Reason Roundup

Oklahoma Votes To Criminalize Abortion

Plus: Panhandling is free speech, Biden may extend student loan repayment moratorium, Florida's wasteful defense of unconstitutional social media law, and more...

|

Oklahoma has passed a near-total ban on abortion. The bill will make abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy, "except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency." Not only that, but performing an elective abortion will become a felony crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $100,000 fine.

On Tuesday, the measure—Senate Bill 612—cleared the Oklahoma House by a vote of 70 to 14. It had already passed the state's Senate last year, in a 38–9 vote.

The ban now heads to Oklahoma's Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, who is expected to sign.

Rep. Jim Olsen (R–Roland), the author of the bill, said it cleared the House with no debate. "Nobody debated and nobody asked any questions. I was actually kind of shocked."

Planned Parenthood Great Plains is already planning a legal challenge. "This ban is more in line with the traditional bans that have been blocked in the past," Emily Wales, interim president and chief executive of the organization, told The New York Times. "So we are fairly confident that, as long as Roe remains the law of the land, there is a path to blocking this."

The Oklahoma ban is out of step with recent trends in Republican-led abortion restrictions.

With the Supreme Court set to take up a Mississippi case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization) concerning a ban on abortion at 15 weeks pregnancy, some states—including Florida—have been passing or considering similar 15-week abortion bans, under the expectation that the Court may allow Mississippi's law to stand (while still barring more restrictive laws). Others—buoyed by the success of Texas' novel abortion restriction—have been attempting bans similar to that law, which tasks citizens with enforcement through civil lawsuits. A Texas-style law passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives in March, and copycat measures were also introduced in Missouri and Tennessee and passed in Idaho.

A new poll from the Wall Street Journal suggests 15-week bans may be favored by a majority of Americans, but total bans on abortion are not:

With lawmakers in several states pushing forward with bills that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, 48% of voters said they would strongly or somewhat favor such restrictions, with exemptions to protect the health of the mother, while 43% were in opposition.

At the same time, the survey found a majority of voters say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, underscoring the complicated views many Americans hold on the issue.

Similarly confused findings were present in a 2021 Marquette poll on the issue.

Recent research on the Texas ban found that its effect was limited by residents taking abortion pills they had obtained in the mail or traveling to nearby states—including Oklahoma—to get abortions.

"If allowed to take effect, S.B. 612 would be devastating for both Oklahomans and Texans who continue to seek care in Oklahoma," said Tamya Cox-Touré, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, in a statement. "Nearly half of the patients Oklahoma providers are currently seeing are medical refugees from Texas. Now, Oklahomans could face a future where they would have no place left in their state to go to seek this basic health care."


FREE MINDS

Panhandling is free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging anti-panhandling laws in Iowa. "Laws like this that outlaw panhandling are unconstitutional because they wrongly block individuals' free speech rights," said ACLU of Iowa attorney Shefali Aurora. "Such ordinances are also ineffective because, by criminalizing poverty, all they do is drive people further into homelessness."


FREE MARKETS

The Biden administration is considering yet another extension of its student loan repayment moratorium. The pause was put in place (allegedly) to help with financial hardships related to COVID-19. Now, more than two years into the pandemic, it's still in place and set to be extended again, sources told Politico:

The White House plans to once again extend the moratorium on federal student loan payments through the end of August, according to multiple people familiar with the matter, including an administration official.

The announcement, expected on Wednesday, comes as the current pause on payments was set to expire May 1, potentially impacting more than 40 million Americans. The new August 31 extension, however, is considerably shorter than what many Democrats have been requesting. It also tees up another fight over the relief just months before the midterm elections.


FOLLOWUP

Florida has already spent around $700,000 defending its blatantly unconstitutional social media law in court. "And that's even before the appeal is heard — meaning that it's quite likely that Florida will set over a million dollars of taxpayer money on fire in an attempt to violate the 1st Amendment rights of internet websites," writes Mike Masnick at Techdirt.

The measure was signed into law last May and bans large social media providers from deplatforming political candidates. Last summer, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida ruled that it violated the First Amendment. "The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host—and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would," noted the judge in his decision.

"As states around the country continue to pass these kinds of laws, it makes me wonder at what point supposedly 'small government' elected officials who are 'concerned about the budget' will realize that wasting taxpayer funds on a quixotic attack on the 1st Amendment just isn't worth it?" asks Masnick. "Or do they not care, since it's not their money that's being spent?"


QUICK HITS

• A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests a fourth dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine may produce only fleeting benefits.

• When will Democrats get serious about repealing pot prohibition?

• "A nonprofit association that promotes social responsibility among corporations has concluded in a new report that Meta's planned expansion of strong encryption to its Messenger and Instagram services will do more good than harm for human rights," reports The Washington Post.

• Rhode Island's Senate held hearings yesterday on two bills to decriminalize prostitution.

Atlanta is thwarting Airbnbs and other short-term rentals.

• A Missouri man will be freed from incarceration after being wrongly convicted of a 2003 murder and sentenced to life in prison.

• South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem's administration denied a protest permit to people urging for more exceptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The state must now pay the group $37,503, after a judge found the state violated their First Amendment rights.

• Kentucky will now require more proof before involuntarily committing people for drug treatment.

NEXT: Elon Musk’s Twitter Stake Is Promising, but Not a Permanent Fix for Free Speech

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 Biden administration is considering yet another extension of its student loan repayment moratorium.

    Someone reminded his handlers the midterms are coming up.

    1. money printer go brrrrr?

      1. Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acc. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. (ui32) My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
        .
        More information. >> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/

    2. Let Go, Brandon. 🙂

    3. For me, the bigger story is how difficult it is to get someone at the loan processor to restart payments during this moratorium. It's the perfect time to pay them down when there's no interest, and I can't find anyone there who understands why I would want to.

      1. I have a child who will have paid off their remaining loan balance interest free (for the last two years). That interest savings is substantial, and permanent.

        1. Yeah, but that involves good future-time orientation, and a lot of your kid's generation are too emotionally stunted to see beyond their next dinner at the trendy boutique restaurant.

          1. Even worse, calendars, clocks, planning, and deadlines are racist!

      2. If there's no interest, put the payments in a savings account and then transfer them to the loan processor if they are ever restarted.

      3. You should be able to go to the Dept. of Education website and make payments.

        1. My friend's daughter tried that, she said it was a fucking headache. Multiple forms, broken links etc.

          1. Were the pdf's available to print? Still likely to be the same answer, but sometimes the only way to get the gov't monkey off one's back is the old way, paperwork.

        2. They still back my loan, but it's serviced by a private company.

          Private company's website has no online method to manually restart automatic payments. Instead, they instruct you to call a 1-800 number between the hours of 9am-5pm Eastern, M-F (you know, most people's work days). When you call the number you are placed on hold for a minimum of 30 minutes.

          When you finally do get to talk to someone, you are explained that it is not required to make a payment at this time, and also that your account is not being charged any interest. When you still insist on restarting payments, you will be put on hold again and forwarded to a 'supervisor'. Supervisor will explain the exact same thing that the first person did.

          After you try to explain to the supervisor why their reasoning is backwards and that's exactly why you want to continue to make payments, you are put on hold again and forwarded to a 'credit counselor'. She is absolutely flabbergasted as well, since most of the time, her job is to deal with people who don't want to make payments, or want to pay less, so she has no idea why I was sent to her. But, she eventually explains the exact same thing that the first two women did, only with the follow-up information that she is not even equipped to re-start payments, and in order to do that, I would have to talk to one of the first two ladies again.

          1. Are you able to just go in and enter payments yourself on a monthly basis, and skip trying to restart automatic payments entirely?

          2. You are officially in bizarro world.

            I wonder if they dealt with the repayment pause by patching their systems so they aren't even capable of receiving your payments right now.

    4. >It also tees up another fight over the relief just months before the midterm elections.

      Feature, not bug.

      Who needs to cancel student loans when you can merely postpone them indefinitely? The interest accumulation will make it impossible to restart the payments.

      1. Hmm, Minadin, just said above there isn’t any interest. Is that universal for all student loans that are currently paused from repayment, or just true of some of the loans?

        1. As far as I know, they suspended interest when they suspended payments. Universally, for federally-backed loans anyway.

          I don't know if there was any such feature for private loans.

          1. Only if they were federally guaranteed, I believe.

          2. Thanks.

    5. For government employees in loan forgiveness programs these unpaid months are still counting towards repayment. This is a huge gift to government employees.

      1. 1000% correct...and its bullshit.

  2. Build you own Oklahoma.

    1. Beef may be "What's For Dinner," but beyond that, if this is what Oklahoma is like, I'll pass on that building proposal. All the more reason to get the Vat Beef brewing so we can have Angus everywhere humans can go.

      1. Plus, all those icky Christians out there in fly over country...

        1. We have Icky Christianity in the Coastal States as well, so I won't support building your own North Caroiina or South Carolina either.

          Just leave me to my Vat Brisket and get off my lawn!

        2. Yeah, white people in fly-over country with weird, fundamentalist religions are ignorant and icky, while red people with weird, fundamentalist religions are noble and kinda dreamy.

          1. They aren't "noble and kinda dreamy" either, and if they insist on converting me, they can leave me to my Vat Jerky and Vat Pemmican and get off my lawn too.

  3. Florida has already spent around $700,000 defending its blatantly unconstitutional social media law in court.

    They're a private company; they can do what they want.

    1. Probably less government involvement than Facebook or Google.

      1. And the question still hasn't been resolved to my understanding. Comcast, for example, is a private company, but if they refused to air political ads from one party, they would be in violation of a couple of federal laws because they're a common carrier. Facebook and Twitter are trying to play both sides of getting some of the protections of being a common carrier-including being not held liable when they don't moderate content-while still banning opinions they don't like.

        The law should establish whether or not social media platforms are Common Carriers, or if they're publishers, or if they fall into a new category. Florida is treating them as Common Carriers and ALL the law is doing is telling them not to discriminate based on political party. By the way, California has a similar law about discriminations based on political affiliation, it just doesn't specifically address social media because it predates social media. So I am not certain this law can be unconstitutional.

        1. You just hate private property rights!

          1. Sqrlsy pulled that in the other thread today.

        2. The law should establish whether or not social media platforms are Common Carriers, or if they're publishers, or if they fall into a new category.

          The internet is nowhere near what it was 15-20 years ago, when social media companies didn't have near the socio-political influence that they do now. The fact that so many of them have incestuous ties to the DNC, ranging from board members to staff volunteers for campaigns, makes them quasi-political entities as they are. Providing in-kind political contributions for the DNC like they did when the Hunter Biden laptop was exposed--which had empirical effects on the outcome of a Presidential election-- means that Republicans are well within reason to cornhole them if the opportunity arises.

        3. There is a law, Section 230, and it has effectively established companies like Facebook and Twitter as a new category. And it works really well for social media sites where so many comments are posted that there is no realistic possibility of manual moderation to both have the right to not post any user-generated content your company doesn't want to, and also post your own content and choose which advertisers you want to accept.

          1. It works well for narrative gate keepers you support you mean.

          2. Section 230 did not contemplate social media companies, IMO. It was there for things like this comment section, user forums. It gave hosts the ability to moderate and run their own websites without being liable for things that might be said by users interacting with their website.

            When there's been legal rulings that have established Twitter and other platforms as a de facto public square, it calls into question whether the current law contemplates the status quo. Florida has simply applied that Twitter is a public utlity or common carrier, like ABC. ABC, once again, is a private company, but they can't run ads for one candidate while refusing to air ads for an opponent. Should Twitter and Youtube be allowed to ban ads from candidates for one party when people are increasingly cord-cutting?

            It's fair to address this.

            1. Section 230 did not contemplate social media companies, IMO. It was there for things like this comment section, user forums.

              It was mainly passed in response to a lot of Usenet forums having a bunch of kiddie-diddler links posted on them. Section 230 ensured that the forum hosts wouldn't be prosecuted under child pornography laws.

              It was never designed to enable a bunch of tech oligarchs and their DNC-voting boards to use their platforms to interfere in political elections.

            2. Don’t see how Twitter is any different from this website or a user forum.

              Any court decisions saying social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter are like a public square were bad decision, essentially partial takings of the control of private companies.

              1. Unfortunately, Twitter and other social networks are in a legal quantum state where they are whatever is useful for them at any given time.

        4. She always defers to Mike Masnick when she could check 100's of better tech lawyers for a more solid justification on the opinion of this law.

        5. They ARE 'common carriers'.

          That is the hook they put out to get people to sign up --publish yourself-- not 'we'll publish everyone'

          Florida is trying to force them to live up to the terms they set forth themselves.

    2. Reason really has a hardon for protecting advocates (and practitioners) of political censorship from any form of criticism or pushback.....

      1. Sometimes. Depends on which party is being censored. Actually, now that I think about it, who is censoring Democrats?

        1. Democrats are being censored because Republican speech is not being suppressed enough.

        2. i bet nancy pelosi would like to censor at least 4 democrats

    3. What, the State? That's not how this works south of Cannuck-land.

  4. A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests a fourth dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine may produce only fleeting benefits.

    ...to stockholder dividends. They really need to mandate IV drips.

    1. Medicine companies make money from making new, useful medicines. Conservative abandon their former pro-business, pro-profit position to start repeating progressive anti-corporate greed talking points.

      1. I wish the government would mandate everyone in the US buy my multithousand dollar paperweight multiple times, and then pass the cost on to taxpayers. What sound like a free market there in your head?

      2. We’re talking about a corporation that a bunch of people in the federal government invested in, right before the government purchased a bunch of their product, then forced people to use their product.

        Totally just an issue of corporate greed. Nothing else involved here.

        FFS you’re an idiot.

      3. The Pfizer vaccine in only 3% effective against XE and yet that's the one they want to issue the next round for.
        It's blatantly pure unadulterated corporate greed and only some sort of fanatic can't recognize that.

        1. Hey, don't overlook the value of emotional support for those most panicked by Health Experts.

      4. Not sure how government financed and "free" vaccines are "business", but YMMV.

    2. Having said that, even I, who have been highly critical of anti-vax extremists here, don’t plan to get a second booster. I will once the vaccines are reformulated for new strains.

      1. If you slit your wrists you will never have to worry about the wuflu again

        1. If White Mike really wanted to virtue signal, he would jab vaccine laden hypos into both eyes and then light himself on fire. That would really get people's attention.

        2. Is true, death is proven to be more effective than masking, distancing, and vaccines -or any combination of the three, in prevention of transmission and infection. And it's free. The only issues: gov't will still try to collect taxes, and you will likely be listed as having died 'from' covid.

          1. AT least he will still be able to vote for progressives

      2. “anti-vax extremists”

        What does this mean, and who are you talking about?

        1. If you don't take a potentially dangerous, untested, and proven ineffective therapy Mike thinks you're an "extremist".
          I guess if you refused to wear the yellow star and get into the cattle car in '43, Mike's the kind of guy who would have screamed for the capo.

          1. People critical of others often have excuses for themselves.

      3. What is an anti vaxx extremist?

        1. A figment of White Mike's imagination.

        2. An example would be our own Diane (Paul), who keeps spreading anti-vax misinformation here. Some people seem to think that being against vaccine mandates requires them to be against vaccines, or else I guess they aren’t fighting hard enough against the mandates — doesn’t matter how true their anti-vaccination info is.

          1. Anti-vaxx information... You mean like Pfizer's FOIA'd documents showing 1,291 side effects, 1,223 dead and 28/32 tracked pregnancies miscarried? Golly, the stuff your gov't hides!

            You really don't care if it's true or not, so long as it fits your narrative, Liarson.

            https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/

      4. Now I have to reconsider because Mr. T just tweeted that he got his second booster:

        https://twitter.com/mrt/status/1511772260687704066?s=21

  5. Transen Potsdam girls are ready for sexy contacts with you

    1. I don't think that the Reason comments are woke enough for that.

      1. I only like robots, so, thought criminal here.

    2. Nah, too far to travel.

      1. Wise choice. Those aren't girl girls. They all come with a surprise.

        1. Are you a biologist or something?

          1. He plays one on TV, but he keeps falling off. 😉

        2. I'm Pan. so, if they're of legal age, clean, disease-free, and looks permitting, I can't be anything but pleasantly surprised. 🙂

  6. When will Democrats get serious about repealing pot prohibition?

    When the last of their kind stop making money off it.

    1. That would be the police unions. Even cops in California make bank off of "civil forfeiture" pot money. CA Cops work with the FBI to seize the money and get a kick-back.

      End civil forfeiture and you'll get legal pot.

  7. Or do they not care, since it's not their money that's being spent?"

    That’s DC in a nutshell.

    1. Money grows on trees, just ask AOC.

      This is why I keep saying to cut the spending. Cutting taxes are fine, but that doesn't stop the spending, they just shift to borrowing (future taxes) and inflation (hidden taxes). Every dollar spent comes out of our pockets.

      This is how Big Government "conservatives" justify themselves. If it's not increasing taxes they don't equate it with increasing the size of government. They don't understand, or don't care, that direct control over the minutiae of public school curriculum is increasing the scope of government. The problem isn't the curriculum, the problem is the state and federal monopoly on education. Real school choice that provides broad avenues to freely leave the government school system is the answer.

  8. A nonprofit association that promotes social responsibility among corporations has concluded in a new report that Meta's planned expansion of strong encryption to its Messenger and Instagram services will do more good than harm for human rights...

    NSA dummy orgs count as nonprofits?

  9. Rhode Island's Senate held hearings yesterday on two bills to decriminalize prostitution.

    Blackmailed state senators are the best state senators.

  10. "Photo credit Allie Shinn"

    A common thread among hardcore leftwing activists: appearing to be at the absolute bottom of the darwin scale.

    Seriously, how are these slobs even worrying about abortion, who on gods green earth would stick their dick in these disgusting pigs. They make "people of walmart" look more normal.

    1. They look like they actually eat babies.

    2. And of course, the mentally ill troons are claiming that men with girldicks can get abortions, too.

  11. At the same time, the survey found a majority of voters say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, underscoring the complicated views many Americans hold on the issue.

    Is this really complicated, or does the above quote conveniently exclude any timeframe? It seems pretty obvious that many, if not a majority of, Americans support some legalized abortion but balk at allowing it much beyond the first trimester.

    You'd understand this if you considered the issue with any intellectual honesty, but I stopped expecting that from ENB a long time ago.

    1. I have to admit. There is deliberate deception going on here, to the point that I cannot trust any polls on the matter.

      The extremists on the left frame legal abortion as freedom against rape and reproductive slavery and some say that anything less than free abortion on demand up to a week after birth is the same as wanting a Handmaids Tale situation. (I wish I could say I made that up)

      The extremists on the right frame it as flat-out murder, where women casually decide they don't want morning sickness and slaughter their kids willy-nilly.

      When you get down to it, most reasonable people agree that there's no good story that ends in an abortion clinic. It's almost always a tragedy (financial, rape, lies, or despair) and the mother decides that ending the pregnancy is the least of a choice of evils. Most people are much more understanding and agree a lot more on specific instances.

      1. "When you get down to it, most reasonable people agree that there's no good story that ends in an abortion clinic. It's almost always a tragedy (financial, rape, lies, or despair) and the mother decides that ending the pregnancy is the least of a choice of evils."

        +

        1. Yeah, that was a perfect summary. I have to agree. Very well said.

      2. The latter gets hard to believe when you have people talking about *how proud* they are of having an abortion and when a state legalizes it up to birth.

        https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/04/colorado-governor-signs-bill-legalizing-abortion-birth/

        1. Yes yes we know.

          The Other Team has a few loud crazies.
          Propagandists from Your Team amplify those crazy voices to make it seem louder than they normally are, to paint them all as representative of the whole of The Other Team.

          1. You do that almost universally to the right, so I am not surprised you accuse others of the same tactic.

          2. Few?

            And the more you deny you have a team, the more laughable it becomes.

        2. I suppose some of them are now conflicted. Virtue-signal by getting an abortion, or have the baby and turn it into a gender-fluid personal accessory.

      3. America would do well by packing up all its extremists left and right, and shipping them off to an island where they can fight it out between themselves while normal people get on with their normal lives.

        1. And we could watch it live and bet on the outcome like we do football and all the other sports. Cool 🙂

          1. That would be cool.

          2. Seems kind of like a lopsided fight. Don't see the pink hairs who think that disagreeing with them is literal violence being able to put up much of a fight. That said, I'm willing to bet that the pedants upset about the overuse of literally have some unresolved anger issues.

        2. And who decides who’s an extremist? Because I think you are, so off the the island you go Dee!

    2. Yeah, it's not hard. It's like polling on a NFZ in Ukraine. People support it right up until you explain what a NFZ is and the risks involved, than they don't support it. I personally find abortions repelling, but also believe it's nearly impossible to ban them outright, so this is one of the few times I agree with Europe, that they should be legal until the 15th or 16th week, and then after that, only under extreme circumstances, where abortion would be safer than inducing labor or a C-section.

      1. I think if you haven't made up your mind by 4 months, that's on you. Besides the medical risk goes way up by that point, and most abortions aren't performed after that point anyhow. By four months the baby is noticably moving and most women can't bring themselves to abort it by that time, so it's kind of a moot point.

        1. That's a big reason why the extremists don't want the mother looking at the fetus over an ultrasound--because they know a lot of women will take a look at it moving around and decide, "you know, maybe I'll keep the baby."

          Really, the only difference between a "baby" and a "clump of cells" is whether the woman actually wants it or not.

    3. Is this really complicated, or does the above quote conveniently exclude any timeframe? It seems pretty obvious that many, if not a majority of, Americans support some legalized abortion but balk at allowing it much beyond the first trimester.

      Yeah, they like to give them impression that all abortion supporters want it legalized all the way up until the baby emerges completely from the birth canal. In reality, the majority actually want at least *some* restrictions on it, even if they support the practice in general.

      1. Or they just realize that banning it outright isn't feasible, so they reluctantly support some legal access but believe it should be illegal after a certain point. That's where I am at. And it's the point where my once rabid pro-life mother is at now too. She also now reluctantly supports marijuana legalization while she once was vehemently opposed, because she realizes the war on drugs is a loser (she's still against drugs, but no longer considers prohibition the best route to go).

        1. Considering what a shithole Denver turned in to after pot legalization, she might want to reconsider that. Pretty much every promise the legalization crowd made, and I was one of them, too, never actually came to pass.

  12. Days since enbs last yglasias reffrence :1

    1. It was quite a drought.

      1. I blame climate change.

        1. And Trump!

    2. Could you do a counter for Mike Masnick too? Seems to be her only tech source.

  13. Atlanta is thwarting Airbnbs and other short-term rentals.

    If Airbnb wanted to not get fucked with they should have shelled out hotel industry size lobby money.

    1. But they banned all Russians from the service. I think that is good now right?

      1. Their (Airbnb) banning people for political reasons (Michelle Malcolm and associates ?) has made them dead to me. Removed there app as I suspect they do not want me using it. I warn others to avoid it.

    2. Microsoft learned that lesson back in the Browser War days. guess it's Airbnb's turn.

  14. A Missouri man will be freed from incarceration after being wrongly convicted of a 2003 murder and sentenced to life in prison.

    And I certainly hope he appreciates the government doing this for him.

    1. Also in Missouri:

      There was a news story a couple of weeks back about a couple of St. Louis police officers getting their police cruiser hijacked. Turns out they made the whole thing up, got coached about what to say by a lieutenant, and didn't count on anyone having private video surveillance that proved otherwise. (Also didn't bother to check)

      Oops.

      https://fox2now.com/news/fox-files/prosecutors-say-st-louis-police-lied-about-attempted-carjacking/

      1. So, Jusses with badges, amirite?

    2. There was a famous funny tag-line from Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In. One character would bop another on the head and the bopped person would say: " And I'm a better person for that!" *Audience laughter!*

      This tag-line sums up so much of Statist, Collectivist, and especially Paternalist Do-Goodnik thinking in a nutshell.

  15. When did the aclu start caring about medical privacy?

    1. Only when a dead baby is involved.
      If it involves forcing an unproven (at first) or ineffective (now) vaccine, not so much.

  16. South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem's administration denied a protest permit to people urging for more exceptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

    How was she supposed to know the First Amendment was their permit?

    1. I doubt Gov Kristi Noem even knew about the permit before the lawsuit. It says "[her] administration" denied the permit. It was some bureaucrat probably 6 positions removed.

      1. It's especially odd since these particular protestors are aligned with Noem's own politics. It wasn't like she was shutting down opposition.

  17. Seeing as how it's ENB is the Florida speec lay saying
    "if you are an online speec platform, and make editorial decisions about what gets posted, you will be liable for what the users post?"

    Enbs knowledge of all thing skews so hard to the left she deserves no grace

    1. We still don't have a legal definition for what Social Media is. Are they Common Carriers, who are required to be open to public use? Or are they private publishers, who can be sued for a failure to edit their content? Or are they some new, third category?

      Without a clear definition, it's actually not clear that they can't be held to the legal standard Florida passed. I'm fine with any resolution, really, but it would be good to have questions answered. It's really annoying to have social media banning speech the government doesn't like while still claiming they're not responsible for all the CP and actual calls to violence that get shared on the platforms.

      1. I think it is best to think of social media as akin to a private library. Librarians don't write the contents of books in the library, but they do curate their collections - they don't host every imaginable book, and they do make broad choices about what/what not to carry (no porn, etc.). Librarians are not responsible for any libel that's in the books in their collection.

        1. Yet you have constantly complained that school boards removing books from school libraries is a form of censorship.

          Can you be consistent on a single principle?

          And it isn't a library because these companies advertise as anybody can use them, that is the contract they initially start with. No library tells users they will host any book they write.

          1. I can't think of many cases where school libraries have actually banned books. Most alleged "book bannings" have simply been replacing a specific book in the curriculum.

        2. Do librarians write in the books that something is misleading?

          Social media does that.

          1. Yeah, it would be something like this:

            patron - 'Do you have the Huckelberry Finn by Mark Twain.'
            Librarian - 'Why yes we do.'
            patron - 'I would like to check it out so I can read it for myself.'
            Librarian - 'I'm sorry. We at the library collective have assigned pre-reading to our newest intern, Karen. Karen determined that some of the passages in the book could be misinterpreted to mean something other than what she thinks we would like them to mean. Therefore, not only can you not read it, but we have put Huckleberry Finn in a safe place for now under the watchful eye of intern, Karen.'
            patron - 'So, you have the book but Karen the intern thinks I shouldn't read it.'
            Librarian - 'That is correct.'
            patron - 'Have you read the book person Librarian?'
            Librarian - 'Oh, no sir. I've never read the book. Not even more than once.'
            patron - 'Wow, that sounds like you are censoring the book from all people for a very narrow reason.'
            Librarian - 'Well, we are a private company.'

      2. It pretty clear. If they make editorial decisions, they are publishers and become liable for what users post.
        Google Facebook and Twitter straight up say they are editing content. I will take them at their word

        1. It pretty clear. If they make editorial decisions, they are publishers and become liable for what users post.

          So are librarians "editors" when they decline to host certain books in their collections, and therefore liable for every word of every book in the library?

          1. Your analogy is so terrible.

            1. But what if the librarian had a bear in the trunk of her car? Is she liable for the mauling of the schoolkids when the bear escapes?

              1. Oh! Now it makes sense. I forgot to think about it applied to bears in trunks.

                1. Always consider bears in trunks. Always.

          2. "So are librarians "editors" when they decline to host certain books in their collections, and therefore liable for every word of every book in the library?"

            The only thing you can do to try and score a point is make poor analogies where you misrepresent the meaning of a word or a job description.
            In this case you do both. That's neither what editing does or what librarians do (unless they personally own the library).

          3. The whole "they have to be a publisher or a platform" is a false dichotomy imposed to make Section 230, which is a pretty well crafted law, seem somehow illogical when it isn't.

      3. They are crony corporations

    2. I think the real sticking point that needs to be decided is defining the precedent set by the courts a couple years ago that said Trump couldn't block comments, as he was a public figure that people had the right to address grievances too. Under that precedent it would seem that people running for public office are almost required to have a social media account so possible constituents have a way of addressing grievances to them and therefore the social media platforms can't ban them. The courts need to define this. Sometimes, like the Oklahoma law and the Florida speech law, these laws (while bad on their face) do a service to the country by forcing the courts to define perimeters of previous ambiguous rulings.

      In the case of the Oklahoma law, if the court doesn't totally repeal Roe v Wade, but upholds Mississippi's law, the next battle is to define exactly what the limits of reasonable bans on abortion are. The Florida law will help define what the obligations of social media platforms are, if politicians can't block posts.

      Finally, we are a Constitutional Federal Republic and with that comes some real conflicts that the courts have to settle. The states are supposed to be laboratories of democracy with clearly delineated powers (albeit the courts have largely ignored those for the past century). When there is a conflict between federal authority, the Constitution and state authority, the Justice Branch is the best place to settle it. ENB might think that's a waste of tax payer money, but I believe for a Republic to work these kinds of cases are necessary.

      1. For the record, we don't need "laboratories of Democracy." We already know that Democracy means unlimited majority rule in violation of Individual Rights, as Oklahoma has proved yet again.

        I will give the Oklahoma Government credit on one thing: They at least have the intellectual honesty to enforce their laws with thugs with badges and guns instead of with lawsuits like the chicken-shits in Texas. Though, of course, neither of them have the stoneage to treat abortion as murder with sentencing to match. Nope, Oklahoma evidently wants Danegeld as a revenue stream.

        1. We do need laboratories of democracy because the Constitution is ambiguous in a lot of matters and creates conflict between federal and state authorities, by design. It's the courts that are supposed to resolve these matters. We need the laboratories specifically to restrain democracy and to delineate what those boundaries are. The Constitution provides guidance but isn't always straight forward on the issues. Therefore, it's necessary at times to for other bodies to define those boundaries and in some cases that includes attempts at pushing them. If it wasn't necessary, we would not need state legislatures and only rarely need federal legislatures, for anything beyond budgeting (but even there, budgeting is used to fund government power, so even this task is a conflict of defining boundaries). The Constitution really is a compromise document that created an adversarial system. Which is great, because it allows mechanisms to address government overreach and to test what works and what doesn't. Texas created a law which is currently unchallengeable, but also easily circumvented. If it works other states may follow suit (and some have). If it fails, fewer are likely to adopt it. Personally, I don't like the precedent it sets, so am hoping for failure. I'm not a huge fan of abortion but it really doesn't impact me much, so it isn't even close to a priority. But now California is trying to do the same thing with guns, and that could impact me, so the Texas law is now a higher priority. I'm not a fan of the Oklahoma law, simply because I believe it's bad optics, but can see the utility, if the courts uphold Roe and Mississippi law, of helping to define what the courts are willing to allow under a new precedent. Roe in my opinion was poorly decided, not because it legalized abortion (which it really didn't) but because of the reasoning behind the ruling. It's a decision that was made before I was born and has remained extremely controversial and ambiguous since. The courts need to address this ambiguity and the states are best placed to address this. Even if Roe is overturned, all that occurs is control reverts completely to the states. Some will follow Oklahoma, while others will go fully the other direction and many will compromise somewhere in the middle. People will decide which system works. I'm betting with few exceptions, by the end of the day, most will follow the compromise model, because at some point the fetus, baby whatever you label it, also has a right to life, so it's a balance between conflicting rights.

    3. Can we also point out how disingenuous this comes off? I don't think I've ever heard of a case where someone was pointing out how much the state was spending in court to defend a law, no matter the text of the law. Did we hear about how much money New York was wasting on that law when it was challenged by the Rifle Association, only to amend the law the instant SCOTUS granted cert?

      We weren't talking about money then, but suddenly it's Florida that's wasting money when passing a law that may involve an interesting constitutional issue. I just don't really buy this sudden concern, and don't know why ENB thought this was a point worth sharing.

      1. I'm sure I have seen the "look how much they are spending on this lawsuit" argument used before. I'll try to find examples if I have time.

  18. Recent research on the Texas ban found that its effect was limited by residents taking abortion pills they had obtained in the mail or traveling to nearby states—including Oklahoma—to get abortions.

    Effects of air travel limited by people taking cars. Your birth control protects my reproductive rights my birth control protects your reproductive rights. Not giving is taking... Gas. Light.

    1. Your gaslight protects me my gaslight protects you

      1. Except using gas for light kills us all. In less than 12 years.
        Science.

        1. We need to get back to natural organic fuels, like whale oil.

          1. It's also renewable!

            1. To a certain degree of renewable.

    2. Recent research on the Texas ban found that its effect was limited by residents taking abortion pills they had obtained in the mail or traveling to nearby states—including Oklahoma—to get abortions.

      As I recall, these "work-arounds" were listed among the parade of horribles that would occur should the Texas law come into effect.

      I have to drive a few hours? Egad, that's akin to fascism!

      1. We've been told both that those things would prove an insurmountable obstacle to the poor thereby justifying removing the law and when they didn't prove an insurmountable obstacle and the poor jat drove out of state - well, their obvious ineffectiveness is justification for removing the law.

      2. I have to drive a few hours? Egad, that's akin to fascism!

        Per ENB's other article, it's killing women by forcing healthcare providers to put them on the road rather than waiting until there's a problem with the pregnancy before performing an abortion. The law doesn't say anything remotely like "You have to kick women out of your hospital for having a high risk pregnancy.", but sometimes you have to toss a few chickens and their eggs to the wolves in order to make an omelette.

        1. Please update your terminology. You should talk about birthing persons who need to deal with their post-rape syndrome.

      3. Dude. If minorities can’t get a driver’s license to vote how can they drive……

        Well, you see where I’m going with this. Racist.

  19. Oklahoma has passed a near-total ban on abortion.

    Interestingly:

    https://www.npr.org/2022/04/05/1091119507/oklahoma-legislature-abortion-illegal

    The Oklahoma bill, which passed the Senate last year, makes an exception only for an abortion performed to save the life of the mother, said GOP state Rep. Jim Olsen, of Roland, who sponsored the bill. Under the bill, a person convicted of performing an abortion would face up to 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine.

    "The penalties are for the doctor, not for the woman," Olsen said.

    Why is that? If abortion should be regarded as murder, shouldn't a woman attempting an abortion be charged, at a minimum, as an accessory to the crime? Conspiracy to commit murder? Why is the woman off the hook here?

      1. Or white supremacy.

    1. It’s to promote do it yourself coat hanger abortions.

      1. Has anyone looked into the amount of lobbying big coat hanger has put into Texas and oklahima

    2. chemjeff....Go ahead, you personally make the argument that the woman should be arrested.

    3. "The penalties are for the doctor, not for the woman,"

      Logistics. Go after 100-1000 providers (who have their livelihoods on the line) and you can stop near all of abortion. Conversely, going after 1-2 million women (sorry, birthing people) is a lot harder and more time consuming.

      Also many of the women that want an abortion would probably go to greater lengths to get it done if they are told no, than a white collar provider who thinks they might not only lose their ability to make a good salary but also risks jail for a woman they have no relation to.

      Not saying I agree with it in particular, but it makes sense from a logistics standpoint

    4. Because as the last three decades have shown, penalizing third parties (such as employers or grocery stores) is an easy way to get courts to accept restrictions on individuals they otherwise wouldn't. You can't penalize individuals for saying things you don't like, but you can set multi million dollar liability on their employer. (Also see California banning the sale of certain types of bacon, because they can't regulate production in other states directly)

      Blame the courts for allowing this when they liked what was being regulated.

    5. I have asked this question of abortion ban advocates: Do you want to throw the mothers in jail? The answer is, with few exceptions, no. And most don't even want the doctors thrown in jail.

      It's the old conservative mindset of "I don't like it therefore there should be a law", without even thinking through the ramifications of the law. Legislation is just magic pixie dust.

      1. Everything can be blamed on conservatives if you try hard enough.

      2. Or, it's a realization of the zeitgeist and adjusting strategy to deal with that. It's a common tactic used by the left on a variety of issues (gun control jumps to the front of my mind) but of course you label it a conservative strategy, when both sides use it as history shows.

      3. Do you want to throw the mothers in jail? The answer is, with few exceptions, no.

        I do. I want them to face the exact same charges at 6 months as if they killed their child at 12 months, or 24, or 200. You shouldn't expect some sort of age related discount.
        Except in astonishingly rare cases, you made a "choice" when the two of you decided to have sex. Everyone knows what the biological purpose of that is.

        1. Well, you are consistent in showing where this leads. I must commend you for that even if we would never agree.

          Now, while pregnancy is definitely one possible result of heterosexual sex, the "purpose" depends on the partakers, not any teleological Boogums in the closet.

          1. The whole reason there's a sexual drive in the first place is because of the purpose. That's also why we have a penis and vagina instead of a cloaca.

            1. What are you, a biologist or something?

              1. Did he say who, or what pronouns, are associated with penis and vagina ownership (real or virtual)? No biologist necessary.

          2. You insulted religion AND exposed ignorance of nature all in one post! Well done.

          3. You do realize from a biological standpoint sex is purely about procreation? Sex for pleasure is a rarity, and often only seen in high functioning mammals, that form familial groups, and thus is hypothesized that sex for pleasure is a way to reaffirm familial and social structures with the express purpose of increasing infant survivability as a result of these structures. So, the sex for procreation and reproduction take doesn't require any religious belief, just a basic understanding of biology. Once again in your rush to bash religion you state something that it's obvious you don't understand and end up looking like a fool in the process. Yes, we get it, you're just another smug atheist who is convinced that your unprovable belief that God exists makes you so much more rationale than the equally unprovable belief that God does exist. You even stated there is more proof God doesn't exist, than that he does, and yet when I asked what that proof is, you never responded. You've created a straw man of religious belief and use that to lecture on religion, and almost never appear to actually understand what you're ridiculing. I've corrected you multiple times in the past two days and yet you continue to stick by your points even after I've shown why you're wrong. Other than out of Christian duty, I could care less what you believe, but your smugness about it is as off putting as the fucking vegan who tells you twenty times during dinner that they're vegan, or the born again Christian who has to let everyone know they're saved multiple times.

            1. I'll get back to the other thread later. Meanwhile, I've never seen Teleological "purpose" in a biological text, only function. And the function of sex certainly doesn't always result in procreation, sometimes even if the couple is desperately trying. So, barring this, humans might as well at least be able to get an adrenalin/endorphin/oxytocin rush from sex without fear from Nature or other Humans

              Look, I don't comb the Lifestyle/Faith section of the newspaper looking for Believers to picket and harass.

              I never bring out my Atheism and Secularism until somebody brings out their Theism and Religion, especially with discussions on running the society and Planet in which I abide. With Christians and Muslims in particular, this just happens all too often, for the entire time I've lived on Earth.

              Will it take the "Boom! Boooom! Boom!" of NBC to put an end to this nonsense? Time will tell, but meanwhile, I'm the man tipping the Civil Defense pith helmet saying: "Turn ON those lights!"

              1. You've brought it out multiple times in the past couple of days, here for example, unprovoked. And your long winded explanation is pure horseshit. First, all discussion of the reproductive tract is how it functions in reproduction. The simple fact that not all mating doesn't result in pregnancy does not mean that isn't the primary fucking purposes biologically speaking. No one mentioned religion until you did today. Fuck, you are now bordering on Jeffy and Mike level gaslighting. You don't know what you're talking about. It's called the fucking reproductive tract for a reason. Not the maybe reproductive tract or the fucking tract or the endorphin tract, it's the fucking reproductive tract. And there are entire fucking classes on nothing but how the reproductive tract works if you take a biology major, which I did, and have a fucking masters degree in. But sure, lecture me about biology. You'll be just as out of your depth arguing that as you are when you try and argue religion.

                1. Embrace the paragraph.

      4. I have asked this question of socialists - do you want to throw people who do not want to be part of your collective in jail. The answer, with few exceptions, is no.

        It's the old socialist mindset of "I don't like it therefore there should be a law", without even thinking through the ramifications of the law. Legislation is just magic pixie dust.

      5. ""It's the old conservative mindset of "I don't like it therefore there should be a law", ""

        Conservative mindset? That's pretty one sided.

        1. In this case, it is specifically Social/Religious/Christian Conservatives who typically support these bans and I've heard of no self-identifying Liberals or Moderates who get behind abortion bans. So, sometimes it's both sides, and sometimes not.

          1. I’m an atheist whose against abortion because I’m a libertarian that believes in the Non Aggression Principle, and killing someone is pretty aggressive.

            You really should self reflect on your bigotry.

            1. Bigotry? All I just said was I never heard of any Anti-Abortion Liberals or Moderates. And, yes, I'm aware there are Atheist and Libertarian Anti-Abortionists too.

              You should reflect that words have meanings.

              1. “All I just said was I never heard of any Anti-Abortion Liberals or Moderates.”

                No, that’s not all you said. That’s one thing you said.

                You also said:

                “In this case, it is specifically Social/Religious/Christian Conservatives who typically support these bans”

                Encog, I think you’re a positive on this board overall, by a lot, on most topics. But you have a blind spot for religion.

                Religion is like all other institutions of human society. It can do great things when good people are using it for good, but can easily be corrupted to be used to for other things.

          2. Because you would rather demonize people who don't accept your religion (and sorry atheism is as much a religious choice as Christianity, both are untestable hypothesis, ergo neither are scientifically defensible positions, no matter how much you protest to the contrary) than actually do some research.

  20. Let’s talk about strawberries

    The Brandon Admin is outlawing the only fungicide that works on strawberries, effectively killing the domestic winter strawberry industry. Soon you will hear it is Putins fault that the price is skyrocketing, and Big Berry is to blame for the shortage for sitting on 9000 unused acres.

    I’ll try to link the Twitter thread, but Reason doesn’t like that
    Or just search Nathan Carson @ndcarson

    1. I have searched and can't see anything on it. Any source links?

      1. Twitter @ndcarson

        1. That is not a link. No one's going to scrub a Twitter account to find the relevant posts.

          And a Twitter account isn't a source.

          1. What a dumbass. I can’t post the link for some reason. Putting @ndcarson in the search field and n Twitter will take you to a pinned thread

            1. Learn how to post links.

              1. I've never seen that name, but the account is on mute. So it's just a troll. Ignore it.

                1. Post your mute list, sarcasmic!

            2. Stay away from Twitter.

            1. And his thread includes links to the fucking government documents.

              Some of you really love reveling in ignorance.

              1. Did you see sarcasmic bring up his mute list?

                1. I saw him cry again bout Overt linking to Jeff's past contradictions and how unfair and "Jesse like" it was.

                  Those two hypocrites cry so much about being exposed.

            2. I'm not going to some random Twitter page on the hopes that some random on the internet has his shit together but, for some reason, can't figure out how to post a link.

              1. It took 10s to find. You spent more time trying to dismiss the information for some reason than finding it if you actually cared.

                I found it on my first search with his Twitter handle, strawberries, fungicide.

                It wasn't difficult.

                1. We'll, I *didn't* care. So there's that. Those who cared already knew though so if OP wants to get those who don't care to care then he should take aittle effort to make it easy for them.

                2. Also, I'm not dismissing any information. That is not something I have done here.

                  I just pointed out that I'm not going to his Twitter page on the hope that he might have his shit together there when he can't even post a link here.

                  1. You did.

                    And a Twitter account isn't a source.

                    The tweet has numerous citations in it.

              2. But I bet you clicked the link for the trannies

    2. interesting how it mostly affects Florida with its Republican governor. I do believe a lot of what is happening lately the war in Ukraine, covid pandemic all being used to reduce food and oil supplies so that they can control us more. California has been reducing water to farmers and is now not giving them anything by blaming a mild drought when for years they could have built dams. they really are trying to turn everything into a disaster. lets not forget Biden selling off our emergency oil supplies which will be needed for any war that may come up.

    3. To be fair, strawberries really appear to be a legitimate seasonal crop; the ones I've eaten outside the time of year when they normally ripen always seem to taste rather sour. Strawberries in late May-early June are fucking amazing.

      Same thing with peaches--outside of the later summer, they're okay, but getting them during their normal ripening season provides ones with the best, juiciest taste.

      1. Agreed. Something happens to the flavor. Not enough sunshine maybe to develop the sugars? Peaches suck in the winter. But they are a dream in season, especially the Georgia peaches.

        I would add the white peaches of CA but that could be misinterpreted as a privileged stance.

        1. Some of it could just be shorter supply chains when food is in season. Denver gets peaches from Palisade and melons from Rocky Ford every summer, and they're incredible. Outside that period, a lot of it comes from California or south of the Rio Grande, where they have to pick stuff way before it ripens, and so the ripening process likely gets all fucked up.

          One thing I will agree with the hippies about is that seasonally-grown local produce has a far better taste quality than what you get in the supermarket most of the year. I've never tasted better cucumbers than the ones I grew in the garden.

    4. No Strawberry Jello Pudding or Boost? No Strawberry Pop-Tart muchies or edible undies for Krunkt Kacklin' Kammie?

      C'mon, Man! Surely that will not stand...

  21. Kentucky will now require more proof before involuntarily committing people for drug treatment.

    Proof that the treatment centers actually need the money.

  22. Show me in the constitution where it says women have a right to an abortion, or that the government can’t regulate medicine.

    1. Show me in the constitution where it says people have a right to marry, or that the government can’t regulate marriage.

      ( Yeah, I'm feeling snarky today...)

      1. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Just contract law.

      2. Show me in the constitution where it says people have a right to fuck children, and the government can't regulate human flesh markets.

        1. Uh, all Individual Rights have to be compatible and non-contradictory of other Individual Rights, so fucking children and other non-consenting persons is right out.

          Also, there is that little Amendment 13 that prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Problem solved.

          1. Does the Constitution provide an age of consent? Kids can be convinced to consent to anything. Also, what does eating dead bodies have to do with slavery and involuntary servitude?

            1. "Flesh market" is a euphemism for a slave market. Or a whorehouse.

          2. Actually the 13A bans slavery and involuntary servitude except for those convicted of a crime. Therefore, with strict reading of the amendment it is arguable that convicted criminals could be sold as slaves (which was a common occurrence in many areas in the past). It's just no one has tried it.

      3. Good point.

    2. You have mixed arguments here. You want an explicitly granted individual right and an explicitly denied government power when the constitution is arranged around the concept that any power not explicitly granted to the state belongs to the individual. The result being that both of your examples are granted, the constitution doesn't prohibit abortion so that becomes an individual right, it also doesn't grant the government the right to regulate medicine, unless it is involved in interstate commerce, which it generally is.

      1. It would be great if we lived in a society that interpreted the constitution that way.

        1. That's a response?
          Fuck off.

        2. That being the issue, we live in a society that interprets, not only the Constitution, but every gods' damned thing to mean any fucking thing that dovetails into their worldview and narrative. And as often as not, asks simpering questions to attempt a gotchya, thinking that nobody sees the immature horseshit.

      2. There are two sets of rights involved in abortions. 3 if you include the other parent.

        Those on the restrictions state right to life which is a natural right.

      3. "regulate medicine, unless it is involved in interstate commerce, which it generally is."

        How is medicine an interstate commerce? Most insurance co-ops are all state specific. While they grant out of state coverage, that is the rare exception, not the rule. IF medical insurance and medical practice is all done within a state, that would exclude the interstate commerce.

    3. Show me in the constitution where it says women have a right to an abortion, or that the government can’t regulate medicine.

      That presupposes unlimited powers and enumerated rights. That's the inverse of libertarianism.

      1. unenumerated rather than unlimited

    4. "Show me in the constitution where it says women have a right to an abortion,.."

      No, you show me where the constitution says it's OK for me to have a beer and a hot dog at a ballgame, idiot.
      I thought Tony was the only commenter dumb enough to assume the government "granted" rights

    5. No Brian, that's not how the Constitution, a document laying out the enumerated powers and responsibilities of the government, works.

    6. Show me where a right has to be enumerated in order to exist. In fact, Amendment 9 says it doesn't have to be enumerated.

      And while the Constitution does mention "Commerce," it doesn't single out Medicine.

  23. Laws like this that outlaw panhandling are unconstitutional because they wrongly block individuals' free speech rights...

    You just have to figure out how to rightly block individual rights. Make it a health emergency.

    1. It’s only a minor inconvenience.

      1. For 2 weeks.

        1. "We're trying to flatten the curve on panhandling."

    2. How about the punishment for panhandling is 15 months in solitary with no right to an attorney, and no charges being filed

      1. Only panhandling on January 6th.

    3. Or call it an insurrection.

    4. On a side note: best panhandle sign I saw was a guy in Spokane holding a sign that said "I'll be honest, I'm just looking for beer money". I was returning from MEPS and both myself and the recruiter who was driving me gave him money.

      1. Yeah, that one caught on. I’ve seen it a few times.

    5. Panhandling is free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging anti-panhandling laws in Iowa. "Laws like this that outlaw panhandling are unconstitutional because they wrongly block individuals' free speech rights," said ACLU of Iowa attorney Shefali Aurora. "Such ordinances are also ineffective because, by criminalizing poverty, all they do is drive people further into homelessness."

      So, soliciting for beer and drug money is a right, but using GoFundMe or other online fund-raisers for political purposes is not?

      1. Reason's reasons.

      2. I mean, there is the obvious distinction that the panhandler is most likely actually physically present on public property.

  24. I almost guarantee we would not be where we are with abortion legislation if vaccine and mask mandates had not been pushed so hard. "My body, my choice," was the effective slogan of abortion for 3 decades, and then the government decided that it did have an interest in regulating people's bodies. Now bodily autonomy is no longer a freedom that a large portion of the electorate and the government recognizes.

    That said, I'm not a fan of that Oklahoma bill and hope it gets struck down. I think there needs to b some leeway for early pregnancy measures before there's a developed fetus.

    1. The first trimester rule seems like a valid compromise to me. Except that both sides hate it. One side still wants to ban birth control seemingly, and the other wants to legalize abortion up to the child's first birthday. They are in a contest to see how far they can stretch their extremes.

      And I literally do think some on the pro-life side want to ban birth control in the long run. And I do think some on the pro-abortion side are in favor of infanticide.

      1. One side still wants to ban birth control seemingly,

        Cite?

        1. Voices in his head?

        2. Big Papa in The Vatican and all of his shills in The Catholic League and elsewhere.

      2. "pro-abortion side are in favor of
        infanticide."

        You're nuts to say this or confused probably more likely brainwashed.
        Do you even understand what you're saying? Who's in favor of killing children?

        1. Well not just that. Killing, fondling, and fucking children.

          The left of course.

          1. Yes yes, "the left" is in favor of fucking children, just as much as "the right" is in favor of shooting children in school.

            1. If the right starts asking that kids line up and let teacher point real or pretend guns at them, I might start being concerned the right has an interest in shooting kids.

              Similarly, since the left is insistent on talking to 5 year olds about gender dysphoria, and having the ability to secretly be addressing sexuality with children without parents consent, then ya, I would say the left has a groomer / "fucking kids" mentality. Whether mentally, or physically (but lets be honest, its both)

              1. Nope, by your broad-brush stereotyping and generalization, Team Blue is pro-pedophilia while Team Red is pro-kid-murder. After all look at all the guns they allow and how they refuse to do anything about it whenever there's a school shooting. It must mean that they WANT kids to get shot in school. There is no other explanation. Nope nope nope. That is the kind of thinking that you are promoting when you accuse Team Blue of being "pro-pedophile". If you don't want to be accused of a horrible crime that you are innocent of, then maybe you shouldn't be accusing others of a horrible crime that they are innocent of.

                1. Thats not how analogies work. I can def tell you would be one wanting the SAT/ACT's gone as you would likely get a 0/800 on the verbal reasoning portion.

                  Another completely failed analogy.

                  1. You missed the point entirely.

                    1. Or you failed to make your point and now blame others for your own failings.

                    2. I know the point you were trying to make, and could make it better, but would rather point out your failure to be able to deliver an argument and also see that the analogy you tried to make doesn't logically track.

                      You know, the standard rope-a-doping I did to you when you tried to argue about CRT in schools (poorly)

                    3. No, you didn't, and now you are just engaging in your usual fake-alpha-male posturing. It's kinda pathetic, actually.

                    4. Jeffy 'nuh uh, you're the poopy head. I'm the smart one'. As he eats more glue and his own boogers. Fuck how juvenile of a post you just made. I would criticize my own 8th grade son for such a sophomoric retort. Fuck just give it up. You're clearly not up to par today.

                    5. Fuck how juvenile of a post you just made.

                      ... as you remain notably silent about the sophomoric tripe emanating from our other interlocutor.

                    6. Keep trying Jeffy. Keep trying. Most of the sophomoric tripe from others aren't from people who even pretend to post anything else but that, you on the other hand have pretentions of being an intellectual. So, pointing out your sophomoric tripe is more poignant than pointing out Sevo telling someone to eat turds and die.

            2. Ok, leftists, explain:
              Why should teachers talk to prepubescent about their genitals?

            3. There is considerably more evidence of the former than the latter, particularly once the hyperbole is removed. Not that you seem to function well without hyperbolic claims.

            4. The right aren't talking about putting 'MAP' on the LGBT spectrum. They're not talking about 'destogmatization'. And they're not pushing sex Ed ever further down the grades.

        2. No, there really are people like the Peter Singers out there who think that infanticide can be justified from a utilitarian point of view up to a certain point. But they are in the far far left. It is not mainstream leftwing thought to be in favor of infanticide.

          1. Shout your Abortions doesn't exist as a left movement? Weird.

          2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2121046/Video-Girl-laughs-second-abortion-broadcasts-TikTok.html

            Theres plenty more videos like it too. We are a far cry from "safe, legal, rare" which I can actually get behind.

            The left went from "pro choice" to "pro abortion". Its about freedom from taking any personal responsibility. Which pretty much sums up most of the left. Whether its financial, racial, reproductive, the left wants everyone else to take up their responsibilities without any consequence or inconvenience to them. They think housing is a right. Food is a right. Healthcare is a right. Unlimited abortions is a right.

            They have a reckoning coming. Unfortunately I think its our wider society that has it coming. Civilizations get very deranged before a fall.

            1. There you go. Of course there are a few crazies out there who are affirmatively pro-abortion and brag about their abortions. Just like there are crazies out there who think Sandy Hook was fake and the kids were crisis actors. I don't care how many TikTok videos you have of people bragging about their abortions, they don't represent the overwhelming majority. JUST LIKE I don't care how many videos you have of morons claiming that Trump will be "re-installed any day now", it doesn't mean they are representative of all of Team Red.

              If you don't want to be tarred with the loudest and craziest and most idiotic extreme elements of Team Red, then maybe you shouldn't try to tar everyone else with their loudest and craziest and most idiotic extreme elements.

              1. You love to point out the crazies on the right to demonize the entire right, but whine when you assume people are doing the same to the left.

              2. Im happy to shit on MTG and Boebert too. Or if you want to shit on them I wont give you pushback. The right has some crazies. I dont identify as an R, and dont like a lot of them.

                But I see the left for what they are. The most real threat to freedom with a significant authoritarian streak, who are playing working actively to install marxist principles in our schools, govt, and society.

                So Ill join you in shitting on crazy republicans. But you wont join me in criticizing the left.

                1. I dont identify as an R

                  lol whatever

                  But I see the left for what they are. The most real threat to freedom with a significant authoritarian streak, who are playing working actively to install marxist principles in our schools, govt, and society.

                  This type of nonsense is straight from the Team Red Demagoguery playbook.

                  "Team Red is the most real threat to freedom with a significant authoritarian streak, who are playing working actively to install fascist principles in our schools, govt, and society."

                  See how stupid that sounds? It is the resort of tribalists who push for their team by any means necessary, including inducing fear and paranoia in order to create a stampede of voters for their team.

                  Sure, you "don't identify as an R", you just read from the same script, have the same tactics, and share the exact same worldview of the R's. Uh huh.

                  1. Seriously, you who deny being a Democrat despite always parroting democratic talking points now post this? Do you have any self awareness? Obviously not.

                    1. You're totally right. When I make a comment like "see how stupid that sounds" describing a false insulting stereotype against Team Red, that totally means I'm on Team Blue. Whatevs.

                    2. If that was what you actually did, you would have a point. Since it isn't even close to what you do, see your constant posts about people disingenuously posting fringe leftist to demonize the entire left and then just a few comments down, you doing the exact same thing to the right, all your protestations to the contrary are moot.

              3. Of course there are a few crazies out there who are affirmatively pro-abortion and brag about their abortions.

                Gaslight some more for us. I personally believe that abortion should be left to personal choice, but a majority of the left, including many of the regular commenters here are willing to directly equate any restriction on abortion to slavery and will not even concede that a fetus is alive prior to viability. Pretending that only a narrow fringe of the left abandons logic on the issue is deliberately obtuse.

                1. Shifting the goalposts much? "Bragging about abortions" is different than a discussion about the moral status of the fetus during its natural course of development, about which reasonable people can disagree.

                  1. Okay, let's try this, Jeff.
                    I posit that the formation of a zygote with a complete and unique human genome and its first meiosis is when an individual human being comes into existence.
                    From what I gather you believe that exiting the birth canal is what makes you human.

                    Can you explain why I'm wrong and why your stance isn't immoral and antiscientific?

                  2. I didn't shift the goalposts at all, asshat. I equated multiple illogical arguments that are only slightly less reprehensible than the overt antagonism inherent in bragging about an abortion. You did shift the goalposts when you fundamentally misrepresented what I said, "a fetus is alive prior to viabilty" as "the moral status of a the fetus during the course of its natural development".

                    Alive is not a moral status. An organism that is consuming nutrients and engaged in cell replication is unquestionably alive by any and every scientific definition. Once an abortion is performed, that organism is just as unquestionably scientifically dead. I assume that second part is what you are trying to avoid by shifting the goalpost.

          3. Agreed, this view is present, and more mainstream than you admit. Now trot out your evidence that there are rightists who are making similar statements in support of school shootings. We'll be around all day.

            1. Agreed, this view is present, and more mainstream than you admit.

              How the hell would you know? Because Tucker Carlson told you so?

              1. Why the hell would you suddenly bring Tucker Carlson into it? Did Rachel Maddow tell you to do that?

                How fucking desperate.

                1. Because chemtard radical deathfat is absolutely manic to fit in with whatever his dumbshit lefty neighbors are obsessing over.

                2. He is flailing, the internet equivalent of laying on the floor kicking and screaming. It is a sign of immaturity.

                3. it's also Tony's go to

                  Says it all

              2. No, it was Rush Limbaugh!

                (Am I doing this right?)

                1. Ouija board? Medium? Or seance? Just wondering out of curiosity sake.

                  1. Latent brainwashing from the summer I worked where he was the only talk radio show on the radio.

                    Mega ditto’s!

        3. Who's in favor of killing children?

          Don't say don't say gay, that's for sure.

        4. I've seen several published articles actually promoting that exact ideology.

        5. "Who's in favor of killing children?"

          Gee, Shrike, how about every abortionist ever?

          Maybe you can explain to us again how the Birth Canal Fairy magically turning A Clump Of Cells into a real person during a trip through her sacred halls is Science!, again?

        6. Colorado's governor.

          Former governor Ralph "blackface" Northam

        7. The former Gov of VA discussed birthing a child, keeping it "comfortable" while the doctor and the mom discuss if the child (who is now alive, mind you) will live or not.

          1. And he was discussing an actual bill that was passed, not some far left loon talking.

      3. Depending on the circumstances I fully support the killing of babies up to their 180th trimester and beyond 😉

      4. Both extremes hate it, and have used it as a wedge issue for decades now. But your average person on the street probably sees it as a reasonable compromise.

  25. "People – not politicians – should be in charge of personal decisions about their health care, their bodies, and their futures!"

    -ACLU of Oklahoma

    Now do COVID vaccines.

    1. Racist

    2. Ya, as far as Im concerned I dont want to hear "my body my choice" as an argument ever again from the far left.

      They threw that in the garbage and lit the can on fire when they demanded people's jobs and ability to exist in public was subject to mandates from Cardinal Fauci to take medical injections.

      They can howl all they want, its their precedent

      1. They threw that in the garbage and lit the can on fire

        I thought you were gonna say they threw that in the dumpster, lit it on fire, and shouted "Shoot me! Shoot me!" at a minor who didn't want to get attacked by a convicted pedophile for putting out their dumpster fire.

      2. I could live happily w/o hearing any discussion of civil liberties from any branch of the A'CL'U. They have long since let the mask slip, some rights, some privileges, for some people. But a re-branding and name change likely means loss of revenue.

    3. Guess I should have read the comments before posting, but whatever.

  26. It's beyond obvious that the Oklahoma bill is unconstitutional. Some laws around the edges could pass muster, but an outright ban cannot. That ship has long since sailed.

    So why the hell is Oklahoma going forward with this? Is it just pure kulturwar will to power crap? Do they even understand how our system works?

    I'm pro-life myself, but in terms of the legality the rule of law rather than rule of whim is what must guide us. Abortion is a cultural issue and you can't stop it without changing the culture. Stupid legal shenanigans like this don't help the cause they hurt it.

    1. PuBLiC hEaLth

    2. I guess to score points with their voter base, and taking a shot at the current Supreme Court makeup being willing to overturn Roe v Wade.

      1. I'm curious, what do you think Roe v Wade actually decided. I keep seeing people misusing this term as a catch all for all abortion when it actually stated regulations are valid for fetus viability as a condition set. As science increases and matures, the number of weeks for viability continues to decrease in the pregnancy timeline.

        1. It's all right there in the constitution plain as day.

        2. The issue is that the companion Doe case held that regulations can be overridden in the case of protecting the "health" of the mother, which includes physical, emotional, and familial health.

      2. That's an astute observation. Didn't think they'd make a law intending it to be challenged all the way to the top. Then again I'm not a conniving politician. Have you ever considered running for office? 😉

        1. Nah, nobody would ever vote for me.

          1. Can you two just please go on a date already. This is getting nauseating.

          2. You're not a bombastic buffoon who blitheringly bloviates about blah blah blah.

            So no you're not getting the support of any Trump supporters.

            1. Not a leftist!

  27. The DNC talking points have gone out, so expect a lot of articles about how it's just so mean that the Right is calling the Left groomers and pedophiles that conveniently leave out all the things the Left has accused them of over the years.

    1. Seems like both the Left and the Right would be correct if they point out that he Left tends to call the Right racists and bigots, and the Right has started calling the Left peepholes and groomers. Both are true.

      1. “peepholes” — perfect typo!

      2. It's kinda sad, really. So I guess Team Red can be divided into two parts:

        The part that accuses Team Blue of being pedophiles, because they really believe it (i.e. QAnon)
        The part that accuses Team Blue of being pedophiles, because they are throwing immature insults

        Notably absent:
        The part that act mature and responsibly

        1. The part that act mature and responsibly

          I'd amend that to say the part that argues honestly and in good faith. I'm sure they act maturely and responsibly in other areas of life. Just not political discourse.

          1. Circle jerk of blaming all evils on the right.

            1. Really? Is that how you take any criticism of your team?

              Comment: These people on the right seem believe stupid shit while throwing immature insults.

              Response: You're all holding each others dicks while blaming everything on us!

              I'm not sure if you're trying to confirm my point. If so you did. If not you did anyway.

              1. It's exactly what this thread was. The fact you got so defensive suddenly just shows your aware of it, but don't want to admit it.

          2. The part that accuses Team Blue of being pedophiles, because they really believe it (i.e. QAnon)
            The part that accuses Team Blue of being pedophiles, because they are throwing immature insults"

            Here's actual C-Span video of Biden fondling a whole bunch of little girls on many different occasions. Maybe you two dishonest chucklefucks can explain how this is is just some sort of coNspiRAcY tHeOry or being mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqF4wA-dco

        2. Can we add the group weirdly looking with a confused stare, at a group of mouth frothing left wing activists screaming that they demand to be able to teach gender queerness and sexual topics to 5 year olds.

          That group is real too (and they vote).

        3. The few Republicans who do have some principles are currently on the outs, being painted as RINOs by the populist/cowardly wing that currently controls the party.

          Not that similar things don’t happen on the Left. Manchin is accused of being a traitor to the party, and Paul Samuelson is ignored when he tries to explain that out of control spending won’t achieve progressive goals of helping the needy.

          1. Those same republicans are the ones beating the war drums like your lefty friends.

            1. He meant principles as bowing to the left.

        4. More interesting, the large part of team blue who automatically reject any alternate viewpoint, labeling it immature, or conspiracy theory, rather than examine the facts. You can be counted on to provide a picture perfect demonstration, and to claim you don't lean left heavily. Save your concern trolling. Save your bs analysis. Take a look at why you reject any view, to include facts, that doesn't align with the views held by your in-group. For a radical individualist, you suck at radical individualism.

          1. More interesting, the large part of team blue who automatically reject any alternate viewpoint, labeling it immature, or conspiracy theory, rather than examine the facts.

            Guess what, there are tribalist morons EVERYWHERE! They are not limited only to Team Red! There's a metric shitton of them on Team Blue as well!

            Why don't YOU take a look at why you are so quick to believe Team Blue is accepting of pedophilia. It can't possibly be because you're just a tribalist moron yourself, could it?

            1. Jeff, you are one of the biggest tribalists here, you just refuse to admit it.

            2. Given the sheer rage about saying "You cannot discuss sex or gender theory with kids 8 years old or YOUNGER", there is a strong case that those ragers have some issues.

        5. We learned it from you.

          Don't whine when the go-to tactic of you allies gets picked up and used against you.

      3. Someone ask Mike Lauren why he's so upset teachers are barred from talking to prepubescent children about their genitals?

  28. " . . . as long as Roe remains the law of the land . . . "

    That's the point, isn't it?

    1. It isn't a law it's a court ruling. Just like Dred Scott was

      1. That’s kinda splitting hairs, but I guess you can make a distinction between legislative law and court rulings if you like.

        A lot of people would say it’s reasonable to consider them one and the same thing. It’s certainly the tradition under common law that they are inspearable.

        1. How is it splitting hairs? It is completely accurate. What do you think Roe v Wade actually decided?

        2. Maybe this will help with your misunderstanding Dee:

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

  29. "People – not politicians – should be in charge of personal decisions about their health care, their bodies, and their futures!"

    Says the ACLU official twitter feed.
    Where have they been the last two years?

    1. Claiming mask bans are a violation of civil rights.

      1. *mask mandate bans

    2. This should be obvious, but COVID-19 is spread by mere respiration while pregnancy is not. That plainly puts the former in the realm of spread of contagious disease within the commons, a legitimate function of government. (And, yes, I acknowledge all the ways government hasn’t handled COVID-19 well.)

      1. So your belief is that since humans don't live in a bubble, government can regulate every action they take?

        1. ^yes that is his position whether he admits out loud or not.

          It is the position of every progressive.

      2. Who is splitting hairs now?

      3. Function of the government - legitimate, debatable.

  30. Oklahoma has passed a near-total ban on abortion. The bill will make abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy, "except to save the life of a pregnant woman

    A pregnant what? I guess ENB is a biologist.

    1. Ha good one!

    2. Follow up to an ever-bearing statement from yesterday:

      People – not politicians – should be in charge of personal decisions about their health care, their bodies, and their futures!

      If the FBI shows up in the next ~24 hrs. and asks me what the most insurrectionist thing I've heard in the last 24 hrs. is, I'm sending them in the ACLU's direction.

  31. So killing babies is not allowed. Go figure

    1. Well, it was fun while it lasted.

    2. Also, not allowed: killing small clumps of cells that aren’t a baby yet.

      1. What day is the magic transformation from cells to baby?

        1. When the democratic narrative says they do.

        2. I think your tone reveals an obvious truth, that you know you will never get an answer to this question. Ball is in your court, Mike.

          1. I have Don't look at me muted, so I don't know what ball he lobbed toward me...

            1. Tell us why you want teachers to talk to 6 year Olds about genitals

        3. presumably as soon as a DNC staffer can start molesting their genitals, I would guess

        4. When they vote D?

        5. You are asking too, too much from these non-biologists.

      2. What about killing big clumps of cells that aren't babies anymore?

        Mike's morality rests on your size apparently.

  32. The good news (or the bad news, depending on ones perspective) is the "My Body My Choice" argument has been eviscerated over the last two years. So I'm curious to see how the signs read.

    1. They'll read the same. The arguement has always been a joke, that the majority of its proponents rarely believed in.

  33. An open white nationalist running for Congress as a Republican? Say it isn't so!

    https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/laura-loomer-believes-her-white-nationalist-views-will-get-her-elected-to-congress/

    1. What makes her a white nationalist. Because according to the zeitgeist, I'm a white nationalist.

      1. For starters:

        “Citrus County, which is in my district, is also the whitest district in the entire state of Florida,” Loomer said. “And so these issues of CRT and anti-white racism and anti-white hatred, and this anti-American, anti-white Christian mentality that the Democrats are pushing—they’re trying to persecute white people, they’re trying to persecute Christians, the most persecuted people in the world—that’s on the radar of my constituency, and I look forward to being their advocate when I win my race and get elected as their next congresswoman.”

        1. Nothing in that statement supports your contention.

          Sarc lives in a 95% white county, is he a white nationalist?

          1. Guilty by association.

        2. Anyone who is against teaching 5 year olds that they are irredeemably racist and bear america's original scene and wants to put them through struggle sessions at school is a white supremacist now days.

        3. Not seeing any white supremacy in that statement. It's opinion and verifiable fact (Christians are according to several reputable organizations) more likely to face persecution than other religions.

          1. I contend, based on real world evidence, that if Christians shot back more often then motherfuckers would leave them alone.

            1. It's kind of frowned upon by the tenants of our beliefs. The whole turning the other cheek, and forgiving those who trespass against us, and loving our enemies thing. We don't always live up to it, but really modern Christians (and Judaism) are fairly peaceable compared to other world religions. Historically this hasn't always been the case (for Judeo-Christianity) but it also hasn't been totally unheard of either historically speaking. Even the much discussed crusades didn't occur until centuries after Muslims launched unprovoked conquests of several Christian Kingdoms in the near east, Africa and Europe.

        4. That is circumstantial. Would you be upset if you were imprisoned for similar statements about in support of some cause about which you feel strongly? At the very least, she appears to be a knucklehead, and have racist leanings. I would say the same of you, given some of what you have written here. As I wrote elsewhere, you do not seem to be able to exist w/o making hyperbolic claims.

        5. I've read that statement four times, I don't see anything "white nationalist" about it.

        6. So, an AA politician can advocate for AA over others in their constituency - but a white one can't advocate for whites?

          1. Keep in mind, chemtard has cited The Root, which is the black version of the Daily Stormer, in support of his arguments.

          2. and an AA mayor can say they will only take questions from AA journos and no one bats an eye at that.

    2. Wow, this site... holy crap... lessee:

      FEBRUARY 4, 2022 12:40 PM

      ‘Hugs From Brazil’: Brazil’s Far-Right President Jair Bolsonaro Supports Joe Rogan

      JANUARY 11, 2022 12:36 PM

      Twitter and TikTok Still Have an Election Misinformation Problem

      AUGUST 11, 2021 9:00 AM

      Anti-Vax Athletes Helping to Fuel Vaccine Hesitancy

      MAY 27, 2021 3:46 PM

      Parler Returns to Apple App Store After Hate Speech Crackdown—Can It Compete With Alternatives?

      APRIL 29, 2021 3:03 PM

      Dr. Fauci Shoots Down Joe Rogan’s Claims That Healthy People Do Not Need COVID-19 Vaccine

      FEBRUARY 19, 2021 2:01 PM

      Thousands of National Guard Troops to Remain in DC Throughout March Due to QAnon Concerns, Potential Violence

      Interesting group there running that website.

      1. You're right, it's not up to the standards of Professor Joe Rogan, and That One Guy Who Sounded Smart On Youtube. I guess they will have to do better.

        1. Joe wasn't the one of the most published doctors in the US, his guest was.

          1. Unlike CNN, Joe Rogan lets any expert on his show.

            1. Jeff's point of contention is that he doesn't run his guests past the DNC first, like CNN does.

              1. He literally complained that Rogan has people on that major media ignores. He’s a real individualist.

        2. Is doing better doing what you think is permissible? It generally works out this way with folks like you. You hem and haw about science, while ignoring the scientific method, the hard sciences, and any facts that don't fit your agenda. It tends to be about control, doesn't it?

        3. Didn't miss anything. You got called out. And you certainly implied it as clear as fuck.
          An open white nationalist running for Congress as a Republican? Say it isn't so!
          So you are backpedaling and fucking gaslighting like a mother fucker. And it's just so fucking obvious. You totally meant to demonize all Republicans and I called you out for your hypocrisy and now your trying to pretend you didn't. You fucking dishonest piece of lying shit.

          1. Fucking thread fail.

            1. Calling him a dishonest piece of shit is never a fail.

              1. No, but it was meant for a specific comment of his in this case.

    3. Not a leftist guys!

      Also I would love to see the evidence of her being one.

    4. According to CNN, Clarence Thomas & Larry Elder are white supremacists. Try something that has meaning.

    5. Who up thread posted, not once, but twice whining about people using the crazies on the left to demonize all the left and is now using a crazy on the right to demonize the whole right? Remind us again. Fuck Jeffy. It's the same fucking comment section.

      1. And he defines her as crazy and racist because... she doesn't want schools to teach race essentialist hatred

        1. He also tried to play off a leftist defending the idea of infanticide as not supporting it, just making the case that it is moral. Like it was an empty philosophical debate.

      2. LOL he cant even stay consistent in an argument in the SAME COMMENT THREAD!

        1. Tony is like that, debate him long enough and he invariably will counter himself in the same thread.

          1. It really makes you realize that they haven't exactly thought their positions through entirely and are reacting emotionally rather than critically. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing in finite doses but hardly should be the defining feature of your ethos.

            1. Plus they’re inherently dishonest.

              1. And stupid.

      3. See, you miss the key distinction here.

        I am NOT saying all Republicans, or "The Right", are like Lara Loomer.

        But you all ARE saying that "The Left" is pro-pedophilia, bragging about abortions, promoting Marxism, and other absurd idiocies, tarring them all.

        You're being a bunch of tribalist morons. Criticism of Lara Loomer means "attacking Team Red" and not treating all of Team Blue as defending pedophilia means "shilling for Team Blue". Get your head out of your ass.

        Fact of the matter is, you just don't want to see criticism of Team Red.

        1. And so these issues of CRT and anti-white racism and anti-white hatred, and this anti-American, anti-white Christian mentality that the Democrats are pushing

          CRT - real, see Democrat opinions of 1619 Project
          anti-white racism - real, see CRT
          anti-white hatred - real, see Democrat comments about Kyle Rittenhouse
          anti-American - real, see Democrat platform regarding hate speech and gun control
          anti-white Christian - real, see any Democrat screed about "evangelicals" and note how it completely ignores blacks and Hispanics

          When you post an article that purports that a firm understanding of the actual stated goals of the Democrat agenda is "white nationalist", you are saying that the vast majority of Republicans are like Lara Loomer. Should we assign malice or stupidity to your misstatements?

        2. Didn't miss anything. You got called out. And you certainly implied it as clear as fuck.
          An open white nationalist running for Congress as a Republican? Say it isn't so!
          So you are backpedaling and fucking gaslighting like a mother fucker. And it's just so fucking obvious. You totally meant to demonize all Republicans and I called you out for your hypocrisy and now your trying to pretend you didn't. You fucking dishonest piece of lying shit.

        3. You are fucking lying like a fuck. Your first two sentences are clear as fucking day as to their intent. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. Everyone is totally clear your fucking lying through your teeth now, claiming the exact opposite of exactly what you got called out for. Fuck, I can tolerate most shit but a fucking liar.

          1. Where I come from the only thing lower than a man who lies, is a kid/wife beater or a pedophile. A man who will lie to your face is perfectly capable of doing far worse.

          2. Whatever man. I don't fucking care anymore. You are going to call me a liar no matter what I say or do.

            1. Sure you don't that's why you just posted multiple paragraphs fucking lying your ass off. Since you just proved your a liar, excuse me if I don't believe you don't care. Fucking piece of shit. Hello mute button. Lost any respect I ever had for you as a human being.

    6. white nationalist is so 2015.

      You have to be minimum white supremacist to make news. Next year thatll have been worn out too. Itll have to be white-pro-GENOCIDE or white genocidalist.

      When you continue to misuse terms to slander people without any merit, people start to roll their eyes about those terms.

      See also: "racist"

      No one gives a fuck anymore

      1. "Rightwingwatch.org"

        Pffft, Jesus Christ man. You are incorrigible.

      2. One really needs to take the scare over white nationalists that the press and the police fusion centers have been foisting on the population with a large grain of salt. There was a similar scare about neo-nazis in the 1990s, and if one looked past the scare pieces, there turned out to be maybe a few thousand in the country. I am betting that the numbers a a little higher, but inflated by left-leaning folk's tendency to change definitions to mean whatever suits their needs.

        1. Yeah, growing up in the 1980s and 1990s, whenever I mentioned being from North Idaho, the first thing people would ask me is "isn't that where all the Skin Heads live?' because all the media would show up for their stupid parade (that the courts made Coeur d'Alene host) show the crowd (who was there to protest the parades) and imply Coeur d'Alene and Kootenai county were full of skinheads. There was never more than 2 dozen living on their compound at any given time, it was out in the boonies, north of Hayden Lake, they almost never came into town, in fact I never saw one, outside the parade, until I was home on leave after basic. And it was one kid at K mart who couldn't get out of their quick enough because of the hostile stares he was getting from all the other customers. This was the same K mart that routinely had a woman in full buckskins wearing a gunbelt with pistol and Bowie knife shopping there and no one batted an eye. The funny thing is if they went across the border, and visited the north side of Spokane they would have found some hard core white supremacists biker gangs running drugs and guns out of Hillyard. But no, North Idaho was full of skinheads according to the media.

    7. And? The Democrats had a KKK member in the Senate until he died.

      They have an open communist in the Senate. They have crypto communists in the House.

      They have an open racist as President - even his BP pick said he was a racist.

    8. My, rightwingwatch. Cannot imagine a more impartial source.

  34. "Oklahoma Votes To Criminalize Abortion"

    As I've previously posted, the GOP Puritans might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November if the SCOTUS strikes down Roe v Wade in June (when they rule on Mississippi's ban after 15 weeks), and if more red states take away women's basic rights by imposing theocratic abortion bans.

    Only about 10% of Americans support totally banning abortions, but the GOP Taliban (who also oppose legalizing weed) are preparing to strip women of the basic rights and freedom.

    The Wall St Journal survey also found the following
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/support-for-15-week-abortion-ban-outweighs-opposition-wsj-poll-finds-11648821601?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

    A total of 31 percent of voters said they strongly support a 15-week ban, while 17 percent were somewhat in support. Another 34 percent said they strongly opposed such a ban, and 10 percent said they were somewhat opposed.

    Overall, 55% of voters surveyed said they wanted abortion to be legal in all or most cases, while 30% said it should be illegal except in cases involving rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. Another 11% said it should be illegal in all circumstances.

    Among Democrats, 21% supported a 15-week ban and 69% opposed, while among Republicans, 75% supported a 15-week ban and 20% opposed.

    Respondents were less supportive of restricting abortion at the early stages of pregnancy. Asked about laws banning abortion after six weeks, with exemptions for the health of the mother, 50% were opposed and 42% in favor.

    1. Abortion will become increasingly important as a political issue if the SCOTUS strikes down Roe v Wade (i.e. eliminates 5 decades of federal abortion rights for women), and if more red states controlled by Puritan theocrats ban all (or even most) abortions.

      Half or more of the GOP's expected gains (in Congress, governor's offices, and state legislatures) could be wiped out in November (as abortion will become a key issue in all swing Congressional and State legislative races, Governor's races, and US Senate races).

      GOP candidates who endorse (or call for) total abortion bans
      (to win the GOP primary) could lose to pro choice Democrats in November.

      1. I think you imagine killing kids is more popular than it is.

        1. I think it's been a proven campaign strategy for the Dems for decades and that yeah, the GOP might be shooting themselves in the foot here.

    2. A total of 31 percent of voters said they strongly support a 15-week ban, while 17 percent were somewhat in support. Another 34 percent said they strongly opposed such a ban, and 10 percent said they were somewhat opposed.

      Did you even read what you wrote? That's a 48% 'strongly or somewhat support' vs. a 44% 'strongly or somewhat oppose'. Hardly an albatross.

    3. "Overall, 55% of voters surveyed said they wanted abortion to be legal in all or most cases."

      That's a bit of a stolen base right there. What are these "most cases?" Few people understand how broadly Doe defines the health of the mother.

    4. Christian Taliban. Yeah any point after that was completely discredited by your stupidity with that statement. Here's a clue, it will take more than Roe being overturned to make up the deficit Biden and Pelosi and Schumer have created with their incompetence. And hyperbole like Christian Taliban and puritanism (when the left is just as puritanistic about a lot of issues with sex as you accuse the right of being) aren't going to work anymore. Neither is baseless charges of racism, or any other isms, the left overplayed those to such a degree most Americans are turning them out.

      1. I should also note you posted this exactly one day after a noted Democratic strategist gave an interview in which he stated this was the only way the Democrats have of minimizing losses, going full blown scare tactics. I'm not accusing you of getting your marching orders but it is extremely coincidental.

        1. It's the obvious strategy for them.

    5. 'If more red states take away women's basic rights by imposing theocratic abortion bans.' It's one right, it's not theocratic to oppose abortion except in cases of health emergency after the 1st trimester.

      'Are preparing to strip women of the basic rights and freedom.' Again, it's one right, and a single 'freedom.' The combination of hyperventilating rhetoric and calling those who support this law the 'GOP Taliban,' in conjunction with the weak argument, does little except make you seem cranky.

  35. Anyone else watch Pennyworth? The butler's backstory?

    The ending really pissed me off.

    1. Poor sarc. So lonely.

  36. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10690391/Joe-Biden-looks-bereft-White-House-event-fans-flock-former-President-Barack-Obama.html

    But I'M the President now! Staff IGNORE Joe Biden and flock to Barack Obama during ex-President's first trip back to White House
    On Tuesday former president Obama joined Biden at the White House to celebrate the 12th anniversary of the launch of the Affordable Care act
    But following his speech, Obama was seen shaking hands with fans and fellow politicians in the East room while Joe wandered around looking confused
    Biden was also seen standing behind Obama and Kamala Harris as they shook hands with people and he watches on with no one paying him any mind
    The clip has garnered online reaction, with some people saying the president was outshone by his former boss and that he looks lost
    'I guess we know who's really running the White House and it ain't Joe!' another person tweeted.

    Ha ha and scary at the same time.

    1. Revealing, isn't it.

      POTUS Obama and Def Sec Robert Gates both correctly assessed Biden's abilities prior to 2020. They were both right.

      He is the second coming of Jimmy Carter, sans morality and ethics.

      1. Obama could have said "I'm the president now, get that old guy out of the room" and I bet everyone would have gone along.

        1. He all but did. Blocko deliberately mocked and insulted him at the podium right to his face, deliberately calling him "vice president". Then he played it off like he was joking, but of course he wasn't, at all. It was an ultimate power flex, he was basically telling the world "of course I'm the one in charge and not this pathetic old man", without saying it quite so directly.

      2. Carter was, from what I can recall, being young, smarter. And not a loudmouthed bully.

        1. Carter also had some serious, real world, accomplishments - including putting his own life on the line helping clean up a reactor accident - such as becoming an XO in the Navy.

          Dude made serious mistakes as a President - but he's about the only one where I would say those mistakes were from 'well-intentioned' actions rather than from his own self-aggrandizement.

          1. The Pepsi Syndrome skit with Dan Akroyd playing Carter and Garrett Morris playing the cleaning lady is one of the funniest things I have ever seen on TV.

            https://tmi.papost.org/the-pepsi-syndrome-saturday-night-live/

  37. "People – not politicians – should be in charge of personal decisions about their health care, their bodies, and their futures!"
    ---------
    Now do vaccine mandates.

    1. Pregnancy doesn’t spread by mere respiration.

  38. "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging anti-panhandling laws in Iowa."

    This is what they're challenging:

    https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/dubuqueia/latest/dubuque_ia/0-0-0-3206

    "AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING: Panhandling which demonstrates a specific intent to induce, solicit, or procure from another goods or money which includes one (1) or more of the following actions:

    1. The touching of the solicited person without the solicited person's consent;
    2. Blocking the path of travel of the person being solicited;
    3. Blocking the entry or exit of a person being solicited to any vehicle or building;
    4. Continuing to solicit or request a donation from a person after that person has refused an earlier request verbally or has ignored the request;
    5. Following or remaining alongside a person who, after being solicited, walks away from the person panhandling and doing the same in a manner that would cause a reasonably prudent person to feel threatened, intimidated, or fearful;
    6. Making any statement, gesture, or other communication that would cause a reasonably prudent person to feel threatened, intimidated, or fearful;
    7. Soliciting a person who is in a situation in which it would be obvious to a reasonably prudent person that the person being solicited would not feel free to immediately walk away, and shall include, but is not limited to, soliciting the person at any bus stop, in any public transportation vehicle, in a line waiting for service or admission, or dining at an outdoor service area;
    8. Soliciting a person within fifty feet (50') of an automatic teller machine or an entrance to a bank or similar institution;
    9. Behavior which would deter a reasonably prudent person from passing through or remaining in or near any thoroughfare, or public place because of fear, concern, or apprehension caused by such behavior."

    1. Next thing you know filthy OK Republicans will be trying to thwart panhandling *and* democracy by making it a crime to solicit someone in line at a polling place!

    2. It's criminalizing harassment, not "criminalizing poverty."

      1. Took the family to N. Carolina for Spring Break and stopped in Asheville. The older broodlings noted that all the panhandlers they saw had an actual instrument, a designer cup of coffee, and an iPhone. Now I really feel that my communities in Chicagoland, with panhandlers who just hold cardboard signs or *maybe* tap out a rhythm on a used 5 gal. bucket, are underserving my kids by not providing them a higher class of panhandler.

        1. There's a panhandler in Providence who has a saxaphone and plays outside the Dunkin Donuts Center after P Bruins games. He only plays one song, over and over, but he plays it well.

          It really makes me resentful of the other panhandlers who just knock on my car window and wave their cardboard sign at me. They could at least put some effort into it.

          1. I was in Little 5 Points in ATL when a panhandler kept trying to sell me "weed". Kept saying no, eventually just gave him 5 bucks and walked away. He came up to me when I was getting in my car and shoved a baggie into my hands, tapped the roof, and said "go, go, go!"
            I looked at the baggie and it was definitely filled with crumbled up dry leaves.
            Had to appreciate the hustle of trying to maintain the weed gambit.

        2. Same here. Our panhandler (there's only one) just stands in the Walmart parking lot under a tree and holds up a sign.

          Like dude, do something. Juggle, badly. Sing, play an instrument. FFS, give Shakespearean soliloquys, provide *some* value to people.

    3. I am shocked that ENB didn't read the actual bill, and only went based on what the aclu said!

      1. To be fair, it would be a very long tweet thread, and she doesn't have time for that.

    4. Strange, these behaviors, when carried out by folks protesting abortion providers and planned parenthood, don't get support from A'CL'U or reasonmag. I will venture that the new feminist shills would have a fit if this were behavior that were attributed to men, toward women. My point, for the thick, is that there is a clear double standard.

      1. These behaviors, when carried out by BLM and Antifa, get full-throated approval. But let some Canadian truckers block streets, and it's a TERRORIST OCCUPATION.

  39. A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests a fourth dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine may produce only fleeting benefits.

    Someone at Pfizer forgot to pay off the New England Journal of Medicine this month.

  40. https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1511732556181430279?t=jxiQwKFdQ4C553KdmD8Gsw&s=19

    If there was ever any doubt as to the EU being a horrendous, authoritarian anachronism.

    They are now sanctioning Hungary because Hungarians democratically elected a Prime Minister the EU doesn't like.

  41. https://twitter.com/jonst0kes/status/1511516796960100356?t=N70GRsNxufd43Gae73dLYg&s=19

    The appeal of “groomer” is IMO really simple & I’m surprised so many are surprised at it catching on. The pattern is:
    1. I’m an adult & you’re a small child
    2. We talk about sex
    3. Your parents don’t need to know about this conversation
    4. Eventually you & I will have sex

    [Thread]

    1. Growing up, the biggest red flag I can think of when interacting with an adult is "Now don't tell your parents about this..." Now it seems like a specific political party is embracing that phrase instead of being wary of it.

      1. Growing up, the biggest red flag I can think of when interacting with an adult is "Now don't tell your parents about this..."

        Wasn't this actually taught to most kids up until about 5-10 years ago that when an adult tries to convince you to hide shit from your parents, that they're actually trying to harm you?

        Funny how mainstreaming troonery changed this calculus.

        1. It was definitely taught to us in the 80's.

          1. Pretty sure they even did a Different Strokes episode about it.

    2. Interesting thread. I don't think the majority of teachers who support sex ed for kids are actual pedophiles who want to have sex with kids. I think it's more along the lines of this, from the replies to the tweet:

      https://twitter.com/Ratzoff2ya1/status/1511561741729107969?s=20&t=h7IO2uzHC9Cha9I9-2AlBQ

      "They don't want to fuck your kids as much as they want to use your kids in order to validate themselves.

      Its more like:

      4. Eventually you will chop off your dick/balls or tits and I derive pleasure from it for a variety of reasons"

      1. Look at the collection of nutbags who've posted all over social media about this. Looney toons with pieced up faces, pink hair, dressing like deranged Pee Wee Hermans or slovenly bull-dykes. They're the back-of-the-cafeteria weirdos.

        There's a reason why they teach elementary and early childhood grades: so they can be adored and loved by people who don't realize yet how weird they are.

        Still grooming, for sure, but not for the purpose of having sex.

      2. I suspect the validation/affirmation angle is correct. W/o knowing more details, there is little reason for these dipshits to have the children in their class as friends, to require their approval, in order to feel good about themselves. It is likely different for each case, but what does not change is the fact that early ed teachers have the lowest intelligence among US workers. And that young people, and LGBTQ folks are more likely to suffer from a mental illness. Yes, sharing experiences with one's peers can be affirming and positive and give one a sense of place. The classroom is not that place, it is the workspace.

        1. I saw an interesting thread a few days ago that noted that an oversized percentage of the hardcore T's in the rainbow alphabet also had other mental health conditions, and many were on the Autism spectrum. Emotional immaturity is a key symptom of ASD, and when you look at their social media posts, they all show signs of significant emotional immaturity. They are grown adults with the emotional maturity of adolescents, and it's evident in their social media presence, their personal appearance, their need for validation, and their narcissistic insistence that the issue is about them and how it makes them feel, and not the students and how this affects their educational needs. None of them have made any kind of cogent case that gender and sexuality education in primary grades has important educational value for the students. It's all emotional appeals, which is how adolescents argue.

          They also have hyperinflated estimations of their own importance, which is clear by them constantly referring to students as "their kids," and posturing themselves as brave heroes.

          1. One of the biggest things I suffer from as a result of being on the spectrum is social anxiety, not feeling like I belong and I'm different and don't fit in. It's telling that a number of studies have shown the largest group that is now seeking transitioning in England are young females on the spectrum. You feel like you don't fit in or belong, autism in females is less well understood than in males, where it isn't really well understood either (especially high functioning Autism). Autistics also tend to be open to persuasion and overly trusting (I've been burned by this a few times), now you have a trusted adult figure saying you don't feel like you belong, have you considered that maybe your transgendered? And being transgendered is currently the zeitgeist and a way of possibly finally belonging. What do you think the outcome is going to be?

            1. Social anxiety is another one. At one point, I thought my oldest might have ASD, but she ended up just being diagnosed with ADHD- primarily inattenive. She showed some signs of ASD that are common in girls, including delayed sexual maturity (in that she went thru puberty at the normal time, but actual sexual awareness didn't come until much, much later than normal) and "social mimicking." She didn't fully understand the nuances of social relationships between people, so she latched onto a girl who was nice to her and mimicked her characteristics and mannerism. Luckily, the girl she latched onto was a nice kid who was kind to my daughter and had her best interest at heart, but I worried daily that she would be preyed upon by someone who WASN'T nice. Or that she would latch onto someone whose traits weren't good ones to mimick. Kids like that are easy prey for these teachers who want to push gender ideology at young ages. You already feel weird, you already don't mesh well or naturally with peers, so yeah, someone like that can get into their heads and twist them all around. Especially a girl like my daughter, who went through physical puberty but not emotional puberty, and so her body is doing weird, gross stuff and there's no reason for it.

        2. https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1511752986803986434?s=20&t=Uth2DZVwTsQ4tSCCFFtZHg

          Biden to... the building trades union?

          "If I gotta go to war, I'm going with you guys."

          1. Dammit. That wasn't supposed to go here.

  42. https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1511752986803986434?s=20&t=Uth2DZVwTsQ4tSCCFFtZHg

    Biden to building trades union:

    "If I gotta go to war, I'm going with you guys."

    1. So the plan is to go straight to 'contractors' to avoid the 'NATO presence' that Putin is certain was immanent? Not quite as clever as they think it is. Blackwater is going to have a hell of a time protecting their enclaves from the criminal oligarchs now armed with military ordnance. This is going to get expensive.

  43. Our separation is proceeding it seems. Abortion should be up to the States and will be a the beginning of a national split..now let's include the ending of title 2 and 8 of the CRA, allowing competing currencies including Bitoin and gold, States enforcing their borders, States taking the land the Federal govt illegally took from them, ending public sector unions have the popcorn ready...it will get very interesting.

  44. Abortion violates the federal constitutional inalienable right to life of the fetus.

    This is simply a long overdue correction. The first step in stopping the worst genocide in earths history.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.