

      My wife once went in blue face as Kali. We were walking around hollywood and she was constantly being stopped by indians who wanted to take their picture with her. I wonder if those pictures surfaced today she would be canceled.

      1. The picture from the other event shows a much lighter tone. I can’t attribute that solely to camera lighting and angle. The shades look completely different.

      2. She’ll come back as a bug in the “next life.” 😉

    3. He just thought it was a cute costume. You can’t expect much out of Zoolander.

  7. Psaki finally answers why illegal immigrants at the border don’t have to get vaccine shots.

    They’re not intending to stay here for a lengthy period of time. I don’t think it’s the same thing. It’s not the same thing.

    1. “Citizens not intending to stay on a commercial airplane for a lengthy period of time also don’t have to be vaccinated.”

      1. Even the longest flight is shorter than the shortest border detainee stay.

    2. As was pointed out…yeah, they crossed a large desert to come to the US to watch a play and return home or something.

    3. Unlike those dirty Europeans.

      (Actually, we might be better off with a few million immigrants from Central America compared to a few million from Europa.)

    4. So which is it then? Do you want people forced to get the shot or not?

      So far, there is still no mandate at all to get the shot unless you work for the federal government. Everyone else still has the option of weekly testing in lieu of the shot.

      So again- where do you stand? Do you want vaccine mandates or not?

      1. No. I don’t believe in mandates. I also don’t believe in a 2 tiered system of application of the law. Why do you support laws that favor one group over the other? Is it you’re a hypocrite?

      2. RaspberryDiner
        Obviously the hypocrisy of mandating a forced vaccine on your own citizens while allowing massive amounts of unvaccinated illegal immigrants into the country without even a test is lost on you. Please try to think a little more critically before posting an inane comment next time.

        1. Please try to think a little more critically before posting an inane comment next time.

          Talk about a Sisyphean endeavor.

          1. ^++

    5. That’s what I’m going to tell businesses in October when the vaccine passport is required to enter businesses in my county. “Oh, don’t worry, I don’t intend to stay long.”

  8. But “the US population a century ago was just one-third of what it is today, meaning the flu cut a much bigger, more lethal swath through the country,” The Guardian points out

    , harshing the “yet another grim milestone” buzz.

    1. “the US population a century ago was just one-third of what it is today, meaning the flu cut a much bigger, more lethal swath through the country, meaning more carbon producing people are still alive creating world wide catastrophe

      Fine, FTFY. Happy?

      1. And Gaia weeps. Greta, too.

    2. And also killed young healthy people. Which makes all the difference. Raw numbers of deaths are a silly metric. If 1/10 the number of people died, but most were in their 30s, it would be much worse than what we have now by any reasonable standard.

  9. “WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff requests that this Court order Defendant to pay to Plaintiff the sum of $100,000”..

    Any Excuse to *Steal*; Granted by Power-Mad control freaks of Pro-Life lobbyists.

    The pictures says it all, “Not the property of the State”.

    1. “Any Excuse to *Steal*; Granted by Power-Mad control freaks of Pro-Life lobbyists.”

      (See above for the Americans With Disabilities Act enabling the exact same racket.)

    2. The counter argument is the child is not property to be destroyed at the will of its owner.

      1. Which in the realm of the subject basically says, “A pregnant woman’s body is not her property.”
        A wildly blatant thwart of the most sacred Individual Right ever existing.

        1. So then, anyone who ever does anything that might somehow limit their future choices, from taking on financial debt to committing a serious crime, is entitled to declare their responsibilities void because, reasons.

          1. “might somehow limit their future choices” — Like Anti-Abortion legislation brought to subject by the [WE] mob who’s liability business on the subject is exactly ZERO?

            This is no different than putting every life-supported comma patient at the whim of a non-concerned [WE] mob instead of the patients immediate family.

            1. “This is no different”

              It is substantially different. But you should really look at your writing, that…frankly…looks a lot like SQRLSY’s….Every time you throw up some argument and when someone counters it, you retreat to a different argument. Do you ever take a minute to look at how many times you abandon your throw away argument for a new one and think that…just maybe…you haven’t thought as deeply about this as other people?

              1. I defeat every argument as sponsored.. If you’d open your eyes you’d realize it’s the sponsored argument that’s being wishy-washy all over the place.

                1st – It’s an Individual, 2nd – It’s got new DNA, 3rd – It’s a person, 4th – Its murder, 4th – It’s not a part of the mother, 5th – It’s feudalism, 6th – It’s up to the State, 7th – It’s viable at conception……….

                Arguments that compulsively violate facts, words, the Constitution, Individual Rights, Nature (the biggest one), the very substance of a LIMITED government….

                I’ve defeated every argument by using the U.S. Constitution, Laws of Nature, Laws of Privacy, Laws of Individuality…………

                Yet; Pro-Life people just keep wishy-washy every-way they can to justify their ‘ends’ justifies the ‘means’ religious yet factually and reality UNSOUND arguments.

                MATER ARGUMENT — IT’S PERSONAL; IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS… IT IS A FAMILY MATTER NOT THE [WE] MOBS!

                1. “I defeat every argument as sponsored”

                  No. You said- hilariously- that organs are the same as babies because they have different DNA. When countered on that silliness, you changed to a COMPLETELY different argument.

                  There is nothing wishy washy about the following moral calculation:
                  It is wrong to kill a human being. That is especially true when that human being was put in a place of vulnerability by the consent of the mother.

                  1. No, I defeated the new DNA argument with organ transplants…
                    Try again… It’s pretty bad when you have spin things like that.

                    There is nothing wishy washy about the following moral calculation:
                    It is wrong to enslave a human being and deny them the individual right to own their very own body completely. That is especially true when that human being was put in a place of vulnerability by the Gov-Gun threats of [WE] mobs.

                    Moral people do not run around with pitch-forks and gun threats telling other people what PERSONAL decision they have to make when that personal decision is not any of their own business.

                    How women sold off their souls to the [WE] foundation — by having sex. That’s a pretty B.S. excuse to hand over a person to State Demands.

                    1. “No, I defeated the new DNA argument with organ transplants…”

                      No you didn’t. I pointed out (as did Jesse) that an organ is not the same as a human being. An organ has not the ability to become a “person” as a fetus does. Left to its own devices it will continue to be just that, an organ.

                      But I get it- you aren’t even arguing. You are just spewing arguments you read on a website, and not bothering to read the rebuttals. It’s pretty sad, but if thats how you intend to live your life, you do you.

                    2. And all be darn if it isn’t the sex ‘organs’ that EXACTLY had the ability to create a fetus… Another argument defeated.

                      I really don’t follow media propaganda; That’s why my bottom line is the U.S. Constitution and the principles of Individual Liberty and Justice which would make !Individual! and PERSONAL decisions left outside the long almighty hands of the Gov-Gun-Power.

                      It doesn’t bother me what-so-ever if > anyone < wants to give their pregnancy more value than themselves or pretend conception yields a new person, or even preach such concepts.. YOU CAN believe whatever you'd like.

                      But I'm not going to support YOUR usage of Gov-Gun-Forces to dictate those beliefs onto other people, their families, their pregnancies and personal life's. Life Justice has always been instantiated by 'Individuals' right to life where it belongs. Not by *pretending* a PART of a person has life rights.

                      Which in the end of the debate is just an EXCUSE to drag the Gov-Guns into people's personal life's.

                2. You haven’t defeated anything. You keep retreating into rationalization for the flaws in your arguments. There is no consistency.

                  1. Sorry; I’ll clarify…. In case it’s not just self-biased ignorance on display giving away to “defeat the person not the argument”.

                    IT’S NOT ANYBODIES BUSINESS BUT THE ONE WHO IS PREGNANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ……….. BECAUSE ………… The pregnant person is NOT two separate individuals and the State NOR anyone else CAN MAKE her two separate individuals….. No matter how much B.S. they spew.

                    And as an inseparable individual should by all means RETAIN the ‘Individual’ rights over her own body just as any other individual should have rights to their own body.

                    1. Example; “Yes, Doctor, I understand my cancerous testicle only has a 2% chance of killing me, and cutting it off will ?kill? (def; deprive of life) unborn ?children? that could have had a life. However the compulsive, expensive, and life altering sustain-meant of keeping it dormant and under-control; I’ll make the !!!—–PERSONAL—-!!! decision to have ‘it’ removed and retain that right of owning my own body and choices.”

                      And all those Power-Mad [WE] mob members has a big old fit about me making the personal decision to have my testicles removed. And it’s any of there business because????????

            2. And to be clear, the life support of a comma patient is actually a pretty good template of how we ought to deal with the unborn.

              When a person is in a vegetative state, the first thing we do is look towards their intent. Did they leave a living will or other medical directive? Then that ultimately carries the day.

              Absent a written directive, an ethicist will meet with the family and a doctor to understand the likelihood that the state will change for the better, versus continue until the person dies. Only at the point where all parties- doctor, ethicist, executor- agree that there is no substantial chance of future healthy life that they will pull the plug.

              In the case of the baby, we cannot know its intent, so we need to move on to looking at the likelihood that the child will come out of its “vegetative condition” healthy. Which…you know…is very likely to occur, assuming the guardians don’t choose to cut its head off.

              So in those cases, the ethicist would recommend continuing the support of the baby to term, and the state would enforce that on behalf of the rights of the child.

              1. “state would enforce that” — Women’s bodies be *demanded* as life support… And how is that not SLAVERY to a T? When someone else OWNS another?

                1. “Women’s bodies be *demanded* as life support”

                  If the woman doesn’t want her body to be used as life support she shouldn’t have engaged in the activity that put someone in her body on life support. Having done that- put a person into a condition of dependency- she cannot suddenly absolve herself of the responsibility of her decision. It is wrong.

                  Or do you have some analogy to explain why that mother’s decision to put the baby into her body means she can now kill it? Like, could I invite you into my house and kill you in your sleep once I decided you were inconvenient?

                  1. So, are you OK with abortion after rape when the woman made no choice to possibly become pregnant? Honestly curious.

                    1. That is generally the line many pro lifers have. Although they prefer to offer support for the mother as a priority.

                    2. I’m not going to get into it beyond one more comment because I’ve had this argument enough times already and no one is changing their minds. But if the reason abortion is bad is that you are killing the child, aren’t you killing the innocent child because of the actions of its father. If you really believe abortion is murder, then rape of the mother doesn’t make it anything different, does it?

                    3. I’ll admit that I do still believe it is wrong in most cases to kill the baby created through rape. But, it is a different set of arguments that cannot even be approached until we deal with the vast, vast majority of abortions that take place out of convenience.

                      The arguments about saving a baby accidentally caused by a mom are much more straight forward, and if a person cannot even accept those, then the more difficult and nuanced argument about rape is really not going anywhere.

                  2. Stated Facts not in Evidence —
                    Or do you have some analogy to explain why that ?mother’s decision? to put the baby into her body….

                    Do you have some analogy to explain why that driver decided to put that pedestrian in harm’s way by taking a joy-ride?

                    Do you have some analogy to explain why everyone isn’t demanded by the state and Gov-Guns to donate non-life essential body parts to save another?

                    1. You really don’t make sense.

                      Yes, the mother decided to have sex (in the vast majority of pregnancies) and in the vast majority of cases knew that it could potentially result in a human being growing inside her. That is absolutely a fact. How is it not a fact in evidence?

                      Your two analogies don’t even make sense. They are inapplicable to the mother- through her actions- putting a baby inside herself dependent on her care.

                    2. The mother didn’t decide to put a baby into her body…

                      lmao, “Yes doctor; please take that baby and sew it into my womb.”
                      Give Me a F’en break……

                      She chose to do something that might ‘accidentally’ have that effect (after ? amount of time). JUST LIKE DRIVING.

                      And using GOV-GUN’S to force her into pimping out her ‘body parts’ for the reproduction process is no different than using Gov-Guns to force people to ‘donate’ non-life essential body parts to save another. ( Ironically; the other being 100% more of a ‘person’ than the 30% of the abortion subject. )

                      And if you don’t get that; you’re not getting anything by the very fact of purposely playing ignorant.

              2. A vegetative state is when someone goes from full consciousness to less-than-full consciousness due to brain injury. How could that possibly apply to a fetus that hasn’t even developed a brain, much less had brain damage?

                Anti-Abortionists are really reaching here.

                1. The argument is the woman is forced to provide to another individual. The vegatative state also must be cared for. If you support the latter and not the former, then your argument is inconsistent. Should society be forced to care for those in vegetative states? That is the question you have to answer.

                  1. Never-mind a woman’s body isn’t “society”. Which is actually the very root foundation of the argument. Is a woman’s body owned by the [WE] mob in any circumstance? Is that really Individual Liberty?

                    1. …And to add; Surviving a fetus very well could be a “society” program just as foster children are. That should at the least be left to the State ( and all be darn if that isn’t exactly what Roe v Wade ) leaves. State’s could require all fetuses be ‘saved’ if possible. That doesn’t really address the Roe v Wade Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice argument.

                    2. Women don’t use their bodies going to work and laying taxes?

                      Your arguments are truly sophomoric.

                    3. By their own will..

                  2. How those in a vegetative state (who left no living will) are to be cared for depends on whether someone is there and willing to provide the facilities for the care. If The Vatican or another religious or charitable body wants to provide the facilities, that’s fine, but neither Medical Personnel nor women are rightless slaves to be forced to provide for anybody.

                2. That’s my take, “Anti-Abortionists are really reaching here.”

                  Roe v Wade just wasn’t good enough to satisfy their Power-Mad tendencies to bully others around with the addictive Gov-Gun-Forces. From my experience; no amount of Gov-Gun-Power satisfies their addiction and as soon as a little POWER is granted MORE, MORE, MORE just keeps coming up around the corner.

                  And Pro-Life’s compulsive push without satisfaction to the very point of conception is nothing short of the demonstration for MORE, MORE, MORE Gov-Gun-Power.

                  1. Roe vs Wade sucked because it attempted to force a solution on the country that was far, far more permissive than the majority of the country was settling on. Had the political process continued, we would have seen a far less crazy response to it.

                    It was also a pre-concluded case that required some of the worst tortured reasoning ever, but that is a discussion for another day.

                    1. Yet that’s exactly why the USA *isn’t* a [WE] mob democratic majority rules (i.e. ‘majority of the country was settled on’) nation.

                      And also exactly why the subject fell into the Federal protection of Individual Rights arena as does Illegal Immigration, Slavery and a whole slew of other STOP the [WE] mob from taking away minorities Individual Liberty categories.

      2. And the counter to that is that that is not the reason why abortion should be legal. Rather, a woman’s right to control what goes on in her body outweighs whatever right the fetus has to exist.
        I don’t expect anyone to change their minds based on this argument. But the status of the fetus/child/whatever you want to call it isn’t the real question if you ask me.

        1. The woman had full rights to control what went into her body prior to conception. Nobody is arguing that.

          1. I’m saying she retains that right. That’s where I’m at and I’m sticking to it. I don’t expect to change any minds.

            1. I agree. The moral arguments are persuasive to me. The fetus losing the opportunity to live is zero sum, and arguably should supersede the bodily autonomy, trauma, potential
              medical complications etc. that a woman faces. But that’s only a moral argument not a legal one.

              The only argument logically persuasive is that the “right” to live of the fetus supersedes the right to choose of the woman;
              But fetuses/unborn humans have no such rights;
              End of discussion.

              So either amend the Constitution or other applicable laws to establish rights of the unborn. Or quit creating legal fiction based on (arguable) moral legitimacy. It’s much easier to square bodily autonomy, privacy, medical etc implications of the woman within the enumerated Constitutional rights than to find that rights of the unborn even exist let alone legally supersede the woman’s rights. Unless your a religious/moral nut bag who lacks appreciation in the distinction between morality and legality.

              Pro-Choicers fail miserably to frame their opponents arguments for what they are – a much more tenuous Constitutional argument (rights of unborn) than their own argument (rights to bodily autonomy of living persons). Anti-abortionists are much more rhetorically adept.

              I wish this Texas law were couched in terms of the third party asserting the fetus’ rights on its behalf, provide injunctive relief rather than monetary, etc. That’d be compelling. It would allow us to get down to the real issue. But almost nobody seems concerned with that.

              1. “So either amend the Constitution or other applicable laws to establish rights of the unborn.”

                This is so wrong as to be absurd. The constitution doesn’t establish rights. Our rights are natural. The constitution merely limits the government’s ability to infringe on those rights.

                So it does fundamentally become a moral argument, because no government or law can establish rights. The rights exist or they don’t and the law is responsible for mediating when those rights come in conflict. And of course, that is exactly what this Texas law is doing: establishing a framework wherein private citizens can defend the rights of the unborn through civil suits.

                1. “The constitution doesn’t establish rights”

                  This is true as applied here but wrong as the generalization stated.

                  Obviously the right to a trial by jury isn’t a natural right, it’s one protected by the Constitution and either conferred by it, or arguably conferred before by English common law (this is what I use the term “civil right” for). On the other hand, the right to life most certainly is a natural right protected but not conferred by the Constitution.

            2. Then you have to extend your argument to the woman’s ability to stop care at any time for her infant without consequences.

  10. “Climate change disinformation is spreading rapidly” on Facebook – MotherJones

    You thought they were going to stop at censoring just election and Covid ‘misinformation’?

  11. Stilley has a huge fine to pay.

  12. So why are liberals so quick to say tax the rich? Despite the top 1% paying an average tax rate of 32% , democrat voters believe they pay under 5%. When asked how much they should pay they offer answers like 20%. It is utter ignorance that is around tax the rich liberalism. This is the same as half of democrats believing there is a 30-50% chance of ending up in the hospital if you get covid. It is utter ignorance tha terms the base of that party.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/residents-aocs-district-rich-pay-taxes

    1. “They should be paying the same amount of taxes as the middle and lower class are,” Lavasquez said. “That way it gives us equal share and no one is feeling singled out.”

      “Yep, every taxpayer should cough up, oh, $2500 a year. For *fairness*.”

    2. Are you saying that tax misinformation is rampant on social media, where the Left seems to congregate heavily?

    3. Maybe we should tax ignorance.

      1. Probably easier than taxing excess body weight.

        1. Regressive tax on IQ.

    4. The problem is the media has them convinced that they are all hiding all their income and paying no taxes. My guess is it is somewhere in the middle. They are hiding some of their income then paying 32% on a large part of their income and none on the rest. It might net about around 20% depending on how well they hide it and how much of their income is long-term capital gains. But I agree with the idea that most people really don’t realize that most rich people pay a lot of taxes. I have done a tax return for a guy that owed more in taxes than I made in a year. And it wasn’t because of penalties and fines.

      1. You’d better not be including unrealized gains in that “hidden income.”

        Where are they hiding this income, and is it legal or not?

    5. And I can tell you that the “average tax rate” among the rich is heavily skewed by rich silicon valley elites whose wealth is largely based on stock. They can easily limit their income, taking loans against their assets and using other mechanisms to lower their tax bill.

      It is important to note that most “1%ers” aren’t rich silicon valley elites. There are nearly 4 million of them in the country and you probably see one or two of them walking down the street even in small cities. They are the local doctors and other small business owners. They are contractors and lawyers.

      Those people are not paying 32% taxes. They are firmly hitting the 35% and 37% tax rates.

      1. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/whos-rich-enough-to-pay-higher-tax-rates-according-to-democrats/

        Over time, as the Democratic Party’s coalition has grown more affluent (and more concentrated in high-cost areas), the line between middle-class households who need to be protected from higher tax rates and rich people who should pay them keeps inching higher. The congresswoman herself denies that she means to include doctors in her category of rich people. Their median pay in 2020 was $208,000. “Physician” is the most common job held by people in the top 1 percent of income.

        1. Yeah I have a couple physician friends. They start off making peanuts and working their asses off (which is why most doctors traditionally came from well to do families). But by their 30s they are doing very well for themselves by either joining a practice where they are essentially a partner, or going into a specialty that earns them ridiculous amounts of money.

          So I am not saying we should weep for the poor Doctor- they are doing ok. But it is still not accurate to say 1%ers are all Warren Buffet types sitting on billions of dollars in stock.

          Another thing that is key in understanding the 1% is that it usually is being measured in Households. And upper-earning households tend to be dual income. They make a good amount of money, but they aren’t resting on their laurels. If one of the workers quit or lost their job, it would be catastrophic to the family until that income were replaced. They still have to work each day- they just happen to bring in more money than a lot of other people. That doesn’t mean they can live a life of rich opulence taking month long vacations on a private island. Hell, most don’t even fly first class because they have multiple kids and can’t afford to spend $30,000 on a family trip.

          1. You’re not allowed to mention that second bit, racist.

      2. And well over 50% with state and local taxes.

      3. What has been hilarious is that the SALT deduction is a sticking point for many of the same liberals in the 3.5T spending plan.

        1. Yup. They want to live in a high tax – high spend state but have the low tax – low spend states subsidize it.

          SALT needs to be removed completely. It’s fine for people in some states to vote in higher taxes than others, there are valid choices to be made. But they need to actually pay the taxes they vote for.

    6. Probably because they benefit from society far more than the average person?

      We not only tolerate billionaires but we encourage it. And I’m pretty sure Bezos has managed to do a LOT better than the rest of us by using all the infrastructure of this country, police that protect his warehouses, firefighters ready to fight the fires there, schools to educate his current and future workers, etc.

      Are you rich? If not, then why the fuck do you care? Where are these billionaires gonna go? To some other low tax oasis that offers the same life they get in America? Pray tell, where is this magical place?

      I bet you are the same person who thinks Brexit was about “freedom” and not making the UK a haven for tax avoiders.

      1. Probably because they benefit from society far more than the average person?

        Math check: 25% * $1M > 25% * $50K? Looks like that’s covered either way. Nobody aside from the Seattle city council is asking for a head tax, and even fewer are going for a regressive income tax.

        I bet you are the same person who thinks Brexit was about “freedom” and not making the UK a haven for tax avoiders.

        Look out for Hunter Biden over here.

      2. Rasberry asks why a libertarian cares about equity and taxes and should instead just ignore and attack the rich. Lol.

      3. “We not only tolerate billionaires but we encourage it”

        Damn straight we do. And we should. We should absolutely encourage people to become billionaires because that will solve far more problems in this world than raspberrydinners ever will.

        “Are you rich? If not, then why the fuck do you care?”

        For the benefit of the thread, here is raspberry giving a pure introduction to the progressive philosophy. As long as you can ostracize a minority of people, you can soak them for whatever you would like. The Democrats have been doing it since their days running the slave trade in the south. And they will keep doing it as long as you let them.

        1. ^+1
          Slimy sumbitch has the ethics, morals and principles of the average turd.

        2. I’m not sure if there is a leftist ideology extant that isn’t founded on jealousy and/or hatred.

      4. Yes, I’m glad there are rich people. Rich people make new things happen. Capital is important to how wealth is generated, which benefits everyone.
        Billionaires who rent-seek and get in bed with government, I’m not a fan of. But in principle, other people bein much richer than I am is not a problem at all.

        1. “…Capital is important to how wealth is generated, which benefits everyone…”

          The “labor” theory of wealth was debunked shortly after Marx proposed it; you can’t add wealth digging ditches without shovels and no one digs those ditches without being paid do do so. Egg/chicken? Capital comes first.
          Not going to check the bookshelves now; look in “Creative
          Destruction”; Schumpeter’s biography
          And yes you did defend the “trump wants to be emperor” bullshit, but your apology is accepted.

  13. When asked to respond to the drone strike that killed 7 children and 11 total, Psaki says Biden has experienced loss too.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/09/20/psaki-invokes-bidens-personal-losses-after-botch-airstrike-killed-seven-kids-n1480234

    1. You just know that Joe Biden wakes up every morning grateful that Beau Biden died.

      1. “He’s always in my thoughts.”

        1. For Joe so loved the Presidency that he gave his only non-fuckup son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish in an insurrection, but have every human need and want met by the government.–Joe 3:16

      2. More than once on the campaign trail Joe said, “My sons hunt.” Not entirely clear how Beau hunted after his death or who illegally ‘transferred’ a gun to Hunter in order to hunt, but every time Joe wanted to assuage people that he wasn’t coming for their guns, he would say it.

      3. He (or his handlers) are always happy that one of his kids died!

    2. Where was this concern when Trump literally suggested killing the family members of combatants? You guys are trash.

      1. So youre saying trump killed people?

      2. Lard ass shitstain was watching Joy Ann Reid again, he got a woody thinking about Trump.

      3. Did he do so?

        Biden did.

        And does not give two shits that he did so.

      4. If you’re going to claim ‘literally suggested killing the family members of combatants,’ then you need to provide the source, otherwise it’s just another of your lies. More importantly, what Trump did or did not do has no bearing on Biden’s decision to kill a family of civilians or his decisions that led to the fucked up withdrawal from Afghanistan.

      5. “Where was this concern when Trump literally suggested killing the family members of combatants? You guys are trash.”

        Where it was when what you claim is true, TDS-addled asshole. Nowhere.
        Fuck off and die.

    3. At his age, EVERYBODY has experienced loss.

  14. “The paper—from University of Toronto sociology professor Andrew Miles and Ph.D. student Milos Brocic—looks at four waves of data, collected in 2002–03, 2005, 2007–08, and 2012–13, respectively.”

    Wow, that’s like all of human history, right?

    1. Perhaps it’s a typo and they meant “waives”.

  15. I find it sad that Reason is so anxious to celebrate abortion. I believe that this is a subject on which libertarian-minded individuals can and do disagree in good faith, and Reason should reflect that.

    I believe that the unborn child is a person who is entitled to protection against aggression, and that killing that person through force (or abandonment) is therefore both antilibertarian and something that the law should prevent. Others disagree and believe that it is not such a person. Neither of us have any objective facts that the other views as dispositive. In the Federalist system, therefore, the only viable solution is to allow the separate states to act and allow others to try to persuade, or to relocate to where their views are in the majority.

    Given that, shouldn’t Reason be *celebrating* the Texas law as a triumph of state power over federal power?

    1. I’m of the same mind. The child is a unique human with unique DNA, unless identical twins, who was brought about through actions taken by the parent in all cases but rape. Here not only do they celebrate not caring for the child but also actively poisoning or cutting off the brain stem of a unique individual. It is a strange stance for a libertarian to take. Would they also support a parent neglecting and not feeding a 6 month old? It is the only way to remain consistent on the pro abortion view. And the biggest defense of abortion is for the convenience of the mother. What other actions can I take against individuals to increase by conveniences?

      1. Would they also support a parent neglecting and not feeding a 6 month old? It is the only way to remain consistent on the pro abortion view.

        Only if the “pro-abortion” view shared the same moral assumptions as the “anti-abortion” view, which it does not.

        Yes, if one started from the assumption that life starts at conception, then neglecting a 1-month-old unborn fetus until death is morally equivalent to neglecting a 6-month-old born child until death.

        But, we do not all agree on the moral status of the fetus. That is the big question here.

        1. No, the big question is the morality of imposition. For liberals, rejection of imposition on and responsibility of individuals for their own actions is a core value, as is the assumed requirement that society must provide redress for any individual needs, including imposition. So no surprise that most people who favor abortion rights also favor socialism.

          1. Right; but there’s a difference between taking responsibility for jumping off that cliff and paying for leg surgery and having a Power-Mad [WE] mob make “leg surgery” illegal. The last one is a [WE] mob ‘spite’ action; making consequences purposely harsh. And on the subject also a violation of Individual Rights to their own body. As would be making all caused driven surgery illegal..

            1. What’s wrong with imposing on people the consequences of their actions?

              1. 8th Amendment
                Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

                Just because someone ran into a fence and is required to fix it doesn’t mean; they must be outlawed from using the lumber industry or tools to get the job done.

                1. The texas law is a citizen civil action.

            2. No, its more like after jumping off the cliff and getting surgery, and then facing 9 months of rehab, including pain and immobility, claiming a right to avoid that because they “just don’t want to”.

              1. Pretty much; So you’re supporting the stance of FORCED 9-month rehab even if the patient has access to a 1-day rehab. Which is described perfectly as making the lumber industry and tools illegal to fix a broken fence.

                1. Why are you completely ignoring the other person in the scenario? If said jumper falls on somebody and harms them, are they alleviated of any recompensation since it is inconvenient to them? You are ignoring the second individual in your example. It is the only way to rationalize your belief.

                  1. “ignoring the other person in the scenario” — because 30% of a person (by Roe v Wade ruling) residing within a 100% person with ZERO ways for any outside party to turn it into a person. Not only does not constitute a ‘person’ at all but violates the very principle of ‘individual’.

                    Pro-Life has been indoctrinating by propaganda fouls of the very basis of common-sense to promote an ends justifies the means dictation and utter disrespect for ACTUAL ‘individual’ rights.

                    1. Not only is your run on sentence grammatically challenged and borderline incoherent, it is completely irresponsive to Jesse’s point.

                      “indoctrination” has nothing to do with whether or not there is a second person in the moral calculation. You continue to ignore the rights of the unborn, and until you can articulate that 1) the person has no rights or 2) the rights of the mother override, you are going to continue to find yourself in this position of trying to throw any argument against the wall in hopes that it sticks.

                    2. “rights of the unborn” is not only *not* Constitutionally sound as ‘born’ is the distinctive word used in it..

                      It’s as big of a fallacy as, “Unearned income”.. Pretending something is there that has never been created.

                      How about the rights of unicorns and fairies? Don’t they have rights? Why do you keep insisting my leg has it’s own right to enslave me?

                      Propaganda runs wild.

                    3. ““rights of the unborn” is not only *not* Constitutionally sound as ‘born’ is the distinctive word used in it”

                      The constitution doesn’t define who has rights, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

                      But fine, I’ll use a different term: Baby. Or how about Pre-term baby? That doesn’t really change anything and you know it, which is why you have once again shifted your arguments. You were talking about indoctrination first, and now you are somehow insisting that being “unborn” has something to do with the constitution.

                      Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

                    4. You brought up the, “rights of the unborn” and the only dizzying you’re getting is from your own lock of intellect to defeat the counter-arguments.

                      The U.S. Constitution was written for the U.S. Government; it wasn’t written for China, Russia or “The Unborn”. And by the 14th Amendment infers, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

                      The “Unborn” isn’t granted anymore U.S. Government protection than a resident of Russia would be.

          2. No connection or correlation between being Pro-Choice and Pro-Socialiem. Neither the National Socialists (Nazis) nor the International Socialists (Communists) were Pro-Choice on abortion, any more than anything else.

        2. Yes. Youre an idiot. At conception a new life with new DNA is created. You simply wish to rationalize your inconsistent views.

          1. Transplanted organs are “new DNA”. Actually; Limited Government and Pro-Life is “inconsistent views”.

            1. Transplanted organs do not have the ability to produce a rational and sentient human being absent a direct human action to actually change the nature of the DNA (by, for example, inducing plurapotency and implanting in an egg).

              And of course, no organ just springs into being- it was part of a rational living human who (unless living in china) donated the organ of their own volition.

              1. What-about the “science”??? Science supports [WE] mob desires to dictate!!! What it really is; is ‘excuses’… The ends justifies the means. And those ‘means’ are…….
                GOV-GUN FORCED REPRODUCTION!!!
                GOV-GUN FORCED REPRODUCTION!!!
                GOV-GUN FORCED REPRODUCTION!!!

                Limited Government does not include government regulating other people’s pregnancies. I don’t give a sh*t about the the “science”. The fact is the State nor anyone else can turn that *thing* into a person… It is ONLY 30% on the Roe v Wade deadline. So whatever science you want to tout; you haven’t been able to cure the facts.

                1. “GOV-GUN FORCED REPRODUCTION!!!”

                  Wait, the Government forced you to knock up your girlfriend? In what crazy world do you live?

                  “Limited Government does not include government regulating other people’s pregnancies.”

                  I would think that at the least, limited government includes protecting the weak from aggression of the strong. Or do you believe that a properly limited government ought not intervene against a father beating his kids? If you do believe a limited government has a role protecting the child 2 days after birth, why does it need to stop 2 minutes before?

                  1. Proposed argument a miss —

                    GOV-GUN FORCED SEX
                    =/=
                    GOV-GUN FORCED REPRODUCTION

                    But while we are on the subject; Isn’t that exactly the underlying desire of Pro-Life is to make non-reproductive intended sex illegal by what accident might occur form it???

                    Women having ‘rights’ to have sex? I mean who heard of such a thing… FORCE them not to; punish them if they do!

                2. Again, based on your logic…

                  Government can not regulate other people’s child rearing and a mother is simply allowed to stop feeding/caring for their 2 month old. That is the application of your logic.

                  Roe v Wade has no deadline, it talks about the concept of viability. Texas simply defined that concept.

                  Are you completely ignorant to what precedence is?

                  1. “Government can not regulate other people’s child rearing and a mother is simply allowed to stop feeding/caring for their 2 month old.”

                    And every mother actually DOES have an inalienable right to ‘stop feeding/caring’ for their 2-month old. The USA doesn’t setup a swat team to *dictate*/*enslave* any mother into feeding/caring for their 2-month old. The child is handed over to the state.

                    And every pregnant woman also DOES have an inalienable right to abortion by suicide. Which would play directly into the ‘harsh’ measure of a swat team dictating a woman into providing feeding/caring to a 2-month old or else be shot on spot.

                    The Power-Mad “command camp” is what I’m against. If States want to survive fetuses after they’re viable; that’ll be their responsibility. I’ll even support the Roe v Wade deadline and state banned abortion out of a purposeful neglect to “command camp” scenario. But I’m not going to support a Catch-22 scenario for “command camp”. What many have forgotten is the Roe v Wade ruling was decided overwhelmingly by religious right-wing justices and has a very conservative view. Anything beyond that is just Power-Mad desire to stick big noses with the power of Gov-Guns in places where they don’t belong.. Pregnancy isn’t a STATE matter; it’s personal as is an individuals right to their own body… I mean what’s next? “command camp” of perfect health for pregnant women so they don’t accidentally ‘murder’ her ‘baby’?

                    1. “And every mother actually DOES have an inalienable right to ‘stop feeding/caring’ for their 2-month old. The USA doesn’t setup a swat team to *dictate*/*enslave* any mother into feeding/caring for their 2-month old. The child is handed over to the state.”

                      Wait. The state will ABSOLUTELY punish the mother for neglecting the baby. Because the government and pretty much everyone else recognizes that the mother has a responsibility to care for the child up until the point where she has found someone to take that responsibility from her.

                      So yes, there are several options available to the mother that she can morally do to alleviate her of her responsibility to care for her child. Under certain cases she can give the baby to the state, or find a private party to do the same. What she absolutely cannot do is decide the baby is inconvenient and cut off its head while insisting that it is slavery for the state to force her to care for the baby or find someone who will.

                      And indeed the same option would be available for the mother in a world where abortion was seen as baby killing. The mother would have many options to let someone else take the responsibility for the child. And as soon as it was possible to transfer the baby into the care of that other party, her responsibility ends.

                    2. And here it is …. “So yes, there are several options available to the mother that she can morally do to alleviate her of her responsibility to care for her child. Under certain cases she can give the baby to the state, or find a private party to do the same.”

                      …. And it’s exactly why the Roe v Wade ruling was spot-on. The State NOR any private party CAN alleviate her of her responsibility.

                      That is no excuse the bring out the Gov-Guns and use the state to ENSLAVE her and force her to care for the baby.

                      Never-mind all the B.S. propaganda ‘baby’ and ‘child’ which actually *is* ‘individual’.. The stance can be defeated even with these deceitful terms.

                    3. “That is no excuse the bring out the Gov-Guns and use the state to ENSLAVE her and force her to care for the baby.”

                      This was not even addressing my point.

                      If a mother has a baby- born and living- and she tries to leave it out to die, the government is justified to intervene and prevent her. If she is standing on a bridge ready to throw that baby off, the state is absolutely justified in preventing her from TAKING AN ACTION THAT WILL KILL THE BABY.

                      If she arranges for transfer of her responsibility to someone else, but they can’t get the baby for a week, she is still stuck and the government is still justified in preventing her from taking an action that will kill the baby. Is that “Enslaving her body”? If so then your definition of slavery is so broad as to prevent the government from ever intervening to stop someone from doing anything- from fraud to breach of contract to murder.

                    4. To further Overt’s point, can the mother poison the 2 month old to actively kill it? That’s what abortion is. Or maybe just cut the 2 month’s brain stem?

                    5. Ironically; Even if the state showed up with guns to stop a determined mother from throwing her child off a bridge or cutting it’s brain stem – the child would survive only by the mothers death.

                      Which plays 100% into the Pro-Life stance; whether the death of woman’s body rights is a legitimate ‘means’ to the ‘ends’ of finished reproduction cycles and birth. You cannot *pretend* your way into separate individuals.

                      As stated before — GOV-GUN FORCED REPRODUCTION.
                      Sorry; I’ll keep supporting Individual Liberty and Justice.

            2. An organ has no protentional for life nor is living on its own.

              Your rationalizations are getting worse.

        3. fatty jeff’s morals include child death? Strange.

        4. Just as the antebellum slaveowners disagreed that black people had the moral capacity to be free and therefore they were justified to hold them as property. Your disagreement does not prove the justness of your assertions, nor that no one is harmed by the continuation of legal abortion.

          1. Just as the antebellum slaveowners disagreed that black pregnant females had the moral capacity to be free and therefore they were justified to hold the white fetus in them as property.

            … and since a statically PART of them was held as property; They themselves became property as well.

            Your disagreement does not prove the justness of your assertions, nor that no one is harmed by the thwarting of people’s own body rights – (which in the clearest of terms is enslavement).

        5. “But, we do not all agree on the moral status of the fetus. That is the big question here.”

          Which would be fine, except it seems to me that no one on the Pro-Abortion side really wants to figure out where that line between “clump of cells” and “unborn person” lies. Instead they make the Randian arguments about forcing the mother to care for something against her will, or throw up silly canards like “Well you take care of the baby then, hypocrite.”

          So, Chemjeff, since you agree that the key is the point where personhood begins, what is your view? And why is it logically sound compared to the general pro-life views of contraception or implantation?

        6. That’s the only question here, really.

          There are vanishingly few anti-abortion people who think a fetus is not a human life, and oppose abortion for other reasons. I enjoy calling this the anti-women’s rights position, in contrast to pro-life.

          There are vanishingly few pro-abortion people who think a fetus is a human life, and support abortion for other reasons. This is basically the Margaret Sanger old-school (or honest) Democrat looking to exterminate undesirables and racial minorities.

          1. … Or maybe it’s just a matter of whether the correct usage of Gov-Gun-Forces is to *force* a woman against her own will to serve out reproduction cycles for the sake of Pro-Life’s moral standards (the question you want to pretend it’s all about).

            i.e. Gov-Gun Forced Reproduction service for State Interest.

            “the question” can be answered INDIVIDUALLY by EACH PERSON separately; it’s called Individual Liberty.

            1. As usual, you’re failing basic grammar. It’s not a matter of individual liberty to make decisions that affect the rights of – let alone kill – others.

              My point is, again, it all rolls back to that initial question – is it “another,” is it a “human being,” is it a “person”?

              You say no, because you’re an intellectually bankrupt moron who believes in abortion so strongly you’ll contort and contradict basic philosophical and metaphysical premises.

              Or, perhaps you’re my exception that proves the rule. Who are you trying to exterminate, Marge?

              1. Ya; You have a good point. It really is all about the ability of Pro-Life lobbyists to *PRETEND* a pregnancy is “another” second full grown individual person wondering around in the streets.

                I usually don’t support other’s imaginations when it comes to something as serious as pointing Gov-Guns and making threats. Kind of how I don’t *PRETEND* guns are running around by themselves shooting people but instead blames the PERSON behind the gun; as I think of the person who is pregnant is but a PERSON and the PARTS within her aren’t a whole other subject.

                Individual is the keyword; And since that concept blows the Pro-Life stance to pieces I see now they’re all ducking and running for other terms. Duck and Run, Duck and Run compulsively and consistently is all I see Pro-Life doing to justify their desire to stick the Gov-Guns in to people’s PERSONAL life’s just as much as they possibly can. Any excuse, any justification, MORE, MORE, MORE POWER….

      2. Never-mind those *facts* of the situation. Like for example the State CANNOT survive the fetus before 21-weeks.

        Which really puts the Pro-Life movement into the FORCED REPRODUCTION arena.

        1. “FORCED REPRODUCTION”

          How did the State force the parents to have sex and conceive a child? Because that is when the “reproduction” occurred.

          Unless you can show me that, then as far as I can tell the State is preventing a parent from killing the kid that they created through consensual (in 99% of cases) reproductive activities.

          1. The State *is* forcing the mother to reproduce by banning all accessible alternatives after conception….

            Your ignorance to the argument and pretending that reproduction happens in an instant-time of conception to develop a child is just *ignorance* and denial of the reproduction process.

            Pro-Life kind of invented and lives in their own delusional world. Just as many “ends justify the means” Power-Mad excuses and justification camps do.

            1. “The State *is* forcing the mother to reproduce by banning all accessible alternatives after conception….”

              But after conception, she has already created a person. She has reproduced. Or are you saying reproduction doesn’t occur until the baby has left the mom? Is that *really* what you are insisting? A baby 2 days away from birth has no protection from murder, even though if it happened to be born 2 days earlier it would be protected?

              1. “But after conception, she has already created a person.” lmao….. Yep; see there it is. And absolute show of ignorance to reality.

                squirt, pop, hey look; where did that ?person? come from? The stork must have dropped it off by mistake.

                1. Yep, at least I am trying to answer the relevant question: when is it a person. But, like most pro-baby-killers, you don’t want to confront that question. I have seen this playbook from your ilk before. You have already started on the rounds of “oh how absurd that a single cell is a person”

                  And next I will point out how absurd it is to suggest that an baby in the womb 8.5 months after conception is not a person but a baby born 8.5 weeks after conception is a person.

                  This will dance around a bit, where you are never willing to define the point where a clump of cells becomes a person who has rights.

                  1. When is it a person?
                    As stated; by the U.S. Constitution when ‘born’.
                    Or by the very definition of person?
                    person = human, individual … when it is ‘individual’.

                    And the very point the State can take a preservation of ‘life’ interest without stomping all over Individual Rights. When it is ‘individual’ and not a PART (i.e. Sub-Person) of an *ACTUAL* Individual.

                    I have just enough sympathy for Pro-Life’s argument to support Roe v Wade and State banning of Abortion (post 21-weeks) but I don’t support stomping all over a Woman’s Personal life and rights to her own body from pretending a 30% development which is so “dead” already (i.e. REALITY) it can’t be survived by *ALL* the medical technology in the world.

                    And the strangest thing??? To think that would be the best solution to all interests concerned. That people’s private family life could be kept out of the almighty Gov-Gods hands.

                    Mark 12:17; Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

                    1. Have you ever actually read the constitution? You keep making claims obviously wrong to anyone who has.

                    2. 14th Amendment – All persons born or naturalized
                      13th Amendment – Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.

                      The fetus isn’t ‘born’ – The pregnant woman seeking abortion is in ‘involuntary servitude’ to the fetus.

            2. If a woman chooses to fuck, getting pregnant is a possible consequence of fucking.
              If a drunk chooses to drive, crashing is a possible consequence of driving.
              If their choices lead to another person being killed, in what way are they different?

              1. If a woman chooses to drive, killing another is a possible consequence of driving.

                If their ‘choice’ to drive leads to another person being killed – The [WE] mob needs to start regulating all options to drive away.

                ^Power-Mad; Pure and simple. Authoritarian, Tyrannical Power-Mad in every sense of the word.

                1. Nobody is talking about banning sex, you fucking moron.
                  Don’t change the subject.
                  Why does one killer bear different responsibility than the other?
                  Stop being a pussy.

                  1. Well; If ‘banning’ sex isn’t on the table then how is the justifying body-enslavement from it argument relevant?

                    i.e. They opened their legs they deserve to be punished by Gun-Forced enslavement of reproduction.

                    13th Amendment —
                    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States

        2. Never-mind those *facts* of the situation

          LOL! Your facility with logic loudly proclaims that you attended a public school, so you should have at least been exposed to Biology. Let’s Science! this conundrum for a moment.

          Homo sapiens sapiens has risen to the apex of all species on this planet. What can be determined about evolutionary advantage from that fact?

          Having 2 sexes provides an evolutionary advantage. Live birth provides an evolutionary advantage. A long gestation period provides an evolutionary advantage. Adult behavior to protect all of the young of the group and not just their own offspring (tribal behavior) provides an evolutionary advantage.

          Women, but not men, getting pregnant is a feature, not a bug. Men protecting pregnant women, even those who are not carrying their own offspring, is a feature, not a bug.

          You know what can never provide an evolutionary advantage? An organism killing its own offspring.

          1. Yet all ur grand-standing “science” *STILL* cannot turn a (pre 21-week) pregnant woman into a two individuals of a Woman and Offspring — So the only “science” you’ve got is banging your head up against the wall of nature or *pretending* something that isn’t factually so.

            Propaganda runs wild.

            You know what can never provide Individual Freedom? Body enslavement of others.

    2. Given that, shouldn’t Reason be *celebrating* the Texas law as a triumph of state power over federal power?

      In this particular case, the state power is a Stasi-like scheme to get neighbors to rat each other out through the courts. REGARDLESS of the issue, I don’t think any libertarian ought to celebrate such a scheme.

      1. Lol. This is what you call stasis? Letting individuals sue each other civilly? As you ignore blm riots. Going to people’s houses, assaults, entering restaurants to harass people, etc.

        No, this is the line for you. The ability to sue on civil court. Lol.

      2. By the way jeff. . I’m sure you dont support the massive liberal groups trying to find and arrest all J6 protestors even if they never entered the building right? Getting them fired as well? I mean you speak out against it so much.

      3. Nope not at all what the law says, but we know where you get your information because you’re a far leftie shill.

      4. I don’t think any libertarian ought to celebrate such a scheme.

        A scheme to reserve a right to the People to redress a grievance as allowed by the Constitution. A scheme to circumvent judicial dismissal of the grievance for lack of standing. A scheme where government agents don’t decide who gets punished by the process and where a jury would decide the merits instead of a credentialed public servant.

        I can see why a socialist could not abide such a scheme. What exactly is your reason?

    3. Given that, shouldn’t Reason be *celebrating* the Texas law as a triumph of state power over federal power?

      You gotta keep going with this. What about the citizens not being happy with State power over the people?

    4. “I *believe* that your labors create a different *thing* from “yours” and should be state legislated to protect lazy-others against their laziness and poverty that will lead to death.” — Keep promoting that slavery line!

      The federalist system you speak of also allowed states to keep slavery legal until the civil war. Until the 13th Amendment established federal authority to insist the States respect Individual Rights.

    5. Nobody is “celebrating” abortion.

      1. Shout Your Abortion didn’t exist as a trend?

      2. Hey look, it’s Mike lying again.

        Let me google that for you Mike: https://bfy.tw/RgxI

        Wow, looks like a lot of people celebrating abortion!

        Also, let’s be clear that Mike will always parachute into a conversation in an attempt to look reasonable when in fact he is a died in the wool lefty. His only purpose is to appear centrist and then provoke an argument with concern troll style.

    6. I find it sad that Reason is so anxious to celebrate abortion. I believe that this is a subject on which libertarian-minded individuals can and do disagree in good faith, and Reason should reflect that.

      Especially given that the opposition to abortion as the result of rape or medical necessity is so much more defensible.

      1. Said absolutely no one on this thread. We can easily talk about those margin cases once we have worked through the vast, vast majority of abortions that occur in this country.

        1. Sell your individual souls to the [WE] foundation; because YOU don’t own you, the [WE] foundation does!

    7. You are aware that in matters of objective law, beliefs do not matter. f people from anywhere in the U.S. or the globe can sue someone for either having an abortion or being involved in an abortion, then this is obviously not just a local matter for Texas.

      This Texas law effectively allows the entire Planet to swoop down and sue a woman having an abortion and her assistants into oblivion and violate their freedom without due process, since it is considered a “civil action.”

    8. Also, letting Anti-Abortionists have their own Balkanized homeland still wouldn’t satisfy them.

      After Anti-Abortionists fill their homeland with unplanned children whom they can’t support and care for, and after they bankrupt both their personal and homeland government budgets trying to support unplanned births, Anti-Abortionists would set their eyes upon other more prosperous Pro-Choice homelands that didn’t make their stupid mistake and won better prizes.

      Anti-Abortionists would want the “Peace, Land, and Bread,” and “Lebenstraum of Pro-Choice homelands and would invade the Pro-Choice homelands. And since their “beliefs” are all that matter and misery loves company, the Anti-Abortionists would end up forcing the Anti-Abortionism on the Pro-Choice people they attempt to conquer.

      Congratulations! In attempting to “make nice,” your little Secessionist scheme ends up making abortion into a cause of potential world war, where, once again, actual, viable lives are sacrificed and slaughtered in the name of the potential and unborn.

      (By the way, the accurate terms are not “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Abortion,” but “Anti-Abortion” and “Pro-Choice.”

      Not everyone who is Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion in every instance and as shown by the examples of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ceauşescu, and the whole historical line-up of the Papacy, not everyone who is Anti-Abortion is Pro-Life.)

      1. You’ve got a lot more to worry about if the U.S. balkanizes into pro- and anti-abortion camps. You’ll be with all the Democrats who will quickly turn yours into a failed socialist state. They’ll probably flip on abortion soon thereafter in a desperate attempt to fund their decrepit welfare programs with new workers.

        True, our faster-expanding population will hasten the Reconquest swift when we decide to liberate you… but we’ll probably only take the good parts. Perhaps we will leave Seattle as a sort of walled in CHOP zoo.

        Maybe someday you’ll learn the religious people who really don’t like killing babies are a better team than the one that will kill you for your stuff, as pertains to preserving liberty.

        1. Nope. I’ll choose to have no “team” until one of the bunches of jerks gets it right.

          1. While you wait for monkeys and typewriters to land on their one-in-a-trillion to merit your beneficence, there are real world consequences to those votes you aren’t taking.

        2. ^THIS.. The ‘Anti-Abortion’ Team has but !!-ONE-!! problem; the use of Gov-Guns.

          Maybe someday you’ll learn the religious people who really don’t like killing babies are a better *team* than the one that will kill you for your ……… BODY, as pertains to preserving reproduction.

          The Anti-Abortion crowd isn’t demanding to be religious / rightous in the face of wicked law — It’s DEMANDING everyone be as religious / righteous by their LAW!

          It’s actually a common fault of socialist and communist societies were *EVERYONE* must adhere to the tyranny of the Gov-Guns.

          Since the fetus isn’t individual and *is* dependent on another that excuse doesn’t fly to a civil society baseline. In as much as leftards want to ‘ENSLAVE’ everyone else for the ‘common good’; it is just a much of a curse to ‘ENSLAVE’ anyone for someone else’s ‘common good’.

          1. MARK 12:17 — Jesus said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”

            I don’t support the Gov-Gods packing Gov-Guns as a religion.
            If those who are preforming abortion are sinful; let God judge them.
            It’s not an AREA for the Gov-Gods.

            1. God himself gave *WOMEN* the gate-keepers key to reproduction why?
              Well; I don’t know
              … but I do know one thing – he didn’t give it to anyone else so I’m not sure where anyone else gets off pretending their Gov-Gods can take that ‘key’ away.

      2. See, this seems so needlessly argumentative and insulting to me. First, this isn’t ‘creating Balkanization’, it is acknowledging that states have the police power, not the Federal government. States are intended to be allowed to make different decisions, and people are free to move between the states to find what suits them better.

        Also, I simply disagree with the suggestion that being pro-abortion is innately better economically than being anti-abortion. I don’t suppose there is any way to be sure, but that seems puerile to me. Nor do I accept your framing of the sides. I think both “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are euphemistic. I prefer pro-abortion and anti-abortion; it demonstrates what the debate is actually about.

        Finally, everything you describe was used to argue (ironically, given your previous comment) against intervention into slavery; people argued that it was simply an attempt of the North to force their ‘beliefs’ onto the South, that it would lead to economic devastation to get rid of it, and that people were not ‘pro-slavery’ per se, but rather were in support of people’s freedom to choose to have slaves.

        In the end, we can either seek to have a Federal law on abortion by Constitutional amendment or we can accept state-by-state rulings. What is most improper, in my mind, is the current faux-law status quo that Roe and its progeny have created. If I had my way, the Supreme Court would not find abortion unconstitutional (even though I think it is wrong), but rather would say “this is a legislative issue that we should never have gotten involved in. We therefore overrule Roe and Casey.”

    9. I disagree about abortion, but I do agree about libertarians honestly and reasonably disagreeing on the subject. I don’t think libertarian principle provides a definitive answer.

      1. I appreciate that. There is plenty we can agree on, and it is reasonable to disagree on some moral issues. What I don’t understand is why some argue that having an anti-abortion position makes you not a libertarian.

        Having read the comments on Reason for a while, though, I guess there is nothing more libertarian than… establishing dogmatic rules and demanding all abide by them in order to be in the club?

  16. “Turning to predictions for moral relativism, Figure 2 shows that getting a bachelor’s degree in any field except education predicts lower moral relativism compared to individuals who do not enroll.”

    Good to know our teachers will continue to lead the propagation of Post-modernism and CRT.

  17. Sobolewski stopped at a convenience store in Perry County last month where he saw a sign for 20-ounce Mountain Dew bottles: 2 for $3. He grabbed a bottle, slapped $2 on the counter and walked out. What he didn’t know was a single bottle was $2.29, not $1.50.

    Another aspect of this kind of scam is: “That price is for ‘club members’; *you* pay twice as much.”

    1. It may be a shitty, Redneck-y convenience store pricing scheme, but Sobelewski still owes the full price due. In fact, “grab-and-dashers” like Sobelewski are part of why convenience store prices are so damn high.

      If Sobelewski had just not been an ill-mannered savage and interacted personally with the store cashier, he could have found out the actual price for single Mountain Dews and he wouldn’t be in his legal mess.

      By the way, if you had a store that loses $1.5 Million Dollars a year because of “grab-and-dashers” like this, one would understand why the law has to be so strict. And when you look at store prices you have to pay because of “grab-and-dashers” one would wonder why the law isn’t enforced more.

      1. They lost 43 cents compared to the single item price. They’d have to have a grab-and-dasher of this magnitude once every 9 seconds or so to “lose” $1.5 million a year, but in the meantime they’d be raking in several times that amount in pure profit from, you know, getting $2 for 20 ounce bottles of soda every 9 seconds.

        In all seriousness, the guy is in the wrong, but he should not be facing felony charges over 43 cents no matter how long his rap sheet is. I’m not even sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the theft was intentional – perhaps he should just be made to pay the difference, be banned from the store if they so choose, and go on with his life.

        1. The store I work for loses far more than just on soft drinks. We have damn “grazers” who leave grape bunches and deli plates half-eaten throughout the store or who teach their children to do such things!

          We are flanked by two homeless encampments filled with people who come in with backpacks and leave with countless $Thousands in small merchandise like medicines, knives, silverware, jewelry, electronics! We now have to put Dove Soap, air matresses, and men’s socks in locked cases and personnel with keys have to fetch them!

          Some of those homeless encampers left us with a bedbug infestation back in June, which means we had to pay for extra extermination services, and my legs still haven’t recovered, even after I steam-cleaned my apartment from what I bought home! Bed-bugs should be part of some Mideaval Bestiary with Dragons, Unicorns, Vampires, and Were-Beasts, not something thatcany longer lives on the face of the Earth, yet here they are, courtesy of homeless street looters!

          Also, we have to watch every big-screen TV and Air Conditioner Unit like a hawk and keep security devices on them until purchased. And we have to look inside anything that holds anything before letting them out the door.

          And all this time, I wonder: Where do we go to get back nice things?

  18. “Higher education liberalizes moral concerns for most students, but it also departs from the standard liberal profile by promoting moral absolutism rather than relativism,” researchers write in the abstract to a new paper published in American Sociological Review.

    Can we stop calling moral relativism liberal? The left has corrupted that term. They are no longer actually liberal but push absolute moralistic. And colleges are the breeders of this ethos now. Larger shares of college budgets go to victim studies and post modernist theory than objective fields like science and engineering. Classical liberalism is rare on the left. Objective analysis disfavored.

    1. Can we stop calling moral relativism liberal?

      You are right, it’s not. It is completely bipartisan now. “Whataboutism” is simply moral relativism applied to politics.

      1. As you commit whataboutism to capture both sides. Lol. You’ve done nothing but whataboutism the last few days. Weird.

        1. Are you demonstrating your moral relativism by attempting to criticize my alleged moral relativism? Why yes, yes I think you are.

          1. No. I was pretty clear in calling you a hypocrite.

    2. Larger shares of college budgets go to victim studies and post modernist theory than objective fields like science and engineering.

      Do you have any proof whatsoever for this claim? This is ridiculous on its face.

      1. Most tier one schools fund the majority of their engineering and sciences through applications to various government or corporate research dollars. But you are free to look at the growth of humanities colleges, the explosion of diversity employees, etc. You can do your own research. There is a reason those colleges are making required classes for all students. But knowing you you will look up average prof pay and ignore number of professors and support staff. Also there are pure liberal arts colleges with virtually no engineering or science offerings outside of physics, biology, or math.

        Bit you do you jeff.

        1. So you don’t have proof, only conjecture. And it’s not my job to prove your claim, it’s your job.

          Why don’t you actually post some supposed proof that more money from college budgets go towards ‘victim’s studies’ departments than towards science and engineering departments. That is your claim.

          1. I’m sorry Jeff. I missed your detailed proof. Me not doing your homework is me not doing your homework. This is the sophistry you do. You are free to counter the argument with your own argument or proof. You have not done so. You’ve devolved into mere sophistry. There is a shit ton of information you are ignorant to. Indont have decades to try to teach you as you reject it outright. Just like you rejected information yesterday simply because you disagreed with the source. Youre useless. There is zero reason to try to argue with you.

            1. I repeat:

              And it’s not my job to prove your claim, it’s your job.

            2. Jesse: “I’m going to make a wild unsubstantiated claim here”
              Me: “I doubt the validity of your claim. Do you have proof?”
              Jesse: “DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK! PROVE MY CLAIM FOR ME, YOU DUMBASS”

            3. I’m beginning to understand you a little better now.

              You’re an arrogant bully.

              You believe that you are not only right, but that your arguments are so right that they don’t even need to be scrutinized. The claim that college budgets spend more money on “victim’s studies” than on science and engineering department sounds so “truthy” because it comports so well with the right-wing narrative of “OUT OF CONTROL LIBRULZ RUNNING THE COLLIDGES” that it must be self-evidently true. And you surround yourself with a right-wing bubble that reinforces that narrative so thoroughly that it doesn’t even enter your mind that these claims might be false. They can’t be! And anyone daring to criticize them gets shouted down because that is all they deserve in your mind.

              1. No, I don’t bother with sophists. You aren’t worth my time. That is not arrogance. Why would I waste time providing you links when you reject them outright? Half the time you don’t even read the full post as you ignore information or arguments provided in that which you criticize. You aren’t worth arguing with because you are ignorant and you lie.

            4. Sorry Jesse, but it is bad form to make a statement of fact and decline to back it up with proof and then badger someone for not proving your data for you.

              I also highly doubt that universities spend more on “victim studies and post modernist theory” than objective fields, though it would not surprise me if they were getting close. If you can’t prove it, there is no shame in saying “sorry I got caught up in the moment and got a little hyperbolic”.

              It honestly doesn’t change the fact that Universities, which were once a place of enriching our minds to deal with a complex society are now becoming training grounds for totalitarians who feel society must conform to whatever ridiculous kitch moral philosophy has captured their feelz for this week.

              1. In a term paper you are correct. In a reply thread where I have dozens of examples of providing Jeff links with citations for him to merely dismiss, don’t care to waste the time. He is free to google it. There are 2 concrete examples below that he dismissed out of hand with no consideration. Likewise he provided no links for his own assertions. So again, I rise to the level of my opponent in an argument. If it is a discussion he is free to prove me wrong. I am not writing a citation filled term paper. That is a silly requirement to have especially at this site. About 90% of “factual statements” here go uncited.

                Surprised you are defending him Overt. You know he is as terrible as Mike.

                1. “So again, I rise to the level of my opponent in an argument. ”

                  Moral relativism?

              2. Here’s a study from 2017 that supports both arguments. To summarize:
                Colleges and universities spend more on STEM than Humanities. They do lump Behavioral and Social Sciences in on the STEM side so it is not clear how much goes into each. The STEM factions get a lot of the outside grant money as Jesse suggested, most of it federal. The Humanities have climbed up 74.6% in the 2007 to 2017 time period, so definitely trending in that direction.
                Here is the link:
                https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/funding-and-research/research-and-development-expenditures-colleges-and

        2. Science and engineering departments are expensive. They have expensive instruments and laboratories to maintain. It is absurd to think that the sheer cost of ‘victim’s studies’ departments, in aggregate, are higher than the costs associated with science and engineering departments.

          1. So no proof, just conjecture? Lol. I already told you about research budgets from proposals dumbass. My engineering college was 90% funded from grants, not the university. Every senior and grad project was funded through grants.

            You were told this above and just outright ignored it. It is useless to argue with your sheer ignorance.

            1. So your “proof” is a single anecdote from your engineering college. And by the way, all those research grants go into the COLLEGE BUDGET. They are INCLUDED in the money spent on various departments on campus.

              So not only do you not have any proof, you don’t even understand how budgets work. Par for the course for you.

              1. Jeff, you have provided no proof. I can provide you the research budgets and requirements to be labeled as a tier 1 school, but you’d dismiss it outright. Again. You’re dishonest in argumentation.

          2. When I was a grad student many years ago, our medical research dept brought in over $100 million in grants. Every penny devoted to my work or to salaries carried a hefty “indirect costs” fee that gets added. So my $30,000 fellowship not only paid my tuition to the university and paid my stipend, but another 12 grand went to the university. They actually got more “indirect costs” off of me than I got paid to live on.

            That is indeed how much of the humanities was funded.

            This was before the tuition explosion brought about by cheap loan guarantees.

            Now? I cannot see how a university can fail to turn a huge profit on a $20k – $ 50k tuition check. Still, those indirect costs are also racking up.

            1. Jeff requires proof from every single school as he provides none. This is pretty standard. The definition of a tier 1 engineering/science university literally requires certain dollar amounts in grants.

  19. You can read his full complaint here.

    Guaranteed to give the Courts a chuckle.

    Sample: On information and belief, Defendant is kind and patient and helpful toward bastards

  20. “Turning to predictions for moral relativism, Figure 2 shows that getting a bachelor’s degree in any field except education predicts lower moral relativism compared to individuals who do not enroll”

    We’re describing elitism.

    It isn’t necessary to be a moral relativist to believe that average people should be free to make choices for themselves, and we’re talking about college graduates who imagine that the choices they make are superior to those of average Americans in absolute terms. The idea that people should be free to make stupid choices for themselves is probably alien to most of them, which is another way of saying they’re morally bankrupt. There is no legitimate morality that doesn’t at least consider the obligation to respect agency.

    We’re talking about the morality of the Red Guard.

    “First we will make China Maoist from inside out and then we will help the working people of other countries make the world red…and then the whole universe.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards

    I wish they understood a little bit more about uncertainty. I wonder if they still make them do uncertainty analyses on undergraduate lab reports? Since STEM has become so important to society, they should probably include a philosophy of science component along with logic–if they even bother teaching critical thinking anymore.

    People who are sure they’re right are bad enough. God save us all from elitists who are both sure they’re right and contemptuous of the obligation to respect the right of average people to be wrong.

    1. Since STEM has become so important to society, they should probably include a philosophy of science component along with logic–if they even bother teaching critical thinking anymore.

      “Just one more question before we hand you your diploma: ‘Brothers and sisters have I none, but this man’s father is my father’s son. Who is this man?'”

      1. Joe Biden?

      2. “Just one more question before we hand you your diploma: ‘Brothers and sisters have I none, but this man’s father is my father’s son. Who is this man?’”

        I can’t figure out who he is, but if he’s only addressing his “brothers and sisters”, then he’s definitely insensitive to non-binary and genderqueer identities and shouldn’t be allowed to hold a position of authority.

        Do I get my diploma?

    2. I had questions about the notion of I had questions about the notion of moral relativism versus moral progressivism.

      In my experience, moral relativism meant that you In my experience, moral relativism mint that you cannot apply your on morality to people from other societies. So we can it judge as text who sacrifice their enemies to there gods by the same Moral code that we would apply to ourselves. They seem to think it means something entirely different.

      By that definition, it sounds very much like there idea of moral progressivism. By that definition, it sounds very much like their idea of moral progressivism. This notion that morality changes as society changes. I don’t think they really grasp what morality is.

      Surface things might change. Calling a man in a dress “he” might Trigger them as being immortal in this day and age. But the immortal foundation is that one should be kind and not insulting in ones Behavior relative to other human beings. That is an immutable moral principle that transcend society and time. Misgendering is not some Squishy new moral principle that It has come to be because of moral Progress. It is not a moral issue unto itself.

      Murder is wrong. This is not moral progression, nor is it relative. It is absolute.

      If you’re morality morphs over time from one thing into another thing, then you have not properly defined your moral code.

      1. Yeah, moral relativism would have us believe that morality varies with perspective, with a heavy dose of that being a function of culture. It’s an extremely tolerant view–too tolerant for most. There are isolated cultures in this world that perform ritualized sexual practices with children as a function of culture. How tolerant are you of other people’s cultures now?!

        This came into the culture war in a big way. A lot of people on the right associated moral relativism with an attack on the idea that anything is right or wrong apart from the culture that creates those definitions. It’s tied to religion in their minds. Meanwhile, it’s certainly true that, while the definition of, say, murder can be different from one culture to another, every culture believes that it is ethically wrong to murder. Being a headhunter is one thing, but you’re not supposed to kill other members of your own tribe.

        From the culture war perspective, the left likes to imagine that the right is married to the idea that women have specific roles in society, and that these roles are absolute and fixed in religion. It’s mostly culture war bullshit. Things are getting real now that the progressives have embraced intolerance for the beliefs, desires, and freedom of others as foundational to what they’re about.

        I thought this was dealt with in existentialism back in the 20th century, but the progressives running the academy seem to have forgotten everything that happened in the 20th century. Because we’re all subject to perspective, doesn’t mean there isn’t an objective truth–even if we can’t perceive it directly. Meanwhile, we all have the freedom to make our own judgements about what we see and act accordingly.

        I thought this was dealt with in Pulp Fiction! Travolta’s character is a relativist, who has to deal with reality when his bosses woman mistakes his heroin for cocaine. Willis’ character is an absolutist, who comes to realize that leaving the absolutist bad guy to suffer a fate worse than death is morally wrong. Jackson’s character is struggling with making sense of the truths he sees while being subject to a limited perspective. The moral truth as it is survives. End of story.

        With modern progressives, however, this is a lot more than the question of whether the perspectives of other people are able to see something like the truth or perceive right and wrong in an objective or relative way. Modern progressivism is an attack on the value of agency itself. Once a scientific question is answered, to their satisfaction, the implementation, in their minds, isn’t a question of whether some people object at all. Their obligation to respect other people’s agency isn’t even worthy of consideration in their minds. That’s why they’re like the Red Guards.

        They are intolerant in the most fundamental way. It’s not a question of whether some people perceive the truth from their own perspective. It’s a question of why anyone should be allowed to get in the way of progressive truth. It’s not a question of, “If you aren’t with us, you’re against us”. That assumes it matters whether people are against you. Progressives don’t care about the people who are against them or why they’re against them. There is no obligation to respect the rights of such people in their minds, so there’s no agonizing over whether the truth is subjective. Progressives have no doubt in their own minds, and nothing else really matters.

        1. “Once a scientific question is answered, to their satisfaction, the implementation, in their minds, isn’t a question of whether some people object at all. Their obligation to respect other people’s agency isn’t even worthy of consideration in their minds.”

          —-Ken Shultz

          When the Nazis implemented their eugenics solutions, the problem wasn’t just that they were wrong about various aspects of genetics, what was desirable, how evolution works, etc.–although they were wrong about a lot of that. The problem was that they had no respect for their obligation to respect the agency of others.

          When progressive want to implement their solutions to income inequality, global warming, etc., the problem isn’t just that they’re wrong about how the economy works or that they’re wrong about the costs and benefits of getting rid of natural gas. The problem is that they have no respect for their obligation to respect the agency of others.

          It’s their willingness eagerness to use the coercive power of government to inflict themselves on the unwilling that’s the problem. And, at its heart, we’re talking about a moral failure. You cannot behave ethically while enthusiastically ignoring the obligation to respect the agency of others.

    3. “The left wants the same thing everywhere, and wants it to happen in the same order.”

    4. I don’t think the left or elites in general have a monopoly in believing that THEIR personal opinions are truth, while others making different choices are making a mistake. I have many conservative and religious friends who will spend hours judging others for making different choices. I have family who will tell me endlessly how stupid product A is versus product B.

      The primary thing that sets the Elites apart is that they hold the reins of government, and so they can FORCE their choices upon us. Case in point, Michael Bloomberg. That guy is pure elite- he doesn’t like sugary drinks, and so he thinks it is his place to make that decision for millions of other people- billions if he had the ability.

      It’s noteworthy in traditional pedagogy you never really got to real critical thinking (go find evidence, review it and synthesize a conclusion) until your Masters degree. Prior to that, most of your scholarly achievements were through completing some work variation along the lines of “given this position, go find evidence supporting it”.

      But where we COULD be preparing our kids in school is basic logical reasoning, as you said. As I have said many times before, you will never find the answers to morality through scientific research.You need to reason your way there from first principles. If your morality rests on some interpretation of science, you have a morality that could flip over night.

    5. getting a bachelor’s degree in any field except education predicts lower moral relativism

      It is a feedback loop. Education majors become teachers and administrators in the public schools. Many parents are either not involved enough to comprehend why their kids don’t understand truth or so concerned about their kids ‘doing well in school’ that they reinforce to their kids that the answers that the teachers want are more important than a good answer. Education majors advance up the academic and administrative chain and each successive generation of teachers and students are exposed to more dogma.

      It would be interesting to see how it trends for non-education majors who never leave academia.

  21. Did the girls get kicked off?

    The comments seem empty without “FUCK BIDEN!” “YOU WANTED THIS!” “YOU VOTED FOR BIDEN!” and all that nonsense.

    1. Or maybe they’re all the same person who is taking the day off.

      1. You must have missed the comment above where a person claims Biden is *grateful* that his son died.

        1. But where is the cacophony?

          “jefsarc voted for Biden he wanted this!”

          “jeff is obese!”

          “SQRLY, sarc, jeff, and Mark are all the same Reason employee!”

          Comments make no sense without all the personal attacks.

          1. Lol. You are the same team dumbass. You’re doing it in this very thread.

          2. I’m guessing many are muting you.

            1. What does that have to do with them crowing like the cocks that they are, virtue signaling to their conservative brethren with “Democrats baaaaad! Biden baaaad! sarc is a drunk! jeff is fat! If you were mean to Trump you voted for Biden and wanted this! Reason is a progressive rag! What about this story that I feel to be important that Reason isn’t covering?!?”

              1. Leave Joe Biden Alone and emotional sarcasmic yelled out.

                Please tell is why people shouldn’t be yelling fuck Joe biden? What has he done well? Yet youre upset people ar le criticizing him. And claiming not to be a leftist lol. Even independents are against biden at this point.

                1. Because TRUMP!, of course.

        2. So youre saying he doesn’t mention it all the time to cover up his failures as a means for fake empathy?

          1. I am saying that casting negative aspersions on Biden regarding his son’s death is a completely dick move which is below the belt, on par with bringing Barron Trump into a political fight.

            1. When you are telling the mother of a dead soldier grieving that “hey my son died too” you deserve to be criticized dumbass. He uses it as an excuse for his failures. The appropriate response is to let the mother grief instead of making it about yourself.

              Didn’t you pretend to be empathetic once?

            2. Biden using his son’s death to further his political career is worse.

              But you’re a Biden voter, so I expect you’re compliance with his ideals.

            3. “I am saying that casting negative aspersions on Biden regarding his son’s death”

              JOE brings it up.

              Incessantly.

              Where it does not belong.

              It is irrelevant that his 40+ yr old son died of brain cancer when the issue is that BIDEN USED A DRONE TO KILL 7 CHILDREN. And 3 adults, likely younger than Beau as well.

            4. on par with bringing Barron Trump into a political fight

              Biden regularly brings Beau’s memory into political fights even when it’s completely irrelevant, like what was being referenced in the OP you’re complaining about. Barron was kept so far away from the spotlight that he was rumored to be autistic, and the press lost their shit after he had a growth spurt. Not remotely comparable.

              If Trump brought up Fred Jr. every time he came against some obstacle and people were previously criticizing others’ badmouthing of that tic then you might have a point. As is, you’re just unable to cope with the fact that you’ve been had.

            5. Maybe when Biden stops humping his dead son’s corpse every time someone criticizes him for his dumb actions, it will be acceptable to stop dragging him for it.

            6. “I am saying that casting negative aspersions on Biden regarding his son’s death is a completely dick move which is below the belt, on par with bringing Barron Trump into a political fight.”

              Nope. Biden has used his dead son as a shield in the most shameful way. For example, he tried to pull a switcheroo on Trump in one of their debates. When Trump said “Hunter is a grifter”, Biden immediately said “How dare you impeach the honor of my sons. My poor dead son…[long description of Beau’s accomplishments]”.

              This was a shameless, terrible use of his son’s legacy to try and detract from a real issue. And he continued to try and keep the subject on Beau because he knew the public shouldn’t know about Hunter. When Biden performed these acts, HE put his son into play, and removed it from the “untouchable” subject. If anyone made a dick move, it was him.

            7. Trump, with his plethora of negative personality traits, managed to not shoehorn his family issues into other people’s grief. It’s an asshole move, it demonstrates lack of compassion, and is not a leadership trait. What you are saying is that you don’t comprehend this, but think that Biden should be treated better than Trump, whom you liked less.

        3. You must have missed the posted article where Jen Psaki justifies a drone strike by bringing up Biden’s dead family…again. It’s their go to non-sequitur.

          COVID deaths-Refer to Beau Biden
          Afghanistan withdrawal-Refer to Beau Biden
          Drone strike killing children-Refer to fucking Beau Biden

          He compared his personal tragedy of losing a son to cancer who no one was responsible for to killing 7 children for which he is indirectly responsible. Well, directly if the buck truly stops with him, but I’ll take him seriously without taking him literally.

          1. YOU are the one who said “boy, I bet Biden is GRATEFUL his son died!” That is what I am criticizing.

            1. Was I being hyperbolic? Is that a word you understand? Has Biden REPEATEDLY used the death of his son and family to deflect criticism in ways that defy, not only logic, but decorum? Aren’t you all about decorum from public leaders? Wasn’t that part of the Biden appeal? That and his willingness to make himself and his administration accountable?

              “I don’t feel bad for the innocent Afghanis who I left to the wolves and then approved a drone strike on their small children. But I too lost my family due to an accident and through disease. Did the Afghans apologize to me when that happened?”

              That moral relativism bit is timely.

            2. DNC core policy: never waste a good crisis.

            3. It is amazing how you can’t criticize Biden at all.

      2. WTF is wrong with you?

    2. Sites exist which offer a much healthier way to attention whore, and you might even get paid for it.

      1. Seriously? Got any recommendations for where a libertarian can go to be shit on by a bunch of conservatives?

        1. That’s “where a steaming pile of lefty shit can demand attention from adults” shit-for-brains.

          1. You laid an unusually cogent comment on the homelessness article.

            Care to have an actual conversation that isn’t “DIE LEFTIST SCUM WHERE’S MY WALKER YOU BITCH NO I DON’T NEED MY HEARING AID!”

            1. That is about all you can understand, which is why we browbeat you each and every day, Biden voting leftist scumbag.

            2. Note how shit-for-brains best response is to attempt to mocck me for my age.
              Pretty strong indicator of arrested development, no? Say 40-going-on-10.
              Fuck off and die, asshole.

              1. When you shout “Die leftists aauuuggghh!” whenever a cloud crosses the window, yeah you’re gonna get mocked for your age.

              2. Do you need a stick? I thought senile men who shout “Die leftists! You caused my aunt’s gout! Aaauuugghh!” all had sticks. You know, to like shake and stuff.

                1. OK, 40-going-on-5.

                  1. I just picture you as the inspiration for Abe Simpson.

                    “Die leftiiiiists! Die! Where’s my peanut butter? Die leftists!”

                    1. UInfantile piece of lefty shit has not improved.

        2. If you’re really that desperate I’m sure there’s some niche fetish sites where you can make that strange, strange fantasy a reality. Or just start your own! I’m sure there’s a market for it, you just need to find a Colonel.

          Ask SPB, he’s a financial wizard with a proclivity for pedophilia. The parallels are too good.

          1. A Colonel? Like Colonel Fitts? We already got one of those. GG.

            1. I’m making a Boogie Nights reference in a quasi-porn thread. Try and keep up.

              1. I tried to watch that movie. Couldn’t finish. Too stupid.

        3. Why do you want to shitnon other libertarian sites? Go to mother Jones. More your lane. They defend biden by going after trump still too.

        4. Seriously? Got any recommendations for where a libertarian can go to be shit on by a bunch of conservatives?

          Considering how you continually seek out such abuse, my only assumption is that you have some sort of scheizer fetish.

    3. Our perpetual steaming pile of lefty shit victim isn’t getting the beatings he deserves; whines about it.
      Fuck off and die, asshole.

    4. Shocked sarcasmic instigated the fights. So shocked.

      1. Stupid shit does not seem to understand that his whiny, tiresome, lefty ass is NOT the center of the universe.
        Again, this a shining example of arrested development; sumbitch is 40-going-on 10, screaming for mommy’s attention.
        Sumbitch needs to fuck off and die.

        1. “Old grey mare she ain’t what she used to be…”

          1. Infantile piece of lefty shit hasn’t improved.

    5. There they are. I was wondering if the sun was actually going to rise today.

      1. Silly me thought maybe someone would have a serious conversation about homelessness in one of the previous articles. But no. They’re still crying about the election. Waaaah!

        1. Your serious conversation outed you as a person without a house, wandering the countryside and liking it, while experiencing mental health issues. You want sympathy for that?

          Get back on your meds, and get some help.

        2. You literally walked in and thread shit with your first post retard. You have no intention of serious conversation.

          1. Nor the capability.

    6. Shh, don’t get them started.

  22. Comment on poster: If it’s not the property of the state, why are you always demanding the state pay for it?

    While I lean heavily pro-life, it seems rather inconsistent that a women demand total autonomy over her reproduction, yet simultaneously demand taxpayer funded birth control and abortions on demand. Their use of the word “free” does not mean without cost, it means the demand someone else pay for it. That’s not bodily autonomy.

    1. ^YES THIS — END State Parenting completely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT expand it to the very reproduction process.

      State “Parenting” should NOT have the force of Gov-Guns over people/children anymore than one would think parents threatening their children with guns to do as they’re told is the best parenting solution.

    2. No, progressives use the word free as in free of care. They assume of we prog hard enough, we can all live care-free lives.

    3. My favorite is when women gripe about men in Congress having a say over their reproductive system and then vote for a man that wants the government to control all healthcare.

      1. ^EXACTLY!!!!
        And Vice Versa… If Republicans would’ve taken the Pro-Choice stance and Democrats took on the Pro-Life (i.e. Healthcare dictates) there wouldn’t be so much hypocracy in the party lines when it came to the abortion subject.

    4. Being a species that reproduces exclusively sexually, it seems rather inconsistent that women whine about being reproductive slaves and then demand total autonomy over their reproduction in the first place.

    5. A woman may need a man like a fish needs a bicycle, but the government will always be her sugar daddy.

    6. Well, for the record, I am Pro-Choice and I am against government subsidy of any medical procedure, including abortion.

      In fact, with no third-party financing by Government, abortions would be cheaper and easier to have.

      And with Government out of the way of medicine, perhaps medical science can make into reality the idea of Transoption (surgical transplantation of embryos from one uterus to another.)

      So, yes, I would modify the slogan to say: “My Body, My Choice, My Expense!”

  23. The COVID-19 death toll has now reached that of the 1918 flu in terms of sheer numbers. (But “the US population a century ago was just one-third of what it is today, meaning the flu cut a much bigger, more lethal swath through the country,” The Guardian points out.)

    US COVID deaths under 65: 147,000
    US COVID deaths under 50, 36,000.

    The Spanish flu killed mostly 15 to 40 year olds, so a rough estimate would be 500,000 dead under 50. Scaling up for population growth, that would equate to 2.2 million US deaths among Americans under 50. So compared to COVID, more than 60 times more deadly.

    But, sure, let’s set our hair on fire (again).

    1. Don’t try to confuse the covidiots with math.

      1. My favorites are those who REEEE! about COVID being an existential threat when it almost exclusively kills those with co-morbidities well past their breeding age.

  24. Those who are breathing a sigh of relief to see the markets bouncing back after yesterday, take heed . . .

    The subprime mortgage market collapsed in July of 2007, with the collapse of the biggest subprime lender, New Century, probably being emblematic of that. It took a whole year for the reverberations of that to hit the economy broadly in 2008. In fact, Bear Stearns and Lehman collapsed because they bought a lot of New Century’s portfolio out of bankruptcy court for pennies on the dollar. That slow motion train wreck took a whole year to hit the market, and everybody thought it would be smooth sailing–right up until the moment they sailed off the edge of the world.

    China’s developers are falling apart, and the Chinese government doesn’t appear to want to save them. It looks like the government will make the people who bought homes years in advance whole, but the institutions that bought those developers’ bonds and lent them money will likely just have to eat those losses. And this seems to dovetail nicely with Emperor Xi’s plans to transform China into a thoroughly corporatist state with socialist intent. Xi is leading the charge against tech companies in the name of income inequality like he’s running for the nomination of Democratic party as a radical progressive.

    Xi is destroying the market aspects of the Chinese economy on purpose, and the effects on Wall Street are only now starting to hit. Over the next year is probably an especially shitty time to be speculating rather than investing.

    1. “…Xi is leading the charge against tech companies in the name of income inequality like he’s running for the nomination of Democratic party as a radical progressive….”

      AOC hardest hit!
      Scott Adams got her and commie-shits’ numbers:
      https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-09-20

    2. I bought a new truck so the economy will tank, it has the last two times i bought new trucks

      1. Speaking of new trucks, anyone else see the 2022 Tundra revealed yesterday?

        It’s a pig.

        It’s that giant grill on the front of the damn thing + the “bumper”–and then they put the logo up at the top of the grill to make the grill look even larger?

        It’s a Pekinese!

        An aftermarket grill and a front bumper might make it look better, but it still might be a pig, too.

        Meanwhile, to jump through the environmental hoops, they got rid of the V-8 and went with a turbo V-6, which, I don’t care what they say, hurts its reliability. You can’t put more stress on a smaller area and tow the same amount or more over long periods of time without compromising on reliability. The primary selling point of a Tundra, from my perspective, was that you could drive it 40 miles off the road and into the desert with some reasonable confidence because of its reliability. The environmental regulations are screwing that up left and right.

        The same thing happened on the Jeep side. The only reason they upgraded to the JL from the JK was to put a bunch of environmental stuff on it that compromises its reliability. If I were looking for a new truck to tow something and go off road, I’d be looking for a 2021 Tundra before they’re all gone.

        P.S. So what’d you get?

        1. I love my 2020 Tundra. Will probably rebuild it until the body falls off.

          1. Depending on how handy you are, and how much time & money you want to commit, the Toyota diesel engine may be a ‘drop-in.’ I say this as a guy w/ an 1989 F350 w/ a 1st gen Cummins… I like my vehicles diesel, and free of electronics.

        2. I have been looking at replacing our ’13 Suburban now that it is going long in the tooth. The Ford Expedition looked really nice, but as you note, that Ecoboost V6 really gives me pause. I had the ecoboost on a Flex long ago, but that was a much lighter car and it still felt meh.

          The new suburbans have a necked down Diesel that sounds interesting.

          1. My understanding is that diesels are generally more reliable–if they’re serviced properly. A lot of people buy secondhand, and if the first owner didn’t do the maintenance properly, they’re highly susceptible to needing major repairs. If I were buying a Jeep right now, I’d probably go with the diesel.

  25. “Joseph Sobolewski stopped at a convenience store in Perry County last month where he saw a sign for 20-ounce Mountain Dew bottles: 2 for $3.”

    Anyone who drinks Mountain Dew deserves whatever they get! /sarc

  26. “US launches mass expulsion of Haitian migrants from Texas”
    […]
    “The U.S. is flying Haitians camped in a Texas border town back to their homeland and trying to block others from crossing the border from Mexico…”
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-fly-haitian-migrants-home-texas-starting-sunday-80109271

    Which is NOT the story. The story is as follows:
    13,000 Haitians made their was from the island of Haiti to somewhere in Mexico, then proceeded north until reaching theUS border.
    The was no magic, temporary, land-bridge, the seas did not part, nor did those people swim to Mexico. Someone or some group provided organization, transport and food for them
    WHO DID THAT? And why are s/he/they not being charged for 13,000 air tickets to get them back to Haiti?

    1. According to a report in the WSJ, many of these Haitians had been living and working in South America, especially Brazil and Chile, for years. But economic downturns in those countries pushed out the bottom.

      No land bridge required.

      1. OK, but how do you organize, feed and transport 13,000 from Brazil and Chile to the US border?

      2. And, if they are residents in Chile and Brazil, why is the US flying them back to Hiati?

        1. Ask Biden.

          1. You’d think at least one of the news organizations would, but like the number of hostages left in Afghanistan as a result of his colossal fuck up, none seem interested.

  27. Well well. It looks like the market will take care of the vaccine hesitancy problem for us.

    https://archive.is/FFWms

    In 2020, as the pandemic took hold, U.S. health insurance companies declared they would cover 100 percent of the costs for covid treatment, waiving co-pays and expensive deductibles for hospital stays that frequently range into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    But this year, most insurers have reinstated co-pays and deductibles for covid patients, in many cases even before vaccines became widely available. The companies imposed the costs as industry profits remained strong or grew in 2020, with insurers paying out less to cover elective procedures that hospitals suspended during the crisis.

    1. How, exactly, does not covering non-COVID surgeries “fix” hesitancy?

      1. Looks at commenter’s handle, sees ‘asshole-jeff’, pretty much ignores what is going to be other than claimed.

        1. Shut up, you old fag.

          1. Shut the fuck up yourself, you hicklib pederast.

          2. Stuff it up your ass, steaming pile of pedo lefty shit.

      2. He didnt understand what he read.

      3. The quoted portion also says they’re no longer waiving covid treatment (not non-covid) copays and deductible.

        It means that if you need treatment for covid the treatment is no longer costless for you. So you have an incentive to do more to avoid needing treatment for covid.

    2. Republicans are finally getting the DEATH PANELS they used to imagine.

      I’ve read that docs are having to triage unvaccinated COVID patients and let them die where ICUs are full.

      Darwin and Hayek working together! I love it!

      1. Can you provide a cite?

        I have read in more than one article that doctors and other hospital staff in Idaho, where care is being rationed because of all the unvaccinated, are very adamant about not considering vaccination status when triaging who gets care first.

        1. No surprise, then, to see the backlash, including the Alabama doctor who announced that he would not treat patients who refused to get vaccinated, after Gov. Kay Ivey (R) said “it’s time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks” for the jump in cases. Social media hosts the bloodless celebration of celebrities who wind up in the ICU or the morgue, such as Tennessee radio host Phil Valentine, who once made a song mocking vaccines, and whose death from covid inspired responses along the lines of “#COVIDiots thanks for playing the natural selection game.” The less and less “silent majority” from business leaders to health-care workers to much of Blue America, leans toward making the unvaccinated pay for holding everyone else hostage.

          or

          One group of Texas doctors explored the idea in a private memo obtained by the Dallas Morning News: They noted that because a patient’s prognosis is part of the equation and vaccination reduces the chances of severe infection and death, “vaccine status therefore may be considered when making triage decisions as part of the physician’s assessment of each individual’s likelihood of survival.”

          WaPost – behind firewall

          1. Thanks.

        2. It was a warning, not a rationing. It is the same thing they did last year, they were preparing for a surge by reducing the number of non critical surgeries. They have plenty of space, they are just reducing elective surgeries.

          Not shocked you don’t understand basic things.

        3. “…where care is being rationed because of all the unvaccinated,…”

          Mike’s trying to join turd in the “Biggest Liar” event, and giving turd a run for his money.

        4. “are very adamant about not considering vaccination status when triaging who gets care first.”

          Which is a good thing.

      2. Ah yes: trauma centers always prioritize the the seatbelt wearing motorist in the event of an accident. Their first duty is to public health, after all.

        1. I’m guessing health care is no longer a human right to the progs.

          I love Jimmy Kimmel, who used to weep and say that EVERYBODY should have access to health care now advocate to give none to people who did not vaccinate.

          I’d call him a hypocrite but he’s too much of an imbecile for that.

          1. Fuck Kimmel.

            I say the market should auction ICU care to the highest bidder.

            1. Can I offer a spare kidney as payment?

          2. I love Jimmy Kimmel, who used to weep and say that EVERYBODY should have access to health care now advocate to give none to people who did not vaccinate.

            And he’s not even making that argument for vaccines in general; he’s saying it should be done just for people who haven’t gotten a COVID shot, even if they’ve gotten boosters for every other childhood vaccine in the last ten years, plus a smallpox vaccine.

      3. I’ve read that docs are having to triage unvaccinated COVID patients and let them die where ICUs are full.

        No, they’re not triaging them–they’re actively murdering people by continuing to put COVID patients on vents, which dramatically increases the chances of dying, in order to make a political point.

        Going to the hospital when you have COVID, vaccinated or not, should be considered assisted suicide at this point.

        1. They aren’t even triaging, they are reducing elective surgeries.

  28. Re: “Protecting and Serving” – when a dude in a county of 45K gets overcharged for what is at worst the pettiest of larcenies, it’s probably because the cops already know him as a troublemaker and wants to be rid of him.

    /checks story

    Yeah, that’s exactly what happened. This guy reminds me a lot of my junkie cousin. He’ll probably get past it, but the process is the punishment in his case.

    Sobolewski’s first theft conviction occurred more than 10 years ago and involved a tank of gasoline. He drove off without paying. In December 2011, he was arrested for stealing a pair of shoes from a K-Mart in Cumberland County that cost $39.99.

    Sobolewski also was arrested in Cumberland County two months prior to the incident in Perry County for a retail theft with his wife. They were accused of putting craft supplies from a Hobby Lobby into a black backpack. It was filed as a felony since it was his third arrest, but his bond was set at $2,000.

    Sobolewski owed child support in Dauphin County, and owed $1,500 in fines from a prior marijuana possession arrest, but was not wanted on any other crimes. Leister also said the trooper said Sobolewski had been “hiding” from them, an allegation that was not documented in his public police or court record.

    1. Yup I know people like this. Those incidents on record are 1/100 of their actual crimes, because they have learned how to do this stuff daily- committing small crimes that most people won’t bother to report until one day they had enough time or bullshit that they called the cops.

    2. People like this are why convenience stores have to charge the prices they do. The “insurance that covers it” costs premiums which have to be figured into the costs of goods and services.

      My superstore loses $1.5 Million a year and we go months or years without bonuses because of “grab-and-dashers” like this asshole!

      Fuck “abolishing cash bail,” fuck the “defund the police” crowd, fuck the “abolish prisons” crowd, fuck the “Transformative Justice” crowd, and fuck Sobelewski!

      Oh, and Joe Biden (Fuck Be Unto Him!)

  29. “Higher education liberalizes moral concerns for most students, but it also departs from the standard liberal profile by promoting moral absolutism rather than relativism,”

    So college turns people into preachy, self righteous assholes. Truly shocking stuff.

    1. And also awards them big financial debt, proving that their socialist professors were correct, and all good people are victims.

  30. This is a really good article about Emperor Xi’s efforts to destroy the market system in China, with all the progressive aspects to it, etc.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/xi-jinping-aims-to-rein-in-chinese-capitalism-hew-to-maos-socialist-vision-11632150725?

    One aspect that really caught my eye was this claim:

    “At internal meetings, some of them say, Mr. Xi has talked about the need to differentiate China’s economic system. Western capitalism, in his view, focuses too heavily on the single-minded pursuit of profit and individual wealth, while letting big companies grow too powerful, leading to inequality, social injustice and other threats to social stability.

    Early this year, when Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. took down former U.S. President Donald Trump’s accounts, Mr. Xi saw yet another sign America’s economic system was flawed—it let big business dictate what a political leader should do or say—officials familiar with his views said.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/xi-jinping-aims-to-rein-in-chinese-capitalism-hew-to-maos-socialist-vision-11632150725?

    “Xi Jinping Aims to Rein In Chinese Capitalism, Hew to Mao’s Socialist Vision”

    These “officials” are basically saying that when Xi launched his full assault against China’s internet companies, over the last year, it was at least partially inspired by Facebook’s, Google’s, and Twitter’s behavior when they silenced the sitting President of the United States. He was nipping it in the bud!

    Xi (and these officials) seem to be missing the point that Facebook, Google, and Twitter silenced Trump because they were afraid of what the Biden administration and the Democrats in Congress would do to them via antitrust if they didn’t silence President Trump, but just because Xi was wrong to think something doesn’t mean that isn’t what he thought. Meanwhile, Emperor Xi is crushing any Chinese internet company that tried to go public in the United States.

    1. “Facebook, Google, and Twitter silenced Trump because they were afraid of what the Biden administration and the Democrats in Congress would do to them via antitrust if they didn’t silence President Trump”

      You don’t actually know this. Conservatives have regularly complained that the management and employees of the big social media companies are liberal-leaning, which means they may well have been inclined to do these same actions in the absence of any Democratic pressure. You never address this point in your lengthy comments on this topic.

      1. Is that an IMPROVEMENT in your eyes? That they are simply biased?

      2. It takes willful Ignorance to make such an argument. Did you not live through the last 10 years?

        Every one of those tech companies went from being vociferous proponents of complete freedom of expression to ardent censors of Political speech, along partisan lines. This directly followed massive investments In companies like The Groundwork, designed to game the political system for the democrats. It also directly followed Operation Choke Point, in which the Obama administration used regulatory power over the banking system to pressure the banks into putting disfavored businesses out of business.

        Identical tactics have been used to silence opposing voices in an accelerating trend in the years since.

        You did not miracle into existence 30 minutes ago. You were here for the entire progression. Being unable to see it is merely evidence of the power that cognitive dissonance has over our thought processes. None of this was unforseen. Every move has been opposed here, with rational arguments as to the future consequences. Every time, those arguments were poo-pooed as smiled slope fallacies or inventions of paranoia.

        And now that we have moved well beyond those dire predictions, the true believers have to go all-in-one and proclaim that this was always a good thing, and any rational business would obviously have done this anyway.

        I have gained great insight into the popular mind of Stalin era Russia or Mao’s china, watching people here believe whatever they have to believe to maintain their original tenant, that the progressive democrat is the true patriot with the true liberal vision for America. We have moved so far into upside down world that free speech is no longer a positive ideal, a colorblind society is racist, and censorship is not censorship.

        I finally understand how seemingly normal Germans could march their fellow citizens into gas chambers.

        The human mind is dangerously malleable in large groups.

        1. “It takes willful Ignorance to make such an argument…”

          Mike’s got that covered and then some.

    2. Note to self: You can’t put more than one link in a comment or the spam filter will get it, but if you accidentally put in the same link twice, it will go through.

    3. “Mr. Xi has talked about the need to differentiate China’s economic system. Western capitalism, in his view, focuses too heavily on the single-minded pursuit of profit and individual wealth, while letting big companies grow too powerful, leading to inequality, social injustice and other threats to social stability.”

      —-Ibidem

      Emperor Xi might as well be a progressive. When we see China in its present form, we’re seeing the basic outlines of the world the progressives want to build here in the United States.

      Undemocratic, hateful of markets, devoted to redistributing wealth even it means killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, unconcerned with the rights of individuals: Emperor Xi is the leader the progressives are looking for.

      That’s another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

      1. The question is whether they will get that leader or the populist right-wing leader first.

      2. This is one of the most b.s. things you say. How are the Chinese Communists on such Progressive issues as gay and trans issues, immigration, racism?

        1. ^This is one of the most stupid pieces of cherry picking BS Mike can post.
          Fuck off and die, Mike.

  31. Higher education liberalizes moral concerns for most students

    I doubt most students can understand that phrase, or even spell it.

    I recently was arguing with somebody who was saying how great college was in Italy because the government heavily subsidizes it so it’s very cheap for students to attend college. I pointed out that the US has about 5 times the population of Italy but has 10 times the number of college students, suggesting that either the US population is, on average, twice as smart as the Italian population or that Italy is twice as selective as the US on who gets to go to college. I would suggest that, given that here in the US anybody with a pulse and a checkbook can find a college to accept them, it’s probably the second one. And that’s why college costs are so high, colleges simply charge what the market will bear and with so many people lacking the brains and the aptitude for college nevertheless clamoring to get in, it’s a seller’s market.

    1. WHile that MAY be true, it is also true that Italy has nearly half the birth rate (7 per 1000 people, vs 12 in the US). So it could also just be that there are fewer kids to educate per tax payer.

  32. The COVID-19 death toll has now reached that of the 1918 flu in terms of sheer numbers. (But “the US population a century ago was just one-third of what it is today, meaning the flu cut a much bigger, more lethal swath through the country,” The Guardian points out.)

    Not to mention the covid numbers are way overreported.

  33. “The only way to ban segregation was to renounce Plessy v. Ferguson and its progeny. Although all of the Warren court justices seemed to disagree with those precedents, that does not necessarily mean they were prepared to abandon half a century of jurisprudence, along with all the expectations built on it, in one fell swoop.”

    FTFY.

  34. Democrats’ once-sweeping agenda continues to shrink.

    “Reality once again kicks the left in its vaccine-inflated balls.”

  35. The man behind the first lawsuit is Oscar Stilley, an Arkansas resident who describes himself as a “disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer”…
    …”A second lawsuit has been filed against Braid by Felipe N. Gomez, an Illinois resident who describes himself as a “Pro Choice Plaintiff” in the suit,”

    How do either of these people have standing in this case?

    1. No limit on location of the complainant in the law.

  36. The Justice Department recently “told the Supreme Court that the public had no right of access under the First Amendment to secret decisions issued by a federal court,”

    Just a simple misunderstanding regarding the new rules of language – words mean whatever we say they mean. A ‘secret court’ is an oxymoron, a secret court is a tribunal, not a court. Calling it a court is simply an Orwellian twisting of the language and since most people know how a court works they are easily fooled into believing this star chamber must work the same way. The FISA “courts” are simply not courts under the common understanding of the word.

    1. When will journalist start jacking themselves off and calling the Biden admin “the second most transparent administration ever!”?

  37. “that does not necessarily mean they are prepared to abandon half a century of jurisprudence, along with all the expectations built on it, in one fell swoop.”

    Yes, they are. It only took 50 years, but guess what that savage immoral decision is getting tanked.

  38. …more than two-thirds of respondents approve of the withdrawal of U.S. troops regardless of how it was executed (roughly the same numbers as from two months ago).”

    Nice redirection. The main criticism is how it was executed.

    1. More than two-thirds of respondents approve of the Apr. 14th performance at Ford’s Theater in 1865.

  39. …younger, less-well-educated workers have been especially harmed by recent state-level minimum wage hikes.

    They can take comfort in the fact that inflation has negated any increase they would have gotten in the jobs eliminated by the minimum wage.

  40. …currently serving a home-based federal prison sentence for tax evasion.

    I like him already.

  41. Johnson & Johnson vouches for COVID-19 vaccine boosters, which had previously only been talked about for Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

    In other news, Phillip Morris vouches for the safety of RJ Reynolds’ tobacco products.

    1. It’s funny how the pharma companies’ arguments for boosters resemble the tobacco lobbyist’s in the opening scene of “Thank You For Smoking.”

  42. Biden just gave a speech at the UN calling for a new era of international cooperation and “relentless diplomacy”.

    Biden abandoned our allies in Afghanistan and pissed the French off so badly, they recalled their ambassador, but that’s not the kind of international cooperation and “relentless diplomacy” Biden is talking about.

    1) He’s promising to cooperate on the fight against terrorism–both foreign and domestic.

    2) Biden announced that he’s giving $100 billion to developing nations to help combat global warming.

    https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/un-general-assembly-09-21-21/index.html

    In regards to point 1, Biden hasn’t announced that he’s declaring the Republican Party a terrorist organization yet, but I wouldn’t bet against him labeling the Trump campaign a terrorist organization if Trump decides to run again in 2024.

    In regards to point 2, this is the kind of elitist progressivism that drove so many Americans to support a populist candidate in 2016. Using the coercive power of government to force us to make sacrifices for the benefit of others is what being progressive is all about, and the Biden administration and the Democrats in Congress squandering $100 billion from our future paychecks on solar panels for the benefit of people in the corrupt, developing world–without any consideration for the actual benefits–is perfectly consistent with progressive ideology [doctrine].

    1. “… I wouldn’t bet against him labeling the Trump campaign a terrorist organization if Trump decides to run again in 2024.”

      Pure paranoid fantasy on your part, but hey you are Mr. Logical.

      1. Pure paranoid fantasy on your part

        So were vaccine passports and the lab origin theory of transmission just 8 short months ago.

        1. The Democrats and the media treated a peaceful protest against the mistreatment of people who are accused of rioting on January 6 as if they were Taliban terrorists–just last week!

          Reports had it that between the National Guard, the journalists, and the riot police, they vastly outnumbered a few hundred peaceful protesters at most.

          Why, I’ve seen Democrats, politicians, journalists, and chat room commenters defend shooting peaceful protesters for trespassing on public property as if the Republicans were terrorists with my own eyes!

          “We must also remain vigilant to the threat of terror, that terrorism poses, to all our nations, whether emanating from distant regions of the world or in our own backyard,” Biden said in front of world leaders.”

          —-CNN

          https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/un-general-assembly-09-21-21/index.html

          1. That thing was such an obvious glowop that people stayed away. The fucking spooks ended up arresting one of their own by mistake because there were more feds, crisis actors, and agent provocateurs than actual protestors.

            1. Exactly.

              And the point that plenty of Democrats and journalists are more than happy to treat average Americans like terrorists really shouldn’t be lost on anyone.

              If there’s a paranoid fantasy here, it isn’t on my part. It’s on the part of the progressives who perpetuate the paranoid delusion that Republicans who question the election results are basically the Taliban trying to overthrow the government.

          2. Right, it’s the fault of people in charge of security at the Capitol that the turnout was so low. They took appropriate precautions based on recent experience, and did not engage in any of the persecution like your paranoid predictions.

            1. Huh, if only they had taken such precautions prior to January 6th when Trump recommended it.

        2. The Obama administration failed to prevent the 2016 election from being stolen by the Russians.

      2. Not nearly as paranoid or fantastical as January 6th being an insurrection or Trump being a dictator.

    2. I get this is a hit… comment… on Biden but the French throwing a hissy fit when their major campaign contributor loses out on their arms contract is hardly attributable to Biden. America making that money instead, Australia going with nuclear subs instead of diesel, all of that is a no brainer for all parties involved.

      Except, of course, the French.

  43. Johnson & Johnson vouches for COVID-19 vaccine boosters…

    I am vouching for this rock that I am selling. It keeps bears away.

    1. Johnson & Johnson no doubt have reams of study results to back up their vouching for boosters. Do you have the same for your bear-repelling rock?

      1. “Reams of studies” for vaccines that did not exist 12 months ago?

      2. Are you going to ask them for it or just believe them? You seem more prone to just trusting big corps and government without any sort of analysis.

    2. From what I can tell, they’re only alleging that the booster protects against infection itself. The 87% effectiveness against hospitalization appears unchanged, and that’s the only consideration that really deserves the taxpayers’ attention. The taxpayers’ have no business lowering everyone’s susceptibility to flu like symptoms–without consideration for the cost.

      Getting the flu vaccine every year lowers the chances of getting flu like symptoms, too–but the taxpayers paying for people to avoid flu symptoms doesn’t make sense from a cost/benefit standpoint. Everyone who want to get the flu vaccine every year should be free to do so, and anyone who want a booster shot from Johnson & Johnson should be free to buy themselves one, too.

      1. That also why most local health departments only give free flu shots to children and senior citizens. Everyone else has to pay for their flu shot (or be reimbursed by their healthcare insurer, virtually all of which cover the shots).

      2. 87% effectiveness against hospitalization attributable to the booster shot appears unchanged from peak effectiveness of the J&J vaccine.

        It is indeed changed from whatever % effectiveness J&J is after some period of time, before the booster. Unless someone is asserting one J&J confers permanent static 87% effective immunity. Which would be silly.

    3. But I haven’t seen (or heard about) any studies finding that those who received the J&J vaccine have subsequently been infected with covid (in sharp contrast to the Israeli studies on Pfizer’s vaccine).

      Seems like J&J is just trying to cash in on Pfizer’s weakening vaccines and “booster shot” windfall.

  44. The man behind the first lawsuit is Oscar Stilley, an Arkansas resident who describes himself as a “disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer” and is currently serving a home-based federal prison sentence for tax evasion

    That’s fucking perfect. The quintessential rube.

    1. Yes, only Top Men (er, People) should be involved in public policy.

    2. Hey, commie-shit! Scott Adams got your number:
      https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-09-20

  45. No, sorry, not quite perfect. This…

    Details of Stilley’s suit against Braid “are as unusual as the law itself,” The Washington Post comments. Stilley “said he filed the claim not because of strongly held views about reproductive rights but in part because of the $10,000 he could receive if the lawsuit is successful.”

    … is perfect.

    1. Now do all the ADA shysters.

    2. I don’t know if anything will be more perfect than when a self-described “socia1ist” does the following:

      1. Says Bernie Sanders is all wrong about open borders and Charles “$60,000,000,000 Net Worth” Koch is right
      2. Obediently votes the way Jeff “$200,000,000,000 Net Worth” Bezos’ newspaper tells him to
      3. Describes California, which has the highest poverty rate of all 50 states, as the ideal state because it’s easy to get an abortion there

      I un-ironically adore any form of “socialism” that is indistinguishable from establishment Democrat ideology.

      #AbortionAboveAll

    3. Hey, commie-shit! Scott Adams got your number:
      https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-09-20

      1. That is greatness.

  46. The court could easily overturn the Texas law on the enforcement grounds while still indicating acceptance that the heartbeat is a valid point to set abortion limitations. This would then allow the law to be rewritten without the weird enforcement issues. However, if the law is totally struck down, I would like to see the allowance of civil suits by injured parties in the case of abortions. A dad, grandparent, sibling, etc, should be able to sue for wrongful death just as much as if the child was out of the womb.

    1. And how are they injured parties? Grandparents and siblings in particular have zero rights in this matter. Argument could be made for the father, but I believe the courts have already thrown that one out.

      1. If you would have the standing to sue if the baby was born you should have the standing to sue in womb. Why shouldn’t the father be able to sue the mom or doctor for killing his child? If the doctor did it by accident a dad can sue.

        1. Why shouldn’t the father be able to sue the mom or doctor for killing his child? If the doctor did it by accident a dad can sue.

          Because the courts have said that he can’t (Planned Parenthood v Danforth).

          No response on the grandparents and siblings part?

  47. Did any of you Peanuts see the Ted Koppel visit to “Mayberry RFD” or Mount Airy, NC?

    Hilarious.

    https://twitter.com/CBSSunday/status/1439579493514031105

    He interviews a busload of these yahoos and they don’t disappoint.

    1. Were you disappointed because not enough schoolchildren were shown, you hicklib pederast?

    2. turd lies. It’s what turd does. If the entire post isn’t a lie, there’s one in there somewhere.
      turd is a pathological liar, too stupid to understand the rest of us know that.
      turd lies. Always.

    3. Tweet won’t load.

      But is it another snooty 5th Avenue scion goes on safari in middle America, and cherrypicks statements to make the folks at home feel even smugger?

      Someday (when Joe quits banning Canadians) I’m going to take a camera to the Village or Georgetown and pull the same trick.

  48. What he didn’t know was a single bottle was $2.29, not $1.50. So he had shorted the store 29 cents plus tax, or 43 cents total.

    No, he only shorted the store 29 cents, he shorted the state the other 14 cents and that’s the reason he’s looking at 7 years in prison whereas if he had just stolen the soda he would be

    You know what? I’m not going to complete that thought lest I give the state any ideas and shoplifters start looking at doing some serious hard time for tax evasion.

    1. Assuming the sales tax works the same in that state as in Texas he does actually short change the store and not the state. The store is responsible for paying the tax whether or not it is collected. They can claim to have sold the Mountain Due for 1.50 and only owe the state 9 cents instead of 14, but the store is required to pay the tax.

  49. If the Declaration of Independence is one of the quintessential manifestos of liberal political thought, then I do not how moral relativism is a hallmark of liberalism as originally understood. Perhaps it is compatible with post modernism, but I would submit that those people are not liberals at all.

  50. Those pubes could use a little trim. Abortions are great but we’re not animals.

  51. At the same time, let’s be clear: This was not even close to the most sordid example of U.S. government maladministration of the past four decades. Indeed, despite a tsunami of negative (but accurate) media coverage, the public polling on Afghanistan is clear: Surveys from Monmouth and Quinnipiac show that more than two-thirds of respondents approve of the withdrawal of U.S. troops regardless of how it was executed (roughly the same numbers as from two months ago).”

    Notice the deliberate and dishonest attempt to frame support for the withdrawal as part of the deflection for the administration’s total fuckup in doing so.

    Just because people wanted us to get out of there doesn’t exonerate the administration for how it was done, which this asshole is trying to do with his passive-voiced apologia.

  52. Boy, these abortion signs alongside a vaccine mandate are magnificent.

    1. I really appreciate the juxtaposition of the fear of the virus, which is not an existential threat, and the celebration of abortion, which is an existential threat. It makes it easy to explain irony to the confused.

  53. >>He’s facing the possibility of up to seven years in prison.

    D.A.s don’t make governor by putting people in prison over forty-three cents.

  54. and *somebody* is going to have to decide which portions of the body are the property of the state and which are not.

  55. “The store called police, who tracked him down. Pennsylvania State police officers charged him with a felony, locked him up on $50,000 cash-only bond. He’s facing the possibility of up to seven years in prison.”

    The asshole here is the shop owner, or the judge. Not the cop. My only objection is that the PA State Police didn’t bill the shop for overtime.

    1. “the store lost .43” on $2.00 paid for one 20oz. soda fails to account for the wholesale price.

      1. He shorted the store $0.29 and the state assessed $0.14 on the loss. Supposedly, the $0.14 never belonged to the store to begin with.

        1. that too.

    2. It was a clerk rather than the store owner who was the initial asshole. After that, it is mostly the fault of the Pennsylvania legislature who made the three strikes law so strict.

      1. See my post to Bubba Smith below. Mountain Dews aren’t just Heaven sent, Mike.

        1. I think someone said the story was misquoted by the Reason writer, so I would like to walk back everything I said on the subject.

          I think you may be completely right, and I’m wrong.

          I don’t have time to go back and read the original article right now, and it’s not a super important story, anyway.

    3. No.
      If you think a store owner is a rightless slave who has to put up with a multiple-time plunderer who couldn’t be bothered to find out the actual price of a Mountain Dew and just throws money at the cashier…

      And if you think this store owner should have to eat the cost of “grab-and-dasher” savages, which can amount to $Millions if you’re running a superstore in a dangerous part of town…

      Then the asshole is not the store owner, not the judge, and not the cops, but you!

      Come back when you develop some respect for private property rights and the humans who have them.

  56. God gave women the gate-keepers key to reproduction…
    That made the Gov-Wanna-Be-Gods and [WE] mobs very angry and jealous.
    So now we have a whole mob trying to take that ‘key’ away.

    1. >>God gave women the gate-keepers key to reproduction…

      murdering your own offspring in the womb fine. hiring a Gosnell to do it gives up that key.

    2. “God gave women the gate-keepers key to reproduction”

      It’s called keeping your fucking legs closed. Once you introduce a dick without a prophylactic, you’ve both made a choice.

  57. I have so many people to thank for their encouragement and advice. I never tackled a project like this before. It called for two strands of super bulky yarn and size 36 needles. I actually broke my first set! I did not know how on earth to attach more yarn. https://www.flyerbank4.com
    Thank you for looking!

  58. Biden’s old man yelling at clouds speech at the UN was pure senile Joe gold. Glad that koch reason and certain posters here voted for far left idiocy instead of rationality.

  59. Your girlfriend’s birthday is coming up, but you are one of those who are wondering. Where can I get beautiful birthday messages for my girlfriend in 2021? It has happened to all of us at some point, and I have to tell you that you are in the right place.
    Thinking about it, we have made a compilation of some nice birthday phrases for your girlfriend that you can find on the net.
    https://bit.ly/3hoSXQ0

  60. Zeb is correct.

    But I haven’t seen or read even one news story (since covid was first compared to the 1918 Spanish Flu eighteen months ago) revealing that the 1918 pandemic killed exponentially more healthy children, teens and adults under 50 (than has covid).

    Meanwhile, the vast majority of covid deaths have occurred among those over 70 years and among the obese (which combined accounted for <5% of the US population in 1918).

    1. Oops. Posted on wrong spot.

  61. Are you the fuckwit that denies the inalienable right to life of the unborn because you claim they are not alive, human or persons.

    You also deny the established definitions of those words that prove the unborn are alive, human and persons.

    Instead you claim that the law has ruled that the unborn are not those things.

    I provided a copy of “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

    This is proof that the law recognizes that the unborn are living humans with rights.

    At this point your argument was refuted as a lie and it was finally obvious that you are insincerely wasting our time. I told you to fuck off and you should have.

    This is when you chose to play your final card, the nefarious proof that the law determined that the unborn are not alive and hence have no rights.

    Your own post, own goal, showed that your law as evidence clearly states in section c that it does not apply to or make any determinations about the unborn in any way.

    c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.”

    I have demonstrated that the law clearly recognizes that the unborn are living humans with rights and I have demonstrated that the law that you provided as evidence doesn’t deny that the unborn are living humans.

    You have been soundly refuted. Your argument is refuted. The definitions of living human persons with inalienable rights apply to the unborn.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.