Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Reason Roundup

Texas' Abortion Law Test

Plus: BTS gets conscripted, Harvard gets down with plagiarism, cruise ships ban weed, and more...

Liz Wolfe | 12.12.2023 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Texas abortion | Mario Cantu/Cal Sport Media/Newscom
(Mario Cantu/Cal Sport Media/Newscom)

Texas' medical exemption law gets tested: Kate Cox is a 31-year-old mother of two who is 20 weeks pregnant with her third child and seeking an abortion.

The baby has trisomy 18, which means it will most likely either be stillborn or die early in infancy. Cox has been to the emergency room several times during this pregnancy, and is arguing in court that continuing the pregnancy will risk her health, thus falling under the exception to the Texas abortion law, which does not generally permit abortions but allows them if the mother's life is in danger or if an abortion would prevent the "substantial impairment of major bodily function."

Last week, a trial judge ruled that Cox could receive an abortion in the state, but Texas' Supreme Court put a hold on the trial judge's ruling this past Friday.

Then yesterday, the state Supreme Court ruled that Damla Karsan, Cox's doctor, hadn't sufficiently made the case that the medical exemption applied to her patient.

"Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment," wrote the high court. "But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a 'life-threatening physical condition' or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires."

"Some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses," continued the ruling. Now, Cox says she will go out of state to get the abortion immediately.

Cox is one of the first who has sought a court-ordered exception since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling which overturned Roe v. Wade and allows states to dictate their own abortion laws. Her case is unique, too, because she is doing so in advance of getting the abortion. Another suit, which attempts to clarify the legal limits surrounding what qualifies as a medical exemption, is being brought before the state of Texas right now as well. And, in three other states, abortion is coming before Supreme Courts this week, as plaintiffs continue to challenge laws to suss out what each state's new abortion regime permits.

Prior to abortion being made illegal in Texas, there were roughly 50,000 performed annually, down from an almost 80,000 high in 2006. In 2023, there have been 34. University of Texas at Austin researchers note that the vast majority of Texas abortion-seekers choose to get abortions out-of-state (or via securing pills from Mexico), but that Texas' restrictive laws are associated with a roughly 10 percent reduction in the number of abortions performed.

Zelenskyy's fundraising drive: Today, President Joe Biden will host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has traveled to the U.S. to hold out his hands for some funds for his country's war against Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion. "A bipartisan group of senators is struggling to finalize an agreement to tighten border security in exchange for more Ukraine funding," reports Politico, "and the chamber is scheduled to go into recess at the end of this week." It's likely that, if such a bill is drafted up at all, Biden will have to acquiesce to restrictions on asylum seekers as a condition for doling out more aid to Ukraine.

The New York Times characterizes Zelenskyy's visit as a "last-ditch pitch," which seems about right. A CNN poll from August shows how Americans have soured on supporting funding Ukraine's war effort, with roughly 55 percent saying that Congress should not authorize any additional spending and 51 percent saying the U.S. has done enough as-is. Contrast this with the 62 percent, right after Putin's invasion, who supported the U.S. doing more to help Zelenskyy.

"We refuse to allow our tuition dollars to fund apartheid." Columbia students are holding a tuition strike for the spring 2024 semester in an attempt to get their school to "refuse to invest in ethnic cleansing and genocide abroad" and for "divestment from companies profiting from or otherwise supporting Israeli apartheid and Columbia's academic ties to Israel."

They also want the school to "immediately remove Board of Trustees members whose personal investments, financial commitments, employment, or other forms of business involvement entail profit from or support for Israeli apartheid" and changes to campus policing.

They say "it's highly unlikely that students participating in the tuition strike would face disciplinary action of any kind," and that "it would be absurd for the university to suspend, expel, or punish a student for this lateness." Therein lies the problem: Students at elite universities seem to think they're untouchable, and administrators have set a mighty dangerous precedent by spending the last decade communicating to students that their every need for psychological safety from political beliefs with which they disagree can be accommodated. (More from Reason's Jacob Sullum.)


Scenes from New York: This past Friday, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of New York's restrictive gun law, which denies people the right to carry in certain public places (like parks) and allows local authorities broad discretion in denying gun rights to people they deem dangerous, only permitting licenses to people "of good moral character." What this actually does is create hoops for law-abiding gun owners to jump through, while doing very little to prevent violence from criminals who own and use guns. (I wrote about Times Square's silly gun-free zone last year.) 


QUICK HITS

  • Harvard President Claudine Gay has come under fire for repeatedly plagiarizing and improperly attributing written passages over the course of her academic career.
  • The Biden administration's "latest salvo" in the war against pro-lifers, writes Mike Pence at National Review, "is a proposed rule that would cut off Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to pro-life pregnancy resource centers." Cutting government funding for organizations that can surely operate privately is fine, but doing so in a way that attempts to punish politically disfavored groups is not.
  • Every member of the K-pop band BTS is now doing mandatory military service.
  • Inside NASA's wormy font choices.
  • Google loses its antitrust battle against Epic Games.
  • The government could have simply not cracked down on single room occupancy units in the first place, instead of now coughing up a bunch of money to try to incentivize landlords to fix 'em up.
  • To be fair, stoned boomers would pose a threat to the economics of the all-you-can-eat buffets on cruise ships, so I can see why cruise lines are cracking down on pot.
  • Lawyers for Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny say he has disappeared from prison and cannot be found.
  • Ugh, no:

This is of course self-serving of me as a generalist political pundit, but I think it would probably be better for the world if we had a reasonably strong norm against beat reporters & college professors doing hot takes outside their domain of specialization.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) December 11, 2023

  • Just say no (to price controls):

"To try and control inflation, would you approve or disapprove of…"

raising interest rates (-20):
40% approve
60% disapprove

government price controls (+32):
66% approve
34% disapprove pic.twitter.com/wdcvLe9Nox

— austerity is theft ???????? (@wideofthepost) December 10, 2023

  • Truly:

My God, this take. It's magnificent. pic.twitter.com/cwcytjo9jh

— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) December 12, 2023

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: New York's Broken Housing Court Lets Tenant Stay For Years Without Paying Rent

Liz Wolfe is an associate editor at Reason.

Reason RoundupAbortionWomen's RightsReproductive FreedomIsraelTexasCampus Free SpeechPolitics
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (546)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. JesseAz   2 years ago

    Matt Taibbi goes after Jeff's sacred Cow of NewsGuard.

    https://www.racket.news/p/new-feature-fact-checking-newsguard

    1. ace_m82   2 years ago

      Who fact checks the fact checkers?

      1. MabelJustine   2 years ago

        asd

        1. MabelJustine   2 years ago

          https://reason.com/2023/12/12/brickbat-printer-precautions/?comments=true#comment-10353591

    2. HorseConch   2 years ago

      We don't need them anymore. He has moved on to using collective consensus guiding freedom.

      1. JesseAz   2 years ago

        I still don't understand what that means aside from a controlled narrative from an authoritative agency. It is a bunch of nonsense to defend censorship.

        1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

          It's a call for group think. We all have to agree on certain knowledge or otherwise we can't have a democracy. So we have to think alike on order to save democracy.

          1. JesseAz   2 years ago

            No, I get what jeff is trying to do. He knows calling for censorship directly would get him mocked, even though he is. But even worse this is a call for thinks like Lysenkoism in science.

            Indoctrination trumps discussion. One of the many reasons jeff isn't a libertarian.

            I dont know why people like him even bother attacking ideas like Intelligent Design when they are the ones advocating for non competing ideas and against theories of evolution in markets and society. They literally advocate for top down designs.

            1. R Mac   2 years ago

              Meanwhile Liz continues to impress with her call out of ENB favorite Matt Yglesias’s call for only TOP MEN to discuss certain topics. I bet that gives him a sad.

              1. Chumby   2 years ago

                White Mike is now oorphing uncontrollably.

                1. HorseConch   2 years ago

                  Where has he been? Did he get caught with his hand in the fish bucket at Sea World? I've missed his brilliant banter.

                  1. Spiritus Mundi   2 years ago

                    It appers mike was ENB's handle she used to defend her crappy takes.

                  2. Chumby   2 years ago

                    Sarc indicated that Mike told sarc he is no longer wasting his time here. A competing theory is that, due to inflation, his controllers were no longer compensating him $0.50 per post. Another theory is that after the old Liz stopped doing the Roundup, Mike was heartbroken. Theory number four is that he is transitioning and that os taking up his time. Who knows? Maybe he checked in to Sealions Anonymous.

                    1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      Maybe he just wised up and stopped arguing with partisan assholes who only care about scoring points.

                    2. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

                      Maybe he just wised up and stopped arguing with partisan assholes who only care about scoring points.

                      Sarc admits Mike is smarter than he is.

                    3. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      Dlam admits to being a partisan asshole who only cares about scoring points.

                    4. Chumby   2 years ago

                      *looks at the scoreboard*

                      Team Dee may want to caw a timeout.

                    5. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      Points go to the people with the most contempt for civility and honesty. That's why someone like me loses every time.

                    6. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

                      Maybe he just wised up and stopped arguing with partisan assholes who only care about scoring points.

                      The guy had 90% of the commenters here muted and even did his prissy sour grapes sendoffs to the most mild of commenters like Square =Circle for the offense of not allowing him to jawbone Square into rhetorical submission.

                      The guy wasn't arguing with anyone except the void.

                    7. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

                      Points go to the people with the most contempt for civility and honesty.

                      1. Is this your first day on the internet?

                      2. No one's keeping score.

                    8. Sevo   2 years ago

                      Perhaps he and Tony simply made the world a better place: They fucked off and died.
                      Sarc and Jeff could do the same.

                    9. Chumby   2 years ago

                      All HO2 under the bridge.

                    10. JesseAz   2 years ago

                      Knowledge and facts will always trump civility and ignorance. You lose sarc because you argue from a base of ignorance and choose sides based on who is nice to you.

                      Even your comment about civility shows this. Youre one of the most uncivil people here. You've been given your last posts. Is hypocrisy your greatest strength?

                    11. Sevo   2 years ago

                      "...Points go to the people with the most contempt for civility and honesty..."

                      Add hypocrisy and the lying pile of lefty shit sarc owns the title.

                    12. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      He Sevo. Why don't you take your own advice?

                    13. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                      "Points go to the people with the most contempt for civility and honesty. That’s why someone like me loses every time."

                      You dink. I actually laughed out load reading that and everyone in the meeting looked at me.

                    14. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      This may come as a shock, but disagreeing with what you infer is not lying, while calling someone a liar for saying so is both uncivil and dishonest.

                    15. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      2. No one’s keeping score.

                      Tell that to Mary Stack aka JesseAz, and her Canadian buddy. Pretty sure their hundreds of bookmarks would disagree.

                    16. JesseAz   2 years ago

                      Posting your past comments word for word with links isn't lying about you dumbfuck. You keep making this assertion and it is one of the dumbest arguments ever made.

                      The bookmarks are required because you lie about your past statements constantly. That's why you hate people finally providing your word for word posts.

                      Because it exposes you as the most dishonest person here.

                      And you're honestly too dumb to understand this.

                      As for your cries or civility. You are not civil. We have shown your posts over and over.

                      Now from an argumentation standpoint. Civility is often used as a cudgel to force an accepted base for argumentation. This is a means to alter the discussion to a basis that is advantaged to one side. Those who cry civility the most are often those with the weakest arguments. It is an a proori argumentative base meant to dismiss counter arguments at the outset of a discussion.

                      A link that may be of interest to you but you won't read.

                      https://mises.org/library/argumentation-ethics-and-liberty-concise-guide

                    17. DesigNate   2 years ago

                      “Maybe he just wised up and stopped arguing with partisan assholes who only care about scoring points.”

                      He argued with nearly everyone, even the non-partisan, usually by calling us partisan assholes.

                    18. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      Posting your past comments word for word with links isn’t lying about you dumbfuck.

                      The lying part is the inferences you argue against.

                      The bookmarks are required because you lie about your past statements constantly.

                      You compare lousy inferences from things that were in different contexts to begin with.

                      Besides, why? Why can't you just argue with what people say?

                      Instead you argue against something you inferred from something they said five years ago in a totally different context.

                    19. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      As for your cries or civility. You are not civil. We have shown your posts over and over.

                      Yes, you've posted stupid things I've said when I allowed you to provoke me. You don't post the parts where you say nasty things about my family to get a reaction.

                    20. JesseAz   2 years ago

                      And sarc lies yet again. Most of the posts if your incivility is you introducing it, being the first in a thread. This is why links are provided when asked for.

                      The lying part is the inferences you argue against.

                      The one who tries changing what they said through altering their statement is you. An example occurred just yesterday.

                      My inferences are from what you post. You attempt to alter what you posted. Which is why you hate being quoted. Word. For. Word.

                      Your entire justification here is lying aboutbwhat you've said then projecting your attempts at rationalizing what you said onto others.

                      Here. A link to an example of you being the first uncivil person in a thread.

                      sarcasmic 2 years ago
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      I look forward to when they’re critical of the sitting president during the next election, and your head explodes because they’re saying mean things about Biden while a Republican competes.
                      .
                      KABOOM!!!
                      .
                      sarcasmic 2 years ago
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      I was going to add something about people who might be splattered by the mess, but nobody cares about your alone ass. Shit. Nobody will know you’re missed until they shut the power off and things start to smell.

                      https://reason.com/2021/07/16/qualified-immunity-senate-compromise-tim-scott-lindsey-graham-police-unions/?comments=true#comment-8998592

                      In response to a single post that had no expressions of incivility to you or others.

                      So again. You continue to lie about your own behaviors because you are pathalogical.

                    21. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      Yeah, like that.

                      Always arguing against what someone said some time ago, instead of what they say right now.

                    22. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      The fact that you consider any evolution of thought in others to equal dishonesty leads me to infer that your thoughts don't evolve. But that's just an inference. I could be wrong.

                    23. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      My inferences are from what you post. You attempt to alter what you posted. Which is why you hate being quoted. Word. For. Word.

                      Quite often when you do that I wonder if you are retarded, because what you claim I meant is a non sequitur.

                    24. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

                      In response to a single post that had no expressions of incivility to you or others.

                      He did that again the other day when no one was talking about him, but he felt that he just had to insert himself in the conversation because it obviously was about him.

                      https://reason.com/2023/12/10/how-a-law-no-one-understands-brought-down-florida-drug-kingpins/?comments=true#comment-10350554

                    25. Bertram Guilfoyle   2 years ago

                      It's different when sarc does it.

                    26. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                      “Points go to the people with the most contempt for civility and honesty. That’s why someone like me loses every time.”

                      Also Sarcasmic:

                      sarcasmic 2 hours ago
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      Mother’s Lament is the worst human being I’ve ever been unfortunate enough to communicate with in my entire life. I wouldn’t piss on his face if his teeth were on fire. So I really don’t care what he supports.

                      sarcasmic 22 mins ago
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      I didn’t say you have moose. I said you fuck moose. You. Personally.

                      sarcasmic 3 hours ago
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      Because annoying you is fun.

                      sarcasmic
                      November.2.2021 at 10:19 am
                      Chumby does. Pretty sure he's a Mainer. But he's got me on mute. You know, virtue signaling to Ken. Can't listen to someone who takes people's words to their logical conclusion. Only a progressive would do that, right?

                      sarcasmic
                      August.12.2021 at 4:45 pm
                      Flag Comment Mute Use
                      I only show up to watch the trolls and clowns duke it out while tossing in this or that provocation. Bread and circuses. This is my circus.

                      sarcasmic
                      September.10.2021 at 12:14 pm
                      I stir shit up. So what.

                      sarcasmic 2 years ago
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      I think him and Nardz are going to go on a shooting spree someday. I really do. Storm a Democrat convention with body armor and rifles. Actually no. That would require balls. They’ll probably do something more like the DC sniper. Hide in the trunk of a car when they’re not making sweet homosexual love.

                      sarcasmic 3 years ago
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      And when I say “pleasure” I mean it. They get off on this shit. Imagine them jerking off while they talk shit and you’ll never read their posts again.

                      sarcasmic 3 hours ago
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      I didn’t say my goal was to prevent a fight. Again you’re getting your premises wrong. I said my goal was to mock what someone wanted to say to prevent them from saying it, and maybe possible cause some self-reflection that would make them not want to ask the question again. That assumes the person is capable of learning from others, so it doesn’t apply to the folks to drop turds on all my comments.

                    27. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      Civility is often used as a cudgel to force an accepted base for argumentation. This is a means to alter the discussion to a basis that is advantaged to one side.

                      For once Jesse has a point. Civility IS used as a cudgel to force an acceptable base for argumentation. It is so the argumentation occurs from a basis of *reasoned discussion* and not puerile insults. Since that is something Jesse has a very hard time doing, that is why he rejects civility. He "wins" when he gets to throw out insults and fallacies every half-second. But there is no way he would ever win any formal debate that had rules on decorum.

                      So thank you Jesse for finally admitting to us all why you are such an asshole around here. It is because you are intellectually programmed that way.

                    28. R Mac   2 years ago

                      “Can’t listen to someone who takes people’s words to their logical conclusion.”

                      Ohh, that’s damning.

                    29. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      Exactly my point.

                      Rather than engage what someone says today, you're arguing with things said years ago.

                    30. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      *Googles "appeal to hypocrisy" and gets, surprise surprise, "tu quoque."*

                    31. JesseAz   2 years ago

                      How the fuck do you still not know what tu quoque means?

                      Me insulting you when you've made no argument is simply me insulting you. I'm not saying you are wrong in your non argument. I'm calling you a fucking hypocrite.

                      Even when presented with the evidence above you still claim to be clean and pure and not at fault.

                      Pathalogical. You truly have issues.

                    32. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      You are the pathological one, Jesse.
                      By your own admission, you deliberately reject civility in your discussions so that you give yourself free license to act like an asshole. Why do this? Why treat people like this?

              2. Ajsloss   2 years ago

                Mike Masnick has been put on notice!

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

            Oh look here comes ML to call me a Nazi again.

            1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

              I didn't today, but thanks for the reminder, you evil Nazi fuck.

        2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          "I still don’t understand what that means aside from a controlled narrative from an authoritative agency."

          So you understand exactly what Jeff wants then.
          Jeff's entire schtick is trying to portray authoritarian measures as somehow libertarian.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

            Essentially, in a nutshell, Jeffy is lying and is about as libertarian as Fidel Castro.

          2. JesseAz   2 years ago

            Thats always been his shtick. Trying to wedge in leftist ideals into a thin veneer of libertarianism. He struggles more with that than he does wedging into a standard door frame.

            1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

              But their not even leftist ideals anymore. They're a weird blend of fascism with aristiocratism and the divine right of kings.

              1. JesseAz   2 years ago

                Fascism has always been a leftist argument. No matter how much they try to revision history.

                1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                  That explains why Hitler sent communists to the camps.

                  1. Bertram Guilfoyle   2 years ago

                    Two leftist groups fighting amongst each other doesn't make one of them non-leftist.

                    1. R Mac   2 years ago

                      There’s no such thing as leftist Jews.

                    2. Chumby   2 years ago

                      Can Jews be left-handed? What about a redhead? A Jewnger?

                  2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                    Stalin must've had Trotsky killed because he was right-wing, right sarcasmic?

                    Lefties have always killed each other.

                    1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      Both the left and the right can pick and choose offending things done by offensive people, and use them to prove the good guy would have been them or the bad guy would have been the other. From Jesus to Lincoln to Hitler, and then some.

                    2. JesseAz   2 years ago

                      Your non sequitur is retarded and actually goes against your initial assertion about fascists.

                      How are you so fucking dumb? Yesterday you claim you ask questions to learn. Me, ML, ITL and others have given you the primary sources showing Italian fascism to be socialists. Yet you deny it. Why? Because you refuse education or admit you are pushing a leftist narrative. Again. This is why you get attacked so much. You don't care about truth or facts.

                  3. JesseAz   2 years ago

                    So even when weeks of citations from the Italian fascists themselves you remain compelled to ignorance.

                    This is why you are attacked retard. You are incapable of education.

                  4. JesseAz   2 years ago

                    You know what, bookmarked because this is so fucking retarded.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

              Yes, "leftist ideals" like a belief in objective reality. That is not a "leftist ideal", that is objectivism, you dolt.

        3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

          a controlled narrative

          Is Newton's Law of Gravity a "controlled narrative"?
          How about the First Law of Thermodynamics?
          How about Maxwell's Equations of Electricity and Magnetism?

          Are they all just "controlled narratives" foisted upon the proles by elites in order to control us and keep us down?

          1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

            What the fuck are you babbling about? None of those things were mandated by government elites you lazy shill.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

            Sorry ML, I couldn't hear you, what with all the Nazi shouting.

            1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

              I suspected that, Kemjeff.

          3. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

            What, are you going to defend HO2 next?

            If you can't tell the difference between Lysenko and Newton, you must be lyin' Jeffy.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

              Maybe molecular formulas are a Tool of the Man to Keep Us Down. How dare they demand that we represent chemical compounds with these specific combinations of letters and numbers. It's just the elites foisting a controlled narrative upon us, and Mike was just ahead of his time in freeing us all from the tyranny of elitism that the chemical sciences have imposed upon us by inventing his own way to represent the chemical formula of water.

              Isn't that how it works? Did I do that right? I mean, I think it's Jesse's crowd that is defending the post-modernist approach to reality now.

              1. R Mac   2 years ago

                Wasn’t the argument about molecular formulas what got a bunch of the glibs to leave?

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

              But more seriously:

              Is there objective reality, or isn't there?

              If there is an objective reality, then it applies both to the reality of gravity, and the reality of the 2020 election, and the reality of climate change.

              You can't on one hand say "Newton's Law of Gravity is the obviously correct one, the rest of you are stupid if you choose to believe something else", and then try to defend some moron with an obviously false opinion that defies objective reality in, say, the 2020 election or climate change, because otherwise that would be "elites foisting a controlled narrative on us".

              Stating FACTS that CORRECTLY describe OBJECTIVE REALITY is not a "controlled narrative", it is simply stating the truth.

              1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

                Oh fuck off. Of course there is reality. But deciding which interpretations are objective and which are subjective is a human operation and subjective as hell.

                Just fuck off. You're an idiot, and that is my subjective opinion of your subjective opinions.

                Just fuck off.

                1. JesseAz   2 years ago

                  I think we have enough posts from Jeff to make it an objective opinion.

              2. DesigNate   2 years ago

                There are so many unknowns, inherent in both of those, that reasonable people can argue about them. And definitely about policy prescriptions to address them.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                  Reasonable people can argue about SOME parts, yes. But there are some OTHER parts that are simply beyond dispute because they are objectively true. Such as the part about the election not being stolen via voter fraud. There has been vanishingly little evidence to even hint that this may be the case. People who repeat this are not being honest. This doesn't mean that there weren't any problems at all with the election, this doesn't mean that there aren't other problems that are open to interpretation, this doesn't mean that there was ZERO fraud. But can we at least settle on the parts that are objectively true?

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                    "People who repeat this are not being honest."

                    Correction, they are either not being honest or they are simply woefully uninformed.

              3. R Mac   2 years ago

                I’ve repeatedly posted objective facts about 2020 and you and your tribe have ignored it every time Lying Jeffy.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                  That is a lie, and you are also a creepy stalker, so fuck off.

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

                    Just because we comment back on your bullshit does not make anyone here a creepy stalker.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      You just lie about me, bait me, troll me, and otherwise act like a garbage human being. But you're right, calling you a stalker is just a bridge too far!

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      Why do you act so terrible around here?

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      You, and Jesse, and R Mac, and ML, seem to delight in being rude uncivil assholes. Why? What pleasure does it give you?

                    4. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

                      Cope harder, Jeffy.

                    5. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      Why do you act like such an asshole? What pleasure do you get from it?

                  2. R Mac   2 years ago

                    It’s really not, Lying Jeffy.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      It really is, and you are still a stalker. I mean, you aren't as bad today, only 25% or so of your posts today have been focused on me, as opposed to your usual 80%-90%, but you still stalk me and it's just creepy.

                    2. R Mac   2 years ago

                      Are you claiming I’ve never posted this article before?

                      https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/17/judge-rules-michigan-secretary-of-state-violated-state-law-with-absentee-ballot-order/

                    3. R Mac   2 years ago

                      And what kind of creepy stalker calculates what percentage of someone’s comments are in response to who?

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      No, I saw you post that article before.
                      What would you like me to say in response to that article that you posted?

                    5. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      You're the stalker, you are the one who often comes into a conversation and purposefully chooses to focus the overwhelming majority of your comments on me. I am simply documenting your stalking behavior. Why do you do this?

                    6. R Mac   2 years ago

                      So you admit you were lying when you said I’ve never posted any facts about 2020. Thanks.

                    7. Chumby   2 years ago

                      Are you calling him a Hungry Hungry Hippocrite?

                    8. R Mac   2 years ago

                      Haha, it’s funny because he admitted he’s fat. (And how does this comment effect Lying Jeffy’s ratio of my posts?)

          4. A Thinking Mind   2 years ago

            It's interesting that you bring up Newton when I explained this all in a reply to you yesterday. Experts spent literally hundreds of years debating whether Newton had even gotten it right. There were alternative theories about vortices and corpuscules that were broadly categorized as Cartesian physics. Over a long enough time period, support for the Newtonian model grew as more knowledge was gained, the structures were tested, and more holes and problems were found in Des Cartes' model. Finally, Cartesian physics was buried when Einstein explained gravity with General Relativity.

            Two experts, two very smart, learned men, disagreed on the fundamentals. One of them was completely and utterly wrong on basically every point. It was only over time that one model was accepted because it bore out and more accurately reflected the truth. Newtonian physics was not mandated as true by some King.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

              That's right. Because Newton's model better conformed to objective reality. Not because Newton was more popular. Not because Descartes was silenced or censored or oppressed. And we now consider it commonplace and unobjectionable to teach kids in school about Newtonian physics, and no serious person would complain that it is "indoctrinating students" or "foisting a controlled narrative", or that schools ought to "teach both sides" or some nonsense like this.

              But now suppose Descartes tried to make the argument that he was cheated out of his rightful place as the President of Physics because Newton's people pulled dirty tricks and lied and sabotaged his best efforts. Or, Descartes tried to make the argument that he was cheated out of his rightful place because Newton was in league with Big Physics in a systematic campaign of oppression. One would hope that rational people would not be swayed by such demagogic arguments and instead would look to objective, scientific measures to judge which model works best to explain the natural world. But in our current world, many people ARE swayed by these demagogic arguments and they DON'T look at the factual evidence, or at least they don't look at it very carefully.

              This is not a big deal if people's decisions only affected themselves, but it does matter when those decisions affect all of us via their democratic vote.

              So what do we do about this, in a non-coercive, non-censorship manner?

              1. R Mac   2 years ago

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

                1. Chumby   2 years ago

                  Could it be called something other than gallop? I’m trying to come together with collective reasoning to find a truth.

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                  Not a Gish Gallop. You can't even use the term correctly, creepy stalker.

                  1. R Mac   2 years ago

                    It’s funny you keep calling me a stalker while responding to me.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      I have to refute your bullshit somehow. If you wouldn't stalk me, there would be nothing for me to respond to, would there?

                    2. R Mac   2 years ago

                      Lol, that’s exactly what I’m doing, refuting your bullshit.

            2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

              Many of those who scream follow the science have a distorted idea how science works. They tend to believe in what I would describe as Act V science, i.e. the scientist, who everyone ignored, comes up with a brilliant solution in Act V that saves the day in the nick of time, just before the last commercial break. Since it doesn't work that way, screams of follow the science are useless. Or even following the consensus of science. At one time, the consensus rejected Lister and Pasteur. At one time, the consensus rejected ulcers caused by H Pyloric bacteria. Etc. Scientific history is replete with examples of the consensus being completely wrong and in some cases (rejection of germ theory for example) even harmful.

          5. R Mac   2 years ago

            Remember that time we all argued about gravity? Good times.

            1. Chumby   2 years ago

              We went round and round on that.

      2. Agammamon   2 years ago

        Oh, he still needs them - how else are you going to ensure that we all have a 'shared understanding of reality' if you don't have official fact-'checkers' telling you what the 'facts' are.

      3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

        What the hell is "collective consensus guiding freedom"? I never used that phrase yesterday.

        Yesterday I never advocated for groupthink or conformity in opinion. Only that we strive to have a more informed public so that we have a shared understanding of what the FACTS are. Actual FACTS. Not opinion, not dogma, not propaganda, but actual FACTS.

        Is there such a thing as objective reality, or isn't there? If there is, shouldn't our collective decision-making, in a democratic context, be grounded in our understanding of our objective reality, instead of what the narratives and the dogmas that demagogues and ideologues push?

        Why is this so threatening to you all?

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

          https://reason.com/2023/12/11/struggling-artist/?comments=true#comment-10351524

          chemjeff radical individualist 1 day ago (edited)
          By “reasoning together collectively” I take his point to mean that we all operate under the same basic set of facts to form our opinions.

        2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

          https://reason.com/2023/12/11/struggling-artist/?comments=true#comment-10351586

          chemjeff radical individualist 1 day ago
          How do we get to a state of shared reality so that we can make informed decisions in a democratic context?

        3. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

          https://reason.com/2023/12/11/struggling-artist/?comments=true#comment-10352941

          chemjeff radical individualist 14 hours ago
          No, that is an insanely paranoid way to interpret it.
          All I am saying is that we collectively can’t have a rational discussion if we cannot even agree on basic premises or simple facts.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

            Congratulations. You know how to copy-paste. They all confirm what I wrote above.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

              And they're all summed up nicely in a phrase HorseConch (not you) used to describe your current comments, "collective consensus guiding freedom".

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                No, that is a distortion of what I wrote.

                1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

                  Only in the same way Biden's father's son's corruption is a distortion of Biden's corruption.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                    Sigh. I never demanded "collective consensus" over anyone's opinions. It has always been about FACTS.

                    Me: Let's see if we can all agree on some common basic facts, shall we?
                    Everyone else freaking out: STOP TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT TO THINK! IT'S GROUPTHINK! IT'S CENSORSHIP!

                    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

                      FACTS are reported and judged subjectively by humans.

                      You are a fucking idiot.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      So I'll put you down as a post-modernist then. Good to know.

                    3. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                      "Me: Let’s see if we can all agree on some common basic facts, shall we?
                      Everyone else freaking out: STOP TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT TO THINK! IT’S GROUPTHINK! IT’S CENSORSHIP!
                      So I’ll put you down as a post-modernist then."

                      It's amazing how you try to lie about stuff that everyone can clearly read.
                      Like somehow all the original posts just disappeared and only your narrative remains.

            2. Agammamon   2 years ago

              What it confirms is that you want totalitarianism - we all have the same set of 'facts', arbitrated by official 'fact-checkers'.

        4. Nobartium   2 years ago

          If there is, shouldn’t our collective decision-making, in a democratic context, be grounded in our understanding of our objective reality, instead of what the narratives and the dogmas that demagogues and ideologues push?

          One man one vote means that ignorance has equal weight in voting to enlightenment.

          1. A Thinking Mind   2 years ago

            This.

        5. Agammamon   2 years ago

          Yesterday and today you were advocating for a 'shared understanding of reality' and a 'collective consensus' when it comes to science.

      4. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

        How is it that in the modern era, where nearly everyone is carrying around in their pockets a source of information that is more vast than anything that any individual human being has ever had access to in the past, that there can be large groups of people who hold beliefs that are not really subject to good-faith debate or opinion or reasonable disagreement, but are just plain WRONG?

        Two examples I brought up yesterday:
        Climate change is the proximal source of most if not every single recent major storm or weather-related event that occurs.
        The 2020 election was stolen from Trump due to voter fraud.

        And yet if you look at polls, large numbers of people will agree with those statements even though they are false. Even though they have access to a huge wealth of information that can disprove it to them if they put in the effort to do so. But they don't or won't or can't. Why not? How can we fix this, in a way that DOESN'T rely on censorship or coercion?

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

          Assuming it needs to be "fixed" is begging the question. The whole point of the internet, at least in the wild west days, was to have access to information that might NOT be within the assumed conventional wisdom of the establishment. It literally democratized information-sharing, even in these modern Clown World times where global powers do their best to prevent it, often with the help of the very companies who pose as enablers of that information-sharing.

          Gore's whole complaint is centered on his frustration that some globohomo organization can't force people to act and think the way he wants them to act and think. People having strong opinions on issues and being able to share them, even if they're wrong, is a feature, not bug, and the inevitable result of information democratization. If these globalist retards can't convince the masses that their authority is sacrosanct, that's because they blew their credibility and a sizeable portion of the population doesn't give a shit what they have to say anymore.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

            Gore’s whole complaint is centered on his frustration that some globohomo organization can’t force people to act and think the way he wants them to act and think.

            Even if that is Gore's complaint, that is not my complaint. I am not interested in forcing anyone to act and think in any particular way (violations of the NAP notwithstanding).

            People having strong opinions on issues and being able to share them, even if they’re wrong, is a feature, not bug, and the inevitable result of information democratization.

            Great! It is terrific that people are able to share their opinions! The problem arises when we try to make collective decisions in a democratic context, and those of us who have opinions based in objective reality try to have conversations with people who have opinions that are not based in objective reality. It leads to a breakdown of how we even arrive at a decision at the end.

            If some moron wants to deny that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to him in his personal life, then go for it. He ought to have every right to do that. But then when that same moron then decides to vote for bullshit, because some green-energy demagogue persuaded him that the Laws of Thermodynamics don't apply when it comes to magical solar panels so he should vote for him to hand out free solar panels to everyone, then we all suffer from the bad policies that result.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

              Even if that is Gore’s complaint, that is not my complaint.

              No, you just rephrased it.

              The problem arises when we try to make collective decisions in a democratic context,

              That's not a problem at all. That's what happens in intensely democratic societies. Native American tribes were notably the same way, and disagreements often resulted in members of a band fucking off from the band, and starting up their own band or migrating to one that was more accepting.

              Anyone talking about coming to a collective consensus misses the point that doing so requires a common culture and social paradigm. What we have now doesn't provide that, and that's Gore's (and the center-right's) biggest issue--he knows it can't happen organically in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society, so his solution is to brute force by compelling tech companies to manipulate their algorithms to bias his preferences--just like mouthpieces such as Francis Haugen have argued for, or what Twitter was like before Musk took it over.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                No, you just rephrased it.

                No, I didn't. Even if he wants to force everyone into some type of groupthink, I don't. Feel free to believe whatever bullshit you want to believe. All I ask is that when it comes to decision-making in matters that might affect me, such as with elections, that our decisions be based on objective reality. I don't think that is too much to ask. And I find it a little bit appalling that you all have such a hard time with it.

                Anyone talking about coming to a collective consensus

                *sigh* I am not talking about coming to a "collective consensus". Only that we understand the FACTS. Beyond that, let's disagree as much as we want to disagree.

                As an example, one cannot properly understand quantum mechanics without a firm understanding of algebra, and a lot of other math. That is a pre-requisite. What you all seem to be demanding, is that we all have a spirited discussion about quantum mechanics without any common understanding of what algebra is, and then we VOTE on the quantum mechanics paradigm that we all will have to use based on that discussion. And if I complain that maybe we all should first have to properly learn some algebra before we even have a discussion about quantum mechanics, then that is just "foisting a controlled narrative" on everyone. That is ridiculous, that is madness and it is wrong.

                1. Nobartium   2 years ago

                  Politics isn't science.

                  Stop trying to tie them together.

        2. DesigNate   2 years ago

          “Climate change is the proximal source of most if not every single recent major storm or weather-related event that occurs.”

          Only in the sense that the climate changing has ALWAYS been the cause of storms and weather-related events.

          1. R Mac   2 years ago

            I’ve posted it before but bares repeating: on Columbus’s second (or third, don’t remember for sure) trip to NA, he spent almost the entire time stuck on an island because it was an extremely bad year for hurricanes.

            1. Chumby   2 years ago

              There were no EVs in use at that time, hence the numerous hurricanes.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

            That is why I said "proximate". Of course in any storm there is some role that climate plays. But the false statement is the one that declares that climate change, particularly man-made climate change, is THE BIGGEST REASON why a particular storm is doing what it is doing. Not even the scientific models predict that. AT MOST they predict that hurricanes get a little bit more intense or that droughts get a little bit longer. But "climate change" did not create Hurricane Idalia this year.

        3. R Mac   2 years ago

          “The 2020 election was stolen from Trump due to voter fraud.”

          That you feel obligated to include this destroys your entire argument. You realize that, right?

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

            Umm, no it doesn't. And stop stalking me, creep.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

              Lighten up, Francis. Refuting your bullshit is not stalking you.

              1. R Mac   2 years ago

                Mocking Lying Jeffy is fun AND easy.

              2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                Except you all don't refute what I say, you don't argue in good faith, you just mock and insult. That's not refuting, that is just trolling. And you all follow me around when you do it. And in R Mac's case, he would even bring me up when I'm not even participating in the discussion. Why? What purpose does it serve other than just to be a giant asshole?

                1. R Mac   2 years ago

                  So you claim it’s an objective fact the election wasn’t stolen. Thanks.

    3. Idaho-Bob   2 years ago

      ...I've decided to regularly fact-check their (Newsguard) content on a scale of 0-to-4 Marks of Satan>

      That is fucking hilarious!

    4. Chumby   2 years ago

      We can’t have a shared collective reasoning when The Narrative! is fact checked.

  2. JesseAz   2 years ago

    Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy groups continue to rake in billions a year from government.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/feds-sent-nearly-2-billion-to-planned-parenthood-other-pro-abortion-groups-govt-report-finds

    1. DesigNate   2 years ago

      That money is just for health services!

  3. JesseAz   2 years ago

    University of Wisconsin turns down 800M in funding after it is tied to not increasing DEI. UW schools already spend 10s of millions a year on DEI. But because they wouldn't be able to continue to increase the narrative state, they turned down nearly 1B.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/12/university-of-wisconsin-regents-would-rather-lose-800-million-of-funding-than-submit-to-dei-reforms/

    Don't get me wrong. Reduced government funding for education is a good thing. Especially when driving DEI. But the story shows how the primary concern of most public universities is now indoctrination, not education.

    1. Nardz   2 years ago

      Correct.
      Shows something else too.

      https://twitter.com/BonifaceOption/status/1734593566276563297?t=0_Cg1RbNztxrkULpmSPYVA&s=19

      The Harvard thing has shown the emergence of a new hierarchy among the elite.

      I don't know how you can watch this and not conclude that the disproportionately powerful ethnoreligious identity group that has subtly dominated postwar American culture and politics has been usurped by the gay race communism it helped to empower.

      This is more or less the point that Musk agreed with that forced him to undergo a humiliation ritual, btw.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

        But what happens when gay race communists meet Palestinian anti-colonials? Especially if they meet on a roof?

        1. JesseAz   2 years ago

          Thumb wars. Whoever loses is on top the victim pyramid.

        2. Nardz   2 years ago

          You know individuals don't matter

          1. Chumby   2 years ago

            There is one individualist with a whole lot of matter.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

              So much so that he's more of a collectivist, but don't try to tell him that.

    2. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

      What astonished me most about what the GOP was offering was what weak tea it was.

    3. Medulla Oblongata   2 years ago

      And a lot of that money was for raises. I guess they're putting their money where their mouth is, at least, by eschewing the raises so that they can continue to indoctrinate.

  4. bobby oshea   2 years ago

    The baby having Trisomy 18 does not endanger the health or life of the mother any more than a normal pregnancy would. That's why the treating doctor didn't say that it did and why it was not permitted. Making "visits to the emergency room" doesn't mean much at all.

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

      If I understand the medical issue...

      The baby may die in the future so she wants the baby killed now.

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Lets see that 'baby' exist anywhere besides your own hyped up imaginary propaganda....

        1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

          You really are to stupid on this subject, at 20 weeks the infant can survive, at least in some cases, outside the womb, ergo your criteria of set it free actually works against your position.

          1. R Mac   2 years ago

            The irony is abortion is a religion to him.

            1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

              it strikes me that for many it's a religion, because when you point out facts that run contrary to their narrative, i.e. performing a late term abortion is not an emergency procedure because it requires longer to perform, involves the insertion of a probe and forceps to dismember and assist in evacuating the uterus and still requires the uterine contractions (without uterine contractions, removal of the placenta would cause the mother to bleed to death for one thing) they revert to 'you're just trying to insert yourself into their decision'. No, I'm not, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of that argument. It's not a judgement call.

              1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

                Ya know like the FACT that it isn't a separate entity until it is??????

                1. DesigNate   2 years ago

                  Huh, TIL that having unique DNA and being in the early stages of human development doesn’t make you a separate entity.

                  Science!

                  1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

                    A foundation is not a house and if you want to sell it as a house you better make sure it's inherently livable as shelter all by itself (the very requirement of calling it a house).

                    The BS propaganda (repeated lies) is the only thing giving it more value than what it has. An endless cloud of fraudulent and delusional sales pitches.

                  2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

                    ...and frankly I find it somewhat disturbing that the foundation isn't even yours but instead someone else's or someone else's wife or daughter's. There's a substantial amount of "I own your pregnancy" narration playing-out right along with the selling a foundation as a house.

                    1. DesigNate   2 years ago

                      That’s another horrible example. (We’ve been over my stance many a time but to repeat myself: I’m not interested in banning it, however I will continue to call you out on your asinine portrayals of human fetal development and the biological realities of conception & pregnancy).

                      Swing and a miss champ.

                    2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

                      You called me out? Where? Inside your own imagination?

          2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

            So set it free for F'Sakes......
            Stop talking in imagination land.

        2. DesigNate   2 years ago

          Are you saying it doesn’t exist inside the mother? Or do you just have a hardon against anyone calling it a “baby”?

          1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

            Baby by every non-delusional standard exists OUTSIDE the mother (born) so NO. Outside of delusional propaganda land the term 'baby' doesn't fit. And the only way to put the term 'baby' into reality is fetal ejection.

            New in stores today.... Baby food for pregnancies... F'En retarded and loaded with deception and deceit.

            This is the problem with every Pro-Life activist. They imagine (<------ KEYWORD) something separate existing before any separation has occurred. It's illogical. If they want to talk about a separate entity they need to actually ACKNOWLEDGE IN REALITY a separation must exist first (not in imaginary land of their own delusions).

            1. Chumby   2 years ago

              With child clump of cells

    2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

      Additionally, from a medical standpoint, an abortion at 20 weeks carries almost, if not equal risk, as delivering the infant would. The whole 'I need an abortion late in pregnancy to save my life' simply is not supported by medical knowledge. In a truly life threatening situation, such as pre-eclampsia, delivery is quicker than late term abortions, and thus safer for the mother. It takes 48 hours on average for a late term abortion, under 24 hours for an induction and under an hour for a caesarian. If you support late term abortions say so, don't try and make up bullshit excuses about the mothers health, it simply is not supported by the facts.

      1. mad.casual   2 years ago

        If you support late term abortions say so, don’t try and make up bullshit excuses about the mothers health, it simply is not supported by the facts.

        Again, too much good faith. You assume these people are going to say, "Oh, since you used objective medical science, I'm going to reconsider my position." No, these are people, when ENB puts up pictures of "reproductive material" that was grown without fetuses or had the fetuses removed, nod along and say "See. It's clear from the photos that at 20 weeks the baby is invisible, so it's OK to kill it."

        Again, ENB routinely says "The law limits abortion to 15 weeks once a fetal heartbeat has been detected, but does/doesn't ban medicinal abortion." like the FDA and AMA don't already effectively and literally "ban" medicinal abortion after 10 weeks after the most recent menses.

      2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Great... Then YOU can lobby for her to eject it and save it from her since YOU seem to think you know everything about her personal situation.

        The pure over-lording arrogance that surrounds this very personal subject is infuriating. Why can't you people believe what you want to believe without sticking your fat F'En noses into everyone else's person life's? Are you the sperm donor on this case or what?

        1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

          I wasn't saying one way or the other, I was pointing out the stupidity of the medical emergency fallacy. Is reading hard for you?

        2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

          And also note, if delivered late term, it is, by definition viable, at least to some extent, ergo, 'ejecting' it, to use your overly emotional trope, by definition gives it a chance to survive and be adopted. So, your tirade isn't even supported by the facts.

          1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

            And note there have been babies born at 20 weeks that have survived.

            1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

              Reference? I'm still seeing 21-weeks by Beth Hutchins 2020.

            2. Foo_dd   2 years ago

              not with the list of defects this child had.... i know, i know..... that's why you won't go look at the actual details... then you would know how full of shit you are.

  5. Minadin   2 years ago

    Taylor Lorenz.

    Man, when you're so far to the left that you think the NYT is right-wing, you are lost.

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

      Shrike is TayTay?

      1. Agammamon   2 years ago

        Certainly old enough to be.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

          But, TayTay is too old for Shrike.

          1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

            So, no masturbation for Shrike then.

    2. Jerry B.   2 years ago

      Much of the Washington Post’s commentariat rags on it for being Rightwing if it publishes anything even slightly critical of Democrats. Some on The Left are so far Left they’re Right. See, for example, the antisemitism in Ivy Leag

  6. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

    Harvard President Claudine Gay has come under fire for repeatedly plagiarizing and improperly attributing written passages over the course of her academic career.

    Fake it ‘till you make it.

    1. Spiritus Mundi   2 years ago

      Not important. Her job is to use Harvard to mainstream post-modern neomarixism. To that end, she is successful and will keep her job.

      1. Overt   2 years ago

        And notice that this pattern of repeated plagiarizing, despite being a matter of public record, was a complete unknown to everyone until Gay started becoming a liability to the cause of neo-marxism. Then, as she started allowing the rabid leftism of Harvard to become visible- only then does she suddenly come "under fire".

        1. Nardz   2 years ago

          Unnoticed until a threat to neomarxism, or unnoticed until a proponent of "antisemitism" in a prominent position?

        2. JesseAz   2 years ago

          Harvard says no biggie on her plagiarism. They are letting her update her thesis with proper citations.

  7. Chumby   2 years ago

    From the headline, thought the other Liz was back doing the Roundup.

    1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

      It gave me pregnant pause.

      1. JesseAz   2 years ago

        I almost aborted commenting.

        1. Chumby   2 years ago

          A bit premature?

        2. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

          Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

  8. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

    Has Matthew Yglesias fallen out of favor?

    1. mad.casual   2 years ago

      Are we sure his take isn't in response to the Taylor Lorenz Tweet? It seems exceptionally cogent.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

      Old Liz swooned for Matt; New Liz disses Matt.

  9. Nobartium   2 years ago

    Every member of the K-pop band BTS is now doing mandatory military service.

    The world breathes a sigh of relief.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

      WTF is BTS?

      1. Nobartium   2 years ago

        The biggest K-POP band.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

          Must be my loss as I don't listen to K-Pop.

          1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

            How would you know? I find it forgettable.

            A neighbor gave me a CD of his music once. I put it in the CD player and started it, and hours later wondered why it was on. Found the CD in it and restarted it, and could not remember a single track.

            That's K-Pop.

            1. Nardz   2 years ago

              Gagnam Style was great.
              But that was the before times.

              1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   2 years ago

                Yeah, that was an awesome tune and awesome video.

                Pop music is awful because it's current music. Once time passes, the crap is forgotten. There was just as much crap music in the 1950s as in the 1930s as in the 1800s, 1700s, and back to Ooog the caveman beating on a log.

                1. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

                  Cavemen were into real hard rock.

                  1. R Mac   2 years ago

                    Then around 3,000 BC they came up with heavy metal.

                2. Dogvalor   2 years ago

                  Correct. Sturgeons Law applies to music, as well as everything else.

          2. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

            BTS and other K-Pop fandon is basically projected nostalgia by Zennials/Zoomers who were too young to get into the late 90s-early 00s boy band/pop tart explosion.

    2. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

      Does this mean S Korea is now safer or less safe from N Korea?

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        BTS out of me.

  10. JesseAz   2 years ago

    "We refuse to allow our tuition dollars to fund apartheid." Columbia students are holding a tuition strike for the spring 2024 semester in an attempt to get their school to "refuse to invest in ethnic cleansing and genocide abroad" and for "divestment from companies profiting from or otherwise supporting Israeli apartheid and Columbia's academic ties to Israel."

    This isn't a strike. It is then dropping out. Which is probably a good thing.

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

      They say "it's highly unlikely that students participating in the tuition strike would face disciplinary action of any kind," and that "it would be absurd for the university to suspend, expel, or punish a student for this lateness."

      Tuition is prepaid in exchange for future classes. Who is educating these kids?

      1. R Mac   2 years ago

        So these people want to take out loans for classes, not actually pay for those classes, them have the rest of us pay back their loans.

        Totally sustainable.

      2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

        If they get away with it, what is to stop students from finding something else to protest over and not pay tuition? Has no one taught them about contracts? You are receiving a service, education. You have to pay for that service, tuition. You sign a contract saying as much when you agree to accept the invitation to attend that university (note, I had four different acceptance when I graduated high school, two to universities I didn't apply to, Notre Dame and Gonzaga, I accepted one of them, therefore I agreed to the terms of attending that university).

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

          The essence of progressive liberalism is to find any excuse to avoid consequences and personal responsibility. To be fair, this is part of human nature, but most of us at least recognize that adult status requires accepting responsibility--or at least it used to. Liberals have made a virtue out of incompetence and poor decisions.

        2. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

          "Has no one taught them about contracts?" If they've been taught about contracts at all, it's that they are constructs of Evil Capitalism and racist as hell.

    2. Foo_dd   2 years ago

      well.... it isn't like they are in need of further indoctrination....

      1. HorseConch   2 years ago

        Since my daughter goes to a public university, and I pay the bill, not somebody else, that would be considered quitting. Too bad she doesn't belong to one of the protected groups, I'm getting sick of paying.

    3. A Thinking Mind   2 years ago

      There is no apartheid in Israel, so all the students' demands have been met. There is no legal discrimination based on "skin color." There is no second class of citizen, all have equal rights recognized under the constitution. In fact, non-Jewish Arabs have extra protection under the law because they are not subject to conscription. But if they WANT to enlist, they're allowed to. Which means they actually have more freedom under Israel than do native Jews.

      So Columbia should just tell the strikers that they've won and that nobody is being funded by apartheid.

  11. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

    Would price controls be guided by collective consensus?

    1. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

      Collective reasoning. It's the best type of reasoning. Ask the Typical Collectivist.

  12. mad.casual   2 years ago

    a reasonably strong norm against beat reporters & college professors doing hot takes outside their domain of specialization

    A norm... like sandwich making?

  13. Chumby   2 years ago

    Send that begging Bandera beggar Zely back to Kiev empty handed.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

      I'd actually be more sympathetic to the guy if he hadn't acted like such an entitled, hectoring piece of shit. He clearly forgot that he's in power at the pleasure of the State Department and CIA, and his main responsibility was to ensure the graft machine worked in the favor of Democrat politicians and globohomo hedge funds. It wasn't to be a war commander or to make incessant, snarky demands on his benefactors.

      Maybe the scales are finally falling from his eyes and he's come to remember that he's not the one who's actually in charge of the country.

      1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

        When you're getting something for little or nothing, out of someone else's good will, it's not a good idea to complain about the quality or quantity you're getting. The counteroffensive failed miserably and the average age of your troops is now 43 and rising (i.e. you've managed to eliminate a generation of young men, who have historically done most of the fighting and are now relying on middle age men and pensioners). It's probably time to reconsider your strategy and make some pragmatic choices. Offering them more money is just putting off the inevitable and increases the chances that they buckle completely and Russia obtains it's final goal of reconquest of Ukraine. When the average age of your fighting force is 43, you're knocking on the door of complete failure. It's unsustainable at this point. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel, and every casualty you continue to incur is one more irretrievable step towards unavoidable collapse.

        1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

          Note even if I have that number slightly wrong and instead it's just the average age of new recruits, the analysis doesn't change. You're running out of bodies either way to continue to throw into the meat grinder.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

            Eventually, he's going to have to sue for peace here, there's no two ways about it.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

              But we said we would fight to the last Ukrainian!

              1. HorseConch   2 years ago

                I love the fact that everyone in Washington, republicans included, completely fail to mention that every penny we send over there is borrowed against future generations. I like to give to charity, personally, but for me to go into debt doing it would require something pretty important. I don't think that any Americans truly feel that level of importance about Ukraine or almost any other waste of our money.

                1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                  The problem is polling is turning against them, 55% have said we have already done enough or to much and that no more money should be sent. This really is, as CNN described it, the last chance to save Ukrainian funding. It's a loser going into an election year, if Biden can't cut a deal, then it's over. The fact that he isn't seriously negotiating is a tell he (or more likely his handlers) want this albatross off from around their neck while also wanting to blame Republicans when Ukraine collapses.

                  1. R Mac   2 years ago

                    There’s also the fact that they’ve decided a secure border is no longer on the table for some reason.

                    1. HorseConch   2 years ago

                      Reason loves that. Average American seeing the country flooded with not the best and brightest the world wants rid of, not so much.

        2. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

          The tell here was that the actions of NATO and the left/center-right coalition in the US and EU didn't match their rhetoric. Go to neocon blogs or news sites like the Dispatch or Patterico, and they were adamant that supporting Ukraine trumped any other issue, including inflation here at home. The assertion was, and continues to be that if we don't stop Russia now, they'll roll right into eastern Europe and start up the Warsaw Pact again (note that Poland just elected its version of Barack Obama, so even that nation isn't safe from the globohomo menace. They are well and truly fucked now). They had fucking Hollywood shitheads feting the guy at the Oscars, that's how deep the propaganda psyop was.

          That was all bullshit because if they actually believed it, they would have committed far more to the fight than they did. We would have seen Operation Allied Force or Odyssey Dawn air interdictions, and fuller commits of special forces than what we've provided. Instead of running through stockpiles of our own arms, the war machine contractors would be going full blast. While it doesn't help that our military brass are SJW politicians and not actual warriors, these people were all writing checks their mouths couldn't cash.

          1. Chumby   2 years ago

            The F35 fears the S400.

            Participants should have followed Minsk 2 and allowed the locals in the east to decide if they wanted more autonomy from Kiev. It would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Proceeding as it has resulted in cracks in the petrodollar and dollar reserve currency monopolies. The eastern provinces and a land bridge to Transnistria are possibly the territorial demands from Moscow. Not sure how the west will feel about allowing Odessa to be ceded. Ukraine will hate it. There will be other provisions such as neutrality, shipping rights on rivers into the Black Sea, but unlikely reparations demands. Russia will need a manor victory with a breakthrough path to Kiev before western leaning Ukrainians will accept the loss. Another year of this? More seeds for sowing ground on the stone.

            1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

              And the US Military fears the V-22 Osprey. How many servicemen have to die before they kill that bad project? Oh, but the US Army is going in on tilt wing too for their planned replacement for the UH-60 and AH-64

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

                To be fair, the CV-22 hasn't killed nearly as many Airmen as the F-104 did. When one of those crashes, it just gets more attention because it was such a controversial acquisition program to begin with.

                1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                  True and the 104 was basically a het engine with what jokingly was called wings. People joke the F-4 proves that if you put a big enough engine on it you can make a rock fly, but the 104 was basically a jet engine with a cockpit.

        3. R Mac   2 years ago

          I wonder at what point Putin’s calculus changes, if it hasn’t already. Initially, and probably even as late as this spring before the counter offensive failure, I’m pretty confident Putin would have accepted an independent eastern Ukraine and agreements that Ukraine not join NATO. Maybe a little more to make himself look good.

          But at a certain point there’s going to be no reason for him to not just take the whole damn place.

          1. Chumby   2 years ago

            Occupying western Ukraine would be an Afghanistan reset. They still talk about Stalingrad; the zinc coffins from the 1980s are fresh in their memory. I think they avoid that.
            Saw reported yesterday that Britain is down to 150 tanks, France has 90 pieces of artillery remaining, and Germany has ammunition to fight for two days.

            1. R Mac   2 years ago

              Maybe. Could an entire generation of young men already being dead change that though? He could also set up his own puppet regime and then withdraw after.

              1. Chumby   2 years ago

                The elites got their kids non-conscript positions, non-combat military positions, or out of the country. The proletariat is there to serve their betters, up to and including ceding their lives. The videos showing military recruiters pulling boys off the streets for service highlights this. I don’t doubt that most if not all families have a dead relative or neighbor; I’m not sure their press/govt is reporting the actual death toll.

                1. R Mac   2 years ago

                  Would the elites kids really be willing to engage in a Taliban like insurgency?

                  Or would they more likely play the role of puppet to Putin, especially after seeing how being a puppet to the west worked put?

                  1. Chumby   2 years ago

                    They will get those collectively reasoned to accept the narrative to conduct additional acts of terror. The targeting of that blogger for instance. Perhaps the bridge and maybe Daria’s assassination.

    2. mad.casual   2 years ago

      With funds drying up in the US, will he be forced to dance naked on tables in London to make it UK raine?

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        Nah, just play piano.

  14. JesseAz   2 years ago

    Every member of the K-pop band BTS is now doing mandatory military service.

    Their fault for not being female.

    1. Chumby   2 years ago

      But all of their fans sit when they pee.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

        Is Joe Biden a BTS fan?

        1. Chumby   2 years ago

          Biden stands when he poops.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

      I got stationed with some KATUSA troops when I was in Korea, and they were really some of the coolest, most respectful dudes you can imagine. Most of them are just college students doing their mandatory service time before getting on with their lives, so you don't see a lot of the bitterness that sets in with US servicemembers who are, really, mostly mercs who are there for the steady paycheck and benefits, and have been alienated by a lot of the reindeer games played by their supervisors and officers during their careers.

      1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

        Yeah but weren't you a crayon eater? I am just teasing, of course.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

          I was in a combat comm AF unit at the Hump. We were slumming it not being at Osan, as Humphreys was kind of a shithole back then. All the buildup at the Hump didn't happen until well after I PCS'd, after the Army closed down Red Cloud.

          Hell, my squadron doesn't even exist anymore, they all got moved to Osan and rolled into the 607 ACOMS.

          1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

            Okay, I'd make a chair force joke, but PJs and Combat Comm gets a pass. As for combat meteorologist. You're basically goon as fuck and trained to do real goon shit. Much like I've been told by multiple infantry that no matter if you served with a line unit or not, medics are never POGs.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

              To be fair, I went from that combat comm squadron to a fixed comm one after my tour was up, so I spent the rest of my enlistment mostly sitting on my ass doing very little. My one deployment was mostly a four-month vacation where I was babysitting contract network techs, and watching movies and tv shows on sharedrives. I had a fucking blast in Korea, though--the funny thing about that tour is that you'd spend the year counting down until you left, and then you'd be itching to go back because you were always busy. Our squadron was tight as hell, too.

              I have actually worked with AF special warfare guys on the civilian side, including an Air Force Cross awardee, and those dudes are legitimate pipe hitters.

          2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

            For some reason I thought you had been a marine.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

              No, but we did get them from Okinawa sometimes for exercises at the Hump. The local business owners hated them because they were so rowdy, but believe it or not, they did have the hottest military females I saw during my enlistment. The Army females were all ratchets, and the AF girls were hit or miss. Nearly every single Marine female in those exercise visits were all legitimate hot pieces of ass for some reason.

  15. Fist of Etiquette   2 years ago

    Today, President Joe Biden will host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has traveled to the U.S. to hold out his hands for some funds for his country's war...

    Sorry, you're what was. Today the U.S. has lowered the Ukrainian flag in deference to the Israeli or Palestinian one (depending on whose supporters whatever leader needs to pander to).

  16. JesseAz   2 years ago

    To be fair, stoned boomers would pose a threat to the economics of the all-you-can-eat buffets on cruise ships, so I can see why cruise lines are cracking down on pot.

    Liz won over jeff by mentioning all you can eat.

  17. Fist of Etiquette   2 years ago

    ...Biden will have to acquiesce to restrictions on asylum seekers as a condition for doling out more aid to Ukraine.

    ...and subsequently his own pocket.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

      With inflation, 10% is now only 6%.

  18. JesseAz   2 years ago

    Abortion... Yglesias...

    ENB, what did you do with good liz!!

    1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

      ENB would never ever ever ever criticize Yglesias like Liz just did.

      1. JesseAz   2 years ago

        Agreed. But how often will we get both abortion and matty Y in the same roundup with good liz? Had to make a joke.

  19. Fist of Etiquette   2 years ago

    This past Friday, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of New York's restrictive gun law...

    They ain't never even heard of this 2nd Amendment thing, much less the name Heller.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

      Constitutions are for Nazis.

  20. Fist of Etiquette   2 years ago

    Harvard President Claudine Gay has come under fire for repeatedly plagiarizing and improperly attributing written passages over the course of her academic career.

    You mean someone else peppered their speech with phrases like "my truth" before her?

  21. Chumby   2 years ago

    Price controls? Biden, consider spending controls.

    1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

      President Joe Biden addressed voters who are worried about inflation on Monday, arguing that his domestic spending plans would help keep prices low over the next decade.

      SleepyJoe thinks we can spend our way out of inflation.

      1. Chumby   2 years ago

        Reminds me of The Simpsons when Homer thought he could dig deeper to get out of the hole he found himself in.

        “We’ll dig our way out!”

    2. TheReEncogitationer   2 years ago

      And currency based on precious metal was not even an option in the survey.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

        What about social credit scores?

  22. Fist of Etiquette   2 years ago

    Cutting government funding for organizations that can surely operate privately is fine, but doing so in a way that attempts to punish politically disfavored groups is not.

    That is, of course, the whole point.

  23. Fist of Etiquette   2 years ago

    Every member of the K-pop band BTS is now doing mandatory military service.

    ...in the IDF.

    1. R Mac   2 years ago

      Is there the equivalent of Epstein Island of the coast of Korea?

      1. Dillinger   2 years ago

        Thailand?

        1. R Mac   2 years ago

          The behavior in question is too acceptable there for blackmail?

    2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

      I've kind of wondered how much Elvis's induction began the movement to abolish the draft, with Vietnam putting the final nail in the coffin.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        Don't much know, but the draft (conscription) has not been a normal feature of American life. It may have simply been a desire for normalcy.

        1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

          I think that by the late 50s the draft had largely become a feature of society. The draft started before WW2 and extended beyond by several months, was briefly stopped and then renewed for Korea and then wasn't ended until 1973. So, in essence, you had three generations that grew up with the idea of conscription. Elvis just happened to fall in the middle of that time frame.

  24. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

    Harvard President Claudine Gay has come under fire for repeatedly plagiarizing and improperly attributing written passages over the course of her academic career.

    So in ~30 years she'll be able to get elected POTUS.

    1. mad.casual   2 years ago

      History first black, second Gay female President no less!

      1. Agammamon   2 years ago

        2nd black president - Bill Clinton was the first.

    2. Public Entelectual   2 years ago

      The Fellows of Harvard just gave President Gay a Mulligan on four failures to cite or reference material published under her name of the sort that can and do result in faculty firings or resignation.

  25. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

    At least he didn't "kill himself" in prison...

    Lawyers for Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny say he has disappeared from prison and cannot be found.

    ...just like Jeffrey Epstein.

  26. mad.casual   2 years ago

    "HE WHO HATH NOT A UTERUS SHOULD SHUT THE 'FUCKETH' UP" - FALLOPIANS 13:13

    "WOE THAT THE LEGION WHO ARE MANY, WHO HAVE A UTERUS, HAD SHUT THE 'FUCKETH' UP IN THE PLACE HENCE NOW."

    1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

      TJJ 20:00

    2. Sandra (formerly OBL)   2 years ago

      The Roe v. Wade decision they love so much was handed down by a Supreme Court with exactly zero uterus-owners.

      Maybe I should create a new series called "Liberal 'arguments' are actually vapid bumper sticker slogans that even liberals don't believe, Exhibit #whatever."

      1. mad.casual   2 years ago

        It should be more than just liberal non-belief. It needs to be obviously (like at the 4th grade level), retardedly, self-defeating/internally inconsistent.

        Pro-abortion Feminists: Pants-wearers shouldn't make decisions about women's rights!
        <Lia Thomas has entered the chat>

      2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Maybe the decision was based on principles of Individual Liberty and Justice for all instead of [WE] mob RULES of the uterus-owners gang.

        It's collectivist thinking through and through where Individualism sacrifices for the mob. A sure way to destroy a nation.

      3. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 years ago

        It doesn’t lend itself to a catchy acronym, though.

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

      If you don't own something you don't get to legislate on it?

      Can we do this with guns, bank accounts, cars, etc.?

      1. mad.casual   2 years ago

        If you don’t own something you don’t get to legislate on it?

        Can we do this with guns

        I'm not even that suicidally (anti-)fascist. "The suspect may've/allegedly used a gun to kill someone stop the heart beat and brainwave function of a clump of human cells." sounds *exactly* like the sort of things 12 angry peers should look at an decide if it constitutes a fucking murder or not.

      2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 years ago

        Slaves

  27. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

    Niall Ferguson: The Treason of the Intellectuals
    "Anyone who has a naive belief in the power of higher education to instill morality has not studied the history of German universities in the Third Reich."

    1. mad.casual   2 years ago

      You don't have to go that far back or that far afield either. Zimbardo was teaching students to abuse their authority as make believe guards in '71. It took 5 days before an independent colleague showed up and said 'This is unethical psychological abuse.' before anyone involved thought it was anything other than edifying.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

      Its really nothing more than the substitution of the belief in absolute moral authority in a higher power, for a secularized one where having a PhD and a certainty in the inevitability of communism is a requirement.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

        Essential all older universities started as sectarian religious institutes, set up to further the faith. I guess they are reverting to form.

    3. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

      History rhymes far too often.

    4. Chumby   2 years ago

      Dr. Josef Megele

    5. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

      Mao has entered the discussion.

  28. Fist of Etiquette   2 years ago

    ...cruise lines are cracking down on pot.

    Time for a sequel to Soul Plane.

  29. Fist of Etiquette   2 years ago

    ...a reasonably strong norm against beat reporters & college professors doing hot takes outside their domain of specialization.

    Yglesias is going to stay in his lane?

    1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   2 years ago

      A reason round up where yglasias is not exalted as the greatest person in the world? Times they are a changing

  30. Fist of Etiquette   2 years ago

    To try and control inflation, would you approve or disapprove of…

    I disapprove of "try and" and approve of "try to".

    1. Ajsloss   2 years ago

      This guy gets it.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

        Hey, language, like the Constitution, is a living thing.

        1. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

          You write good.

  31. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

    Aborto-Freaks and Moms Against Liberty say Katie Cox must carry a lifeless fetus until Gawd intervenes.

    There is a state looking to enforce the death penalty for women like Katie.

    Way to go, wingnuts.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

      Well, yeah, if she votes Democrat, she should absolutely be incentivized to abort regardless.

    2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

      Are "Aborto-Freak wingnuts" the ones who want to kill viable babies and call them "lifeless", or the ones who think that's absolutely fucking depraved?

    3. JesseAz   2 years ago

      The baby isn't lifeless. And she would be able to go through removal if it becomes so.

      Facts are never on your side shrike.

    4. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

      You might want to do something atypical for you, read the entire story first.

      1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

        The fifty-cents doesn't cover self-study.

    5. Sevo   2 years ago

      turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    6. Dillinger   2 years ago

      >>must carry a lifeless fetus until Gawd intervenes.

      reading. not your strong suit.

      1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

        And, should we point out that it is not an abortion if the fetus is lifeless? It's a D&C. Nah, not worth the trouble.

        1. R Mac   2 years ago

          Besides being an evil, racist, sexist, linker of child porn, he’s also dumb as fuck.

          1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

            I really wish the pro-abortion crowd would make better arguments that aren't so easily countered by actual medical science. See Foo_dd below trying to say a late term abortion would be safer for a woman with two c-sections. Yeah dilate the cervix inducing contractions then dismembering the fetus and extracting it with forceps surely has a lower risk of complications with someone with a history of multiple C-sections. Are you a fucking idiot (that was a metaphorical you).

  32. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

    Fucking hilarious how the left actually thinks that the government signing off on interest rate increases isn't a form of price control itself.

    We have about half the country of Venezuela wandering around in the US right now as elegant proof that price controls are a shit way to deal with inflation.

    1. Overt   2 years ago

      I came here to make sorta the same comment..except that I don't think a lot of people- left or right- realize that interest rate control is a form of price control. Just read that twitter feed, and even people who you'd expect to know better consider interest rate controls to be synonymous with "printing more/less money".

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

        Yeah, the whole point is to tamp down inflation because too much easy credit results in excessive liquidity, and the government does have an actual stake in ensuring we don't become Weimar.

    2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

      So many people believe it because the myth that FDR saved the country from the depression with the New Deal and price controls etc is still taught, rather than the fact that FDR actually prolonged the depression with his actions.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        And that the price controls were challenged in court, A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States

        Summary: FDR lost big time. This, and other loses, led to the infamous court packing scheme.

        1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

          That is why they aren't progressives, just regressives, they keep pushing the same failed plans but relabel it.

          1. DesigNate   2 years ago

            Progress!

      2. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

        I'll give FDR credit for two things: 1) the US really could have blown apart during the Great Depression, as the commies were licking their chops at the prospect of the great capitalist Satan finally collapsing. FDR's various programs gave enough people hope that they could muddle through until things got better, which neutered a lot of potential social strife; and 2) he at least recognized that the devil finds work for idle hands, and stuff like the CCC and WPA kept a lot of household breadwinners employed doing relatively productive work. That includes a lot of current parks and infrastructure that's still used today, like airports, libraries, hospitals, and parks (my namesake, for example, was a CCC project, and look how many entertainment acts seem to treat a performance there as something to be recorded for posterity).

        1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

          The bigger thing it did was provide a generation of young men with the most important skill necessary for proper military service, how to listen to commands and obey. The CCC was ran by the Army after all. This proved really useful after December 7th, 1941.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

            One fun fact is that a lot of CONUS military bases that were built prior to war were constructed by the WPA. FDR and Congress had cut the DoD's budget, but allowed them to get around this restriction by using WPA dollars instead, because the local municipalities needed to kick in dollars of their own for these projects, and thus saved money on the federal side.

  33. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

    So you claim there's no "War on Christmas".

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/canadian-human-rights-commission-labels-christmas-celebration-discrimination-grounded

    Part of the ongoing invasion of the woke movement involves regular attempts to undermine Christian holidays as “problematic” and archaic. Leftists argue that increasing diversity (mostly through open border policies or illegal immigration) requires increasing inclusion at the national level. Meaning, it is not for immigrants to adapt to the west, the west must adapt to them. National celebrations like Christmas are therefore a representation of “discrimination” because they are being given preference over minority holidays.

    This was the message given by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) in a paper published under the radar in October. The treatise on “Religious Intolerance” was then condemned in a motion unanimously adopted on Nov. 30 by the House of Commons, the lower chamber of the Canadian Parliament. The paper cited Christianity’s two biggest holy days (Christmas and Easter) as examples of “present-day systemic religious discrimination” linked to colonialism because they are statutory holidays in Canada.

    The woke all-or-nothing argument against state recognized religious holidays is built on a host of illogical demands. First and foremost, Canada is a majority Christian nation, with 53.3% of the population identifying as Christian, 34.6% identifying as non-affiliated, and around 12% identifying with several other faiths. The next largest religious group in Canada is Muslim, representing only 5% of the religious population.

    But what about that 34% of people who are non-affiliated? Do they feel discriminated against by national Christmas celebrations? No, not really.

    Surveys show the vast majority of Canadians have no ill feelings towards Christmas revelry. In a poll asking average Canadians if seasons greetings of “Merry Christmas” bother them during the holidays or if people should use the more inclusive “Happy Holidays”, 52% said they don't care either way. Over 32% said they prefer Merry Christmas, while only 16% of the public preferred the progressive “Happy Holidays.”

    The woke establishment effort to gratify minority concerns over all others stems from the illusion of equity – The false narrative that equal opportunity is not enough, and that equal outcomes must be codified.

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

      There is no war on Christmas. It is just Fox News pants-shitting.

      Merry Christmas, asshole.

      1. Chumby   2 years ago

        Do you dress up as Santa and go to malls so that young boys will sit in your lap?

        1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

          He wants to talk about the first thing that pops up.

      2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        Obviously you missed where it's the Canadian Human Rights Commission doing this.

        #FuckTrudeau

        1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          Shrike hasn't read things that interfere with his narratives before and he's not going to start reading things that interfere with his narratives now.

      3. Sevo   2 years ago

        turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
        turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.

        1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

          Why is there a "2" at the end of his handle?

          1. Public Entelectual   2 years ago

            Because he can't count to III

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

      As long as the official greeting is also "Happy Holidays" on MLK's birthday, Labor Day, and any other high holy day for the left, I will consider it.

    3. JasonT20   2 years ago

      Nice of you to quote so extensively from a highly opinionated source rather than make your own case and argument.

      It is natural for a nation to have national holidays that reflect the dominant religion. With ~70% of Americans currently self identifying as Christian and no other religion breaking low single digits (the other 30% are mostly the "nones"), having Christmas and Easter be national holidays just seems right, doesn't it?

      Of course, that does mean that Americans, including citizens that can trace their ancestors back many generations, that aren't Christians don't have the government endorsing their beliefs the way that Christians do. But so what, right? It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion! The Constitution only says the first part!

      Oh wait...

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Did you notice that it's the Canadian Human Rights Commission? There is no such commission in the US (as of yet). I'm discussing Canada, dip.

        1. JasonT20   2 years ago

          For you and the others that think I can't read...

          You quoted most of a blog post by some guy that calls himself Tyler Durden. He opens with the usual complaints about wokeness in the U.S. before talking about this thing in Canada as a "See, the Canadians deal with it, too," point.

          The one sentence you wrote:

          So you claim there’s no “War on Christmas”.

          The "War on Christmas" phrase is an American invention brought up in American right-wing circles. If you are only worried about Canadian holidays, then being aggrieved that I started talking about the U.S. Constitution would make sense. On the other hand, if you live in the U.S. and are worried about how the War on Christmas is playing out here, then no is your chance to deal with it.

      2. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

        Of course, that does mean that Americans, including citizens that can trace their ancestors back many generations, that aren’t Christians don’t have the government endorsing their beliefs the way that Christians do. But so what, right? It’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion! The Constitution only says the first part!

        Great, another fucktard who can't read. The American constitution doesn't cover Canada, fucktard.

      3. R Mac   2 years ago

        Why do your bosses insist on sending morons over here? I know Reason isn’t a huge publication, but it still seems like a waste of resources.

    4. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

      I'm sure the Canadian Human Rights Commission doesn't see the irony in their conclusions.

  34. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

    Abortion rights: unfettered protection of individual freedom, legalized murder of innocent humans, or extremely useful political issue that no important people really want to solve?

    Discuss.

    1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

      try: issue where everyone knows most people are in agreement -- it should be allowed early on and later if there is a legitimate medical reason -- but that we still let the extremists on both side set the parameters to the point where we are having stupid conversations about exactly how close to dead you have to get before it is OK to abort.

      1. JasonT20   2 years ago

        Are people ever held legally responsible if they fail to put themselves at risk to help someone else? Even if the person would certainly die without that help? Maybe when we put people in jail for failing to swim into a riptide to save someone from drowning, running into a burning building to save someone trapped in the fire, we can justify telling a woman that she has to remain pregnant in order to produce a new human being. When maternal mortality in this country is 23.8 deaths for every 100,000 live births (around 1 in 4000), and has been increasing in recent years, why not just leave the decision entirely to the woman and her physicians and call it a day?

        No one is ever required to do more than call for professional help when someone else is in trouble and doing more than that would entail any significant risk at all, right? Someone is bleeding to death and you worry that you might get some disease from touching their blood? IANAL, but I would guess that you won't be held liable if you don't put your hands on the person to try and slow the bleeding and they die before medics can get there. If I'm wrong about that, I'd be interested to see the law that says so.

        1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

          ^This to a T. Using gov-'guns' to enslave people to save/create a life.

          It's no difference than universal healthcare, armed-theft welfare and wealth distribution. Taking Liberty from some to save the 'poor'. It's got leftard intentions written all over it.

      2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

        The problem is, really there are so few, as to be functionally zero, actual legitimate medical conditions in late pregnancy that couldn't be dealt with by birth. Fetal demise, but then it's not an abortion anyhow. If it's a true medical emergency, as in time matters, the quickest, therefore safest, route of treatment would be a cesarean. Because in a true emergency time matters and a C-section take under an hour (far less) can be performed with a simple spinal block and carries about the same risk level in recovery as birth or abortions. An induced labor takes less than 24 hours on average (if longer, you generally have to go for a C-section anyhow) and a late term abortion 48-72 hours.

        1. JasonT20   2 years ago

          The problem is, really there are so few, as to be functionally zero, actual legitimate medical conditions in late pregnancy that couldn’t be dealt with by birth. Fetal demise, but then it’s not an abortion anyhow.

          See Savita Halappanavar in Ireland. Or this case here.

          The problem is that you want to substitute your judgement and the judgement of anti-abortion politicians of what is a "legitimate medical condition in late pregnancy that couldn't be dealt with by birth" for that of doctors.

          1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

            Uhmm, 30 years in medicine dude. It's not the view of the vast majority of doctors, even those who perform abortions. Because it is not supported by basic medical facts. Abortions take longer, therefore in a true medical emergency, an abortion is the worst choice.

            1. JasonT20   2 years ago

              The problem is, really there are so few, as to be functionally zero, actual legitimate medical conditions in late pregnancy that couldn’t be dealt with by birth.

              This woman was ~20 weeks. At twenty weeks, the fetus is about half the length and 1/10th the weight of a healthy, full term newborn. Tell me again how abortion at that point is just as difficult and risky as waiting to give birth?

              Oh, and tell the family of Savita Halappanavar how there are functionally zero "legitimate" health conditions that can't be dealt with by birth. She was 17 weeks whe she died. If that's not what you mean by late term, then describe what your definition of late term is that makes 20 weeks late term when 17 isn't. The reason her case became a rallying point to overturn Ireland's ban on abortion was that the hospital refused her requests to terminate the pregnancy, despite doctors prognosis that miscarriage was inevitable, because of the abortion ban. They had to wait until it died, basically, which is not an abortion, in your words. She developed sepsis and died from it.

              If it’s a true medical emergency, as in time matters, the quickest, therefore safest, route of treatment would be a cesarean.

              Did you see the part of this case where the woman's doctors were telling her that a cesarean could lead to her being unable to have more children? This was a major point in the case. Waiting for further development so that labor could occur was unnecessary added risk.

              I question your medical experience, or at least whether your beliefs are clouding your judgement. None of what you claim makes sense.

        2. Foo_dd   2 years ago

          "The problem is, really there are so few, as to be functionally zero, actual legitimate medical conditions in late pregnancy that couldn’t be dealt with by birth."

          is it "functionally zero" or is it the 1% of abortions that ever happened after 16weeks before we started passing stupid fucking laws like this one in Texas? cases like this woman were always what we were talking about when the term "late term abortion" was used. and the extremists would force her to suffer bodily harm, medical complications, and a best case of giving birth to a baby to watch it die within months...... because it isn't close enough to killing her.

          1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

            It's functionally zero because medicine isn't set in stone, and there is always an edge case scenario. What bodily harm would she suffer that she would not suffer from an abortion? Do you understand in late term abortion, you basically are inducing labor after killing the fetus, because you have to get the dead fetus out (or it would kill the mother). As for her watching it die, why can't she give it up for adoption if that's the problem? And watching it die is somehow worse than killing it? Oh and if she can't eject the dead fetus, it has to be surgically removed anyhow (which does happen) e.g. you aren't even reducing possible harm from a cesarean. From a strictly medical standpoint, there is no condition that I can think of where abortion is not as risky, and several where it is more risky than induction or cesarean. This has been pointed out by a number of leading OB-GYNs but tends to get ignored. If you support late term abortions make the case without 'the risk of the mothers health' scenario, because there really isn't a case that it is better from a treatment view to kill the infant before inducing labor to expell the infant, rather than inducing labor and delivering. Either way you have to get the infant out, the difference is is it alive or dead when you do it.

            1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

              "What bodily harm would she suffer that she would not suffer from an abortion?"

              so, what you are saying is that you are passing judgement on the medical merits of her getting an abortion without even trying to learn or consider any of the details.... you are kind of underlining the absurdity of pretending you have any right to tell her what she can do if you can't even be bothered to look at that before passing your judgment. she had already been to the emergency room three times with complications. and there is this, directly from the court filing: "Because Ms. Cox has had two prior cesarean surgeries (“C-sections”), continuing
              the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy."

              "From a strictly medical standpoint, there is no condition that I can think of where abortion is not as risky..."

              someone with two prior cesareans having severe complications WHEN the inevitable miscarriage happens is not risky in your book? (already been to ER three times in a week.....)

              "Either way you have to get the infant out, the difference is is it alive or dead when you do it."

              wait... i see.... you are a fucking moron trying to play some stupid semantics game..... we are talking about a fetus that is 20weeks, with major developmental issues to the point where the mother's body is already trying to reject it. there is no way any of this ends without the baby being dead..... sure, they effectively do a cesarean.... the baby is still fucking dead when they are done.

              1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                Prior cesareans would make abortion just as dangerous. Because in an abortion at that point, it's the same as an induction, the process. Fuck. I'm not making any judgement. I am pointing out the medical facts. A late term abortion is just as risky as delivery. Because they are basically the same fucking thing, idiot. Learn to fucking read.

                1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                  "Prior cesareans would make abortion just as dangerous."

                  we are talking about the danger of continuing the pregnancy, dip-shit.

                  "Fuck. I’m not making any judgement."

                  bull-fucking-shit. after it has been explained to you that this woman has medical conditions that complicate a problem pregnancy on the verge of miscarriage, you are still trying to pretend that FORCING her to take those risks is somehow actually safer..... a ruptured uterus while not under the care of a surgeon is not safer than an abortion.

                  1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                    Who is forcing? What medical condition? Trisomal abnormalities do not carry a risk factor for the mother. Her past cesareans make abortion actually more dangerous. She doesn't have a medical condition that makes it more dangerous. The baby is not going to be born normal. If it dies in uterus, they would do the same basic thing as an abortion. A d&c is procedurally the same as an abortion, ergo, an abortion is not safer. Period.

                    1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "If it dies in uterus, they would do the same basic thing as an abortion."

                      and making her wait for that to happen carries no risks? not one?

                      "A d&c is procedurally the same as an abortion, ergo, an abortion is not safer. Period."

                      for someone claiming great medical knowledge, you seem to have a bizarre inability to see a pregnancy as something other than the final procedure to end it.... or the dangers of those things happening when you are not already in the hospital with a doctor standing over you.

                    2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                      No more risk than walking down the street in reality. If the risk of pregnancy was that great, placental mammals would have died out a long fucking time ago. Pregnancy is a perfectly natural occurrence that placental mammals have evolved to deal with for about a billion years. The risk of pregnancy are greatly exaggerated, with the greatest risk coming during delivery. So, no I'm not ignoring anything, I'm dealing with biology, evolution and medicine. Pray tell, what great risk would continuing a pregnancy carry? What are these risks? Surely you know them since you insist I'm ignoring them.

                    3. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "The risk of pregnancy are greatly exaggerated, with the greatest risk coming during delivery."

                      something i would expect a person claiming to be a nurse who has worked in labor and delivery to grasp is the fact that this is already not a "typical" pregnancy...... she has already been to the emergency room three times because her body is trying to do what you are saying she should not do. and it is not doing it on schedule. unless you think she is going to spend the next 5 months in a hospital with a surgical team on hot standby, that risk is going to be much greater.

                    4. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                      Again, where did I state she should not do anything? And how do you know what those ER visits were for? And no, trisomal abnormalities are not an atypical pregnancy except that the fetus is not normal. Her body may be trying to miscarriage, that doesn't make an abortion a safer option, nor does it require her to be banned from getting an abortion. What I am stating, multiple times, is that an abortion is no safer than a miscarriage and a subsequent D&C or an emergency C-section. I don't care if she has an abortion.

                      What I am stating is that medically, an abortion is no better an option than the other options. That the risk factors are about the same. Even for complicated births. During early terms, yes, abortions are safer than carrying to term. Because most miscarriages in the first trimester are rarely more than a heavy period. And basically abortion in the first trimester or even midway through the second is basically a medically induced miscarriage. What I am specifically talking about, without once making a judgement on rather it should or shouldn't be allowed is the concept that an abortion in at 20 weeks is the safest option. It isn't. That doesn't mean it should be banned. It just means that the idea of medically necessary abortions is a myth used to advance a position no more correct than assault weapons are weapons of war. it has nothing to do with allowing abortion. It has entirely to do with the idea that an abortion is a medically necessary treatment.

                    5. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "Again, where did I state she should not do anything?"

                      every time you spew your BS trying to pretend having the abortion is actually more dangerous. are you really so stupid that you do not understand that advocating AGAINST her doing something is advocating FOR her to do nothing?

                      "And how do you know what those ER visits were for? "

                      i read the court filing. unlike you, i did bother to look at actual information that was available.

                      "What I am stating is that medically, an abortion is no better an option than the other options. "

                      based on details you either deny or refuse to look at, and time factors you fail to understand. you keep trying to frame this as her either going into labor or having an abortion at the exact same point in time.... under direct medical care at the exact moment in both cases. that isn't the situation, and you goddamn know it. you deliberately ignore the increased risk the larger the fetus grows, and you deliberately ignore the risk of unplanned labor as the child miscarries. your entire argument, that you continue to dig in on, requires assumptions that are absolutely ludicrous.

              2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                The baby is not functionally dead, it has a lower chance of long term survival and you call me the fucking idiot. You don't even fucking know what you're talking about now dipshit.

                1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                  i didn't say functionally dead.... i said it will be dead when all is said and done. as you are trying to play more semantics games, stick to what i actually said.

                  1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                    We all are dead when all is said and done. Fuck you're the one playing semantics. Point to one thing where I stated she should be barred from having an abortion. One fucking statement. Just one? Come on smart guy. I'm sure you can also explain procedurally how an abortion in late term would be any safer than a D&C if uterine fetal death were to occur. You claim I don't know what I'm talking about. So educate me. How is it safer?

                    1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "We all are dead when all is said and done. Fuck you’re the one playing semantics."

                      hahahahahahaha..... you can't make this kind of stupid up.

                      "Point to one thing where I stated she should be barred from having an abortion."

                      you are digging in pretty hard to pretend you think otherwise. if you want to play that technicality, i have not explicitly stated the opposite.

                    2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                      Considering I never did accuse you of doing the opposite, again, you're arguing with statements I didn't make. I am not digging in hard, I am pointing out the fallacy of the argument, which is an appeal to emotion. Those kinds of arguments, even when I agree with them, piss me off. Bad arguments are bad arguments. period. It has nothing to do with support or not supporting something. Anyone who has seen me post on here for the past twenty years will tell you I will argue against a bad argument. Even if it supports a position I otherwise agree with.

                    3. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "I am not digging in hard, I am pointing out the fallacy of the argument, which is an appeal to emotion."

                      bold faced lie, in every respect. first, there is nothing emotional about my argument at all. you have a fetus that is not going to survive, no matter what you do. you have risk to the mother that increases the longer you wait to acknowledge that fact and terminate it..... those are just cold hard facts......
                      and then we have your appeal to emotion that belligerently denies the conclusions of the doctors who actually reviewed her case as well as any other relevant factors that don't fit with your desired narrative to hold to the notion that nobody ever has a "good" reason to abort under any circumstances.

                      "Anyone who has seen me post on here for the past twenty years will tell you I will argue against a bad argument."

                      i really don't give a fuck. in this instance, i am the one arguing against a bad argument. you are making assumptions that are fundamentally wrong, ignoring any facts that are not convenient for your narrative, and not even trying to back any of your claims with actual facts..... just a lame appeal to authority because you claim to be a nurse. (which honestly does not qualify you nearly as much as you would like to pretend..... nursing is a broad category, and not every position requires you to know all that much.)

                  2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                    When you're done with that, maybe you can explain how it the human body manages the bleeding that occurs after the placenta is removed from the uterus both in abortions and in delivery. And then once you explain that mechanism you can then explain, since the mechanism is exactly the same in all three cases, how an abortion would be safer.

                  3. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                    Oh and you could also explain how a procedure that takes up to 72 hours to complete (a late term abortion) and a minimum of 48 hours, would be the best treatment option in a true medical emergency, were seconds count.

                    1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "......a true medical emergency, were seconds count."

                      you mean the one you want to force her to have at home with no doctors around?

                    2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                      Again, where am I trying to force anything? Point to me stating she shouldn't be able to have an abortion. Please. Quote it. As for an emergency, no a miscarriage in late term would not be seconds count to such a degree she couldn't seek medical help.

              3. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                How the fuck do you think they perform a late term abortion? BTW it's not by cesarean. The have to dilate the cervix, start contractions, then they introduce a probe via the cervix to dismember the infants body, and then have the uterus eject the dismembered fetus with assistance. And you are worried about complications of a miscarriage and you think the above procedure runs a lower risk? How dipshit? How the fuck would that carry a lower fucking risk? You don't fucking have a clue. You're a fucking imbecile who knows nothing about what he is talking about but willing to call people with far more medical knowledge and experience idiots because they point out medical facts you don't fucking like. I did or did not argue rather it should be allowed. I simply pointed out that the idea that it is safer or better is not supported medically. Sorry if that doesn't go with your narrative.

                1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                  "BTW it’s not by cesarean."

                  sometimes it is. and even when it is not, it happens in a hospital with doctors right there.

                  "You’re a fucking imbecile who knows nothing about what he is talking about but willing to call people with far more medical knowledge and experience idiots because they point out medical facts you don’t fucking like."

                  you have not pointed out anything other than your being full of shit. you start out claiming you can make a medical judgement without knowing any of the medical details..... when those details prove your initial judgement was incorrect, you decided to dig in with bull shit semantics games where "giving birth" and letting the child languish for a few minutes before it dies is somehow more compassionate than a technical "abortion.".... and you want to pretend that repeated events leading to ER visits and an eventual miscarriage and uterus rupture at home is somehow safer than an abortion with doctors right there.

                  "I did or did not argue rather it should be allowed."

                  you are grasping at straws to try and pretend it isn't at least a little reasonable to suggest that MAYBE there was valid medical justification to let this woman have the abortion...... fuck off with your lame attempt to pretend you are not taking a stand one way or the other.

                  1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                    What medical facta proves I was wrong in your opinion? You haven't provided any new facts I was not aware of and already addressed. You just didn't like the information and dismissed it.

                    As for knowledge, 30 years as a nurse, seven of those as labor and delivery, masters degree in biology. If she goes into labor or requires a ceaserean why wouldn't she also be in a hospital with doctors? If she has that complicated of history? Jesus dude, you haven't offered anything even close to discounting what I've posted. In fact, you haven't even actually addressed what I've actually posted. You've basically said nuh uh, you're wrong.

                    If the perform an abortion via C-section how would that be safer than birth by C-section that isn't even a logical claim.

                    1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "As for knowledge, 30 years as a nurse, seven of those as labor and delivery, masters degree in biology. If she goes into labor or requires a ceaserean why wouldn’t she also be in a hospital with doctors?"

                      ok.... you are either a REALLY bad liar, or you are moving up the moron scale pretty drastically. you claim to be a nurse.... you now claim to have specifically done that in labor and delivery...... and you don't think anything EVER happens outside the hospital? she's already been to the ER 3 times for this, but there is NO WAY shit could ever go wrong while she is not sitting there on the table in front of thee doctors? sorry... you are either a liar, really fucking stupid, or both.

                    2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                      She has been to the ER three times, oh know you totally prove me wrong. That doesn't counter anything I stated. We once had a guy bring his kids into the ER with chicken pox at 3 AM because he wanted them cured before going on vacation. I see you still fail to answer any of my questions, just assert I'm an idiot without proving how I'm wrong. You make a claim but haven't provided any facts, yet call me the idiot. I don't claim to be a nurse. I am a nurse. And I've done labor and delivery along with several other specialities. Yes, things can go wrong when she is not at the hospital, but, against as I stated, and you ignored, not so fast she couldn't seek medical help. There is strong possibility that her trips to the ER are entirely the result of a psychosomatic reaction to the diagnosis, being as they all occurred after the chromosomal testing, and she was never admitted, ergo the problems were either manageable on an outpatient basis, or not real medical problems. I'm providing facts, you're making appeals to emotion. She's been to the ER three times! That means nothing. About 90% of ER visits are not real emergencies. The fact she has been to the ER says nothing other than she has been to the ER, she wasn't admitted, therefore it was unlikely to be a true medical emergency.

                    3. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                      I don't care if she does get an abortion. Morally I don't agree with abortion, but I don't advocate for laws based on my morality and pragmatically, banning abortion is impossible. If she feels an abortion is her best choice, that's her choice, what I object to is the unsupported idea that abortions are medically necessary, especially in late term. If you want an abortion argue for why you should have that right, don't make a fallacious argument against it being medically necessary. It is a choice, period.

                    4. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "The fact she has been to the ER says nothing other than she has been to the ER, she wasn’t admitted, therefore it was unlikely to be a true medical emergency."

                      oh, so she is a hypochondriac, and the dying fetus is just a coincidence..... she was just faking it (weeks before she got the final diagnosis or anyone told her about the wrinkle with the new Texas law.)

                      "If you want an abortion argue for why you should have that right, don’t make a fallacious argument against it being medically necessary. It is a choice, period."

                      what you want is to live in a fantasy world where those who get abortion are always evil... there can NEVER be a "good" or even reasonable reason. you try to play the semantics game by avoiding outright saying it should be banned, but you want it known that they are wrong NO MATTER WHAT.

                    5. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                      Again, where did I say she was evil or that abortion is evil (hint, my mother had an abortion before I was born, so I doubt I would make that argument)? You keep saying stuff I never wrote.

                    6. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                      And no, psychosomatic is not being a hypochondriac. And where does it say the fetus is dieing, it says it has a great chance of dieing that doesn't equate to its dieing. You read a lot into stuff that isn't actually written and then pass judgement unsupported by facts. Based upon your assumptions.

                    7. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "Again, where did I say she was evil or that abortion is evil "

                      every time you keep trying to pretend it is wrong under all circumstances. just because you avoided the word "evil" does not change what you have been saying.

                      "And no, psychosomatic is not being a hypochondriac"

                      potato, potato.... you said it was in her head. you said her symptoms were not real...... based on absolutely nothing but your preferred narrative.

                      "And where does it say the fetus is dieing, it says it has a great chance of dieing that doesn’t equate to its dieing."

                      you really should read the court documents, and stop making yourself look stupid. this was not just a genetic condition.... this was not just a knee jerk reaction to her finding out about it.... she knew for weeks that this was possible, but she wanted the kid so she kept hoping for the best. in those weeks, as the fetus got bigger, it became more and more evident just how bad the abnormalities were. they kept watching and finally told her there was virtually no chance the fetus would survive until birth, and if she tried to wait any longer it could seriously impact her ability to try again in the future. (no matter how much you want to claim equal risk for an abortion at 20 weeks versus an unplanned labor at 35 to expel the dead baby.) she had already taken every step she could to try and save the child.

                      "You read a lot into stuff that isn’t actually written and then pass judgement unsupported by facts."

                      you mean like her ER visits being imaginary, or the adamant declaration that the risks were not what her doctor said they were? oh wait..... that's you.

        3. TJJ2000   2 years ago

          ^This too +10000. Everyone deserves the most basic of Individual Liberty to be total masters of their own body. C-Section (i.e. Fetal Ejection) is the only way to draw that line correctly. So one has to wonder why in the world it's not the line being made.

      3. JasonT20   2 years ago

        it should be allowed early on and later if there is a legitimate medical reason

        I hear regularly about how most developed countries limit abortion to 14 or 16 weeks or something like that unless there is medical need. I'd completely agree to that if:

        - The decision about medical need is left entirely to doctors and not government lawyers.
        - All women have sufficient access to health care (including abortion) that obtaining one prior to that for entirely elective reasons is not a problem.

        That second one is important. We saw for decades prior to Dobbs how many red states were essentially trying to regulate abortion out of existence by making it harder and harder to operate abortion clinics at all. Multiple of those states had a single clinic for their whole population. (These were referred to as TRAP laws. Targeted restrictions on abortion providers.)

        That second condition also includes basic medical care, not just that surrounding reproduction. Maternal mortality has been climbing in the U.S. mostly among minority women and those with low income.

        Despite the enormous amount of money spent on health care in the U.S., access is still very uneven. We have great medical care in this country, relative to others, if you can afford it or have good insurance. That is why so many people with means in other countries come here. We have lots of top doctors and facilities for specialized care. What we don't do well is primary care for everyone. There aren't enough primary care doctors and other basic providers (PAs and ARNPs can do a lot of good primary care work that you don't need to see an M.D. for), because that doesn't pay the high cost of medical school and other training the way being a specialist does.

        But addressing these real problems in a thoughtful way doesn't motivate voters the way that saying you want to save the babies does, I guess. So we get politicians that just want to ban abortion instead and those that feel like that have to fight that instead of trying to fix more basic problems.

        1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

          "– The decision about medical need is left entirely to doctors and not government lawyers."

          that is the main problem. i honestly think we would be better off if they had never passed any laws on abortion. the truth is that it is absurd to pretend there are women who don't want to be pregnant and wait longer than 16weeks unless there is a good reason.

          1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

            The best argument for medically necessary abortion in late term is that you can't safely perform amniocentesis until around 16 weeks, and so you can't identify chromosomal abnormalities. However, the problem with that is rarely do those abnormalities threaten the mother's health. Instead, it is rather she choices to deal with an infant born with health problems or not. This undercuts the abortion at all costs proponents argument that it's for the mother's health as opposed to a choice made after new information is available. It's really a morality call at that point, and pretending it's a health choice is disingenuous.

            1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

              "Instead, it is rather she choices to deal with an infant born with health problems or not. "

              or..... as in this case...... there is ample evidence to know the child will likely not survive at all, and her body's reaction to try and eject the soon to be dead baby exposes her to serious medical risks.

              1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                How do you treat a miscarriage? How is that less safe than an abortion. You keep coming back to her medical history. Hint: if she miscarriages (which at 20 weeks is not a sudden thing, but provides time to seek medical assistance) has no greater risk based on her medical history, largely because it would basically require the same procedure as an abortion would at that point in her pregnancy. You keep waving her medical history as some magically talisman, but the fact is you haven't been able to answer how that would make an abortion safer. You just insist it would.

                1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                  "if she miscarriages (which at 20 weeks is not a sudden thing, but provides time to seek medical assistance) has no greater risk based on her medical history, largely because it would basically require the same procedure as an abortion would at that point in her pregnancy. )"

                  first of all, that is the medical assistance you want to deny her..... getting the abortion is the result of her seeking medical assistance..... that time is what you are trying to deny her. you want her to wait until there is no time left.

                  second, and this is why i think you are a liar, her first C-section scar could be vertical. given that both her kids were derived by cesarean, that is actually pretty likely. (won't explain why because that might take away your opportunity to amuse me further with your ignorance.) in that case, going into normal labor does become very risky, especially with her body already trying to do it out of schedule and not while she is in the hospital. if you really had any significant experience in labor and delivery, you would know this..... and you would not be saying the stupid shit you are here.

                2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                  Again where did I state I want to deny her medical assistance? Please point to me stating that. Yes, going into regular labor is dangerous for anyone with a prior history of cesareans. Never stated otherwise. So far you are arguing shit I never once contended. And yes, a vertical incision, as it cuts across the grain of the muscle, and since muscles can't grow in post fetal mammals, results in higher scar tissue accumulation compared to a transverse incision, labor carries a risk. That would require her to seek medical help. Never argued otherwise. What I argued is that risk is anything more than the risk of an abortion. I am arguing about the fallacy that abortion is medically necessary in this case or any case. I never stated her pregnancy is not risky. I never stated she should not get an abortion. I never argued she should be banned from getting an abortion. Etc. you are putting words in my mouth on things I never once stated. Given her medical history, getting pregnant in the first place was a huge medical risk. The fact that her fetus carries a chromosomal abnormalities doesn't make her pregnancy risky, it was risky rather or not the chromosomal a normality existed. And nowhere does it state her EE visits were for miscarriages or preterm labor. Your assuming facts not in evidence, much the same way you assumed facts not in evidence of what I said.

                3. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                  "Again where did I state I want to deny her medical assistance? "

                  own your position. you are very clearly and very deliberately arguing the "it is wrong" position..... stop trying to play the weasel and pretend that you are not.

                  "What I argued is that risk is anything more than the risk of an abortion."

                  and the one great big assumption that you fail to understand you are making is that everything that happens will happen while she is in the hospital with a surgical team ready to go. you are so dug in on that assumption that you have actually tried to argue that her trips to the ER were just in her head. you keep saying there is no difference in risks by pointing to the procedures and ignoring the planned versus unplanned aspect of life.

                  "Your assuming facts not in evidence..."

                  says the person making some pretty big assumptions about her visits to the ER. all i said was that she was heading towards a miscarriage.... you were the one who felt the need to make specific assumptions (all in her head.) if you are actually a nurse, you must be a shitty one.

                  1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                    I didn't make any assumptions about her visits to the ER you're the one who said they were because she was miscarriaging without the story actually saying she was. I stated the ER visits prove nothing. Because there is no information provided as to what those visits were. Since you want to debate the voices in your head as opposed to what I actually write, have fun. You're not worth it.

                  2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                    Also, no she wouldn't be in a hospital with an OR directly available because 99% of abortions, even late term, are conducted in outpatient clinics without admitting privileges and minimal emergency care and have to call the paramedics if something goes wrong. This has been well documented. In other words, she would have to do the same exact fucking thing she would if she was at home and started to miscarriage and didn't have time to go to the hospital. Fuck, thanks for proving my point, Wilbur.

                  3. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                    And you obviously don't know what psychosomatic means. moron.

                    1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                      Hint, psychomatic are actual medical conditions, i.e. they do feel pain, they do have clinical symptoms etc with no underlying pathophysiology but is brought on by apprehension or anxiety, or other stress, or suggestions and everyone experiences them at some point. Because of the lack of physiological pathology, they are extremely difficult to treat. They are a medical condition, just one created by your state of mind as opposed to an actual illness. You don't think someone who just was told her child is likely going to die because of a chromosomal abnormality isn't apprehensive or anxious? I didn't say it was psychosomatic but based on the fact that she was not admitted, given her medical history as you point out, suggests she was not miscarrying. Because no ER doctor is going to run the risk of discharging someone with that Hx actively miscarrying, and run the risk of a malpractice suit if something did go wrong.

                    2. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "And you obviously don’t know what psychosomatic means"

                      in layman's terms, it means in your fucking head.

                      "You don’t think someone who just was told her child is likely going to die because of a chromosomal abnormality isn’t apprehensive or anxious?"

                      you really need to stop ignoring inconvenient truths. she was not just told. she was waiting to see how it would turn out, but had known about that chromosomal abnormality for quite some time. you did not suggest it was all in her head because it makes any sense, you only suggested that because it does not fit your narrative. you are grasping to dismiss the facts that prove you are wrong. that this failing pregnancy was causing her body distress is just something you can't admit, no matter how much evidence is placed before you. you have to ignore the facts and make up bullshit not supported by anything to do so.

                    3. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

                      You haven't provided any facts. Period. Youve made unwarranted supposition that you claim are facts. You don't even refute my actual point. As for ignoring facts, who was it who suggested she would be in the hospital during the abortion? Who is it who kept insisting I was trying to stop her despite never saying that? Yeah, okay whatever. If it makes you happy, you win. You're right, I'm wrong abortion is the only safe option. Feel better? I'm done. You're not worth the time or effort. You won't even actually engage what I state or twist it. BTW, you're still an idiot.

                    4. Foo_dd   2 years ago

                      "You haven’t provided any facts. Period. Youve made unwarranted supposition that you claim are facts."

                      this is a lie. i have provided numerous facts specific to this case. you are the one who has made unwarranted suppositions while deliberately refusing to accept the facts.

                      "As for ignoring facts, who was it who suggested she would be in the hospital during the abortion?"

                      what?!?!?! are you drunk, or something? are you suggesting she would get an abortion somewhere else? or is this just a drunk person confusing the act of getting an abortion with unplanned labor?

                      "You’re right, I’m wrong abortion is the only safe option."

                      does it feel good to admit the truth behind a shield of sarcasm?

                      "You won’t even actually engage what I state or twist it."

                      i have directly engaged your claim, and explained in excruciating detail why it, at least in this specific case, is flat out wrong. your claim deliberately ignores every available fact about this specific case. you were trying to spit out some lame talking points about thee risks of abortion and failed to recognize that the facts of this specific case make them not applicable..... and you are pissed that i called you out on it. you have been making a bad argument, and you can't man up and admit it.

                      "BTW, you’re still an idiot."

                      back at ya, with an added "and a pussy." because you should know you are wrong, but are too dedicated to the narrative to admit it.

        2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

          Why 14 or 16 weeks. Whatever is there is dead in reality already so why even toy with the notion of forced reproduction? There isn't even a single case with every tool under the sun that can make a person out of what is there.

          1. JasonT20   2 years ago

            I was talking in general about abortion restrictions in other developed countries, not anything specific to this case. Really, I supported the Roe/Casey framework, but I see people that are generally anti-abortion bring up those restrictions in other countries frequently. I just wanted to point out the apples to oranges nature of those comparisons in the vain hope that they'd understand what it would mean to have the same conditions surrounding medical care for pregnant women as those places.

    2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

      "extremely useful political (gov-'guns' access) issue that" ... Virtue signalers use for their own self-important/power-mad needs instead of having to go out and *earn* it without 'guns' against those 'icky' people.

  35. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

    "A CNN poll from August shows how Americans have soured on supporting funding Ukraine's war effort, with roughly 55 percent saying that Congress should not authorize any additional spending and 51 percent saying the U.S. has done enough as-is."

    Goddammit, these stupid people are doing Democracy! wrong.

  36. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

    Democrats enlist election denier as part of 2024 campaign.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dems-enlist-russia-hoaxer-hillary-clinton-biden-re-election-effort

    2016 election denier Hillary Clinton, who was fined by the FEC for lying about funding the Russian "dossier" which underpinned the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, and who destroyed evidence with bleachbit and hammers, and ran an illegal server out of her house which contained highly classified documents, has reportedly been enlisted by Democrats to help President Biden with his 2024 campaign.

    "I think Joe Biden's going to need more than a[n] 'I'm with her T-shirt' with all of his political problems," said Fox News commentator Charlie Hurt on "The Big Weekend Show."

    "But, you know you are in deep, deep trouble if you are picking up the bat phone and calling Hillary Clinton to come help you out," Hurt continued, adding "And I think it was sort of interesting that their thinking is that he needs help among women voters. If you need help among women voters, and you're a Democrat, and you're running against Donald Trump, you should just quit because it's over."

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

      Maybe the attempt is to make Biden look better with Hillary next to him?

      1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

        Great point.

    2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

      election denier

      The one who conceded within 24 hours of that election.

      Fatass Donnie is a congenital liar. I hope Rudy Guiliani loses every penny he has for his lies.

      1. Chumby   2 years ago

        Why your account got banned denier.

        1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          Pluggo's seen the videos of Hillary saying that the election was stolen from here and calling for #resistance dozens of times. He's just misrepresenting things as usual.

      2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        And then she spent the next four years whining and bitching about her loss and how Trump "stole" the election.

        Next, asshole?

        1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

          Yeah, pluggo is an asshole!

      3. Sevo   2 years ago

        turd lies. That's not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
        But it's becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of "evidence" or "relevance", the concept of "honesty" is simply beyond turd's ken.

      4. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

        https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/05/17/assorted-ethics-observations-on-the-durham-report-part-ii-the-substance/

        …one of the biggest takeaways is what a destructive, vicious, damaging person Hillary Clinton is to our political process. This Russia collusion thing didn’t only damage Trump. He won the 2016 election anyway, despite this, think how big a victory he might have had without it. But it really froze and paralyzed the country politically for over four years. The damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign did was so tremendous to this nation. I think that to some extent, while it’s being highlighted by a lot of the news coverage, they’re not really doing it personal to Hillary and it to be, she really is possibly the most destructive politician we’ve certainly had in this century, in recent memory. The manipulation that she perpetrated here is so horrible, not for what it did to Donald Trump, that’s bad enough, but what it did to our nation. We’re at each other’s throats because of what Hillary Clinton did. And she needs to be roundly condemned, and she’s not getting a fraction of the criticism that she deserves ….So I think the damage that’s been done is long lasting it tears at the fabric of our society. And it was caused by Hillary Clinton, the federal government and the mainstream corporate media all acting in unison….

      5. Super Scary   2 years ago

        "The one who conceded within 24 hours of that election."

        This is from 2019 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

        "Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday."

        1. DesigNate   2 years ago

          This is why I love that people don’t just ignore him: if someone were to happen by and read the thread, maybe they’d be educated by the replies.

      6. Medulla Oblongata   2 years ago

        And then spent years saying it was rigged and stolen from her by Russians.

        hillary clinton stolen election

        as a Google search term yields 2.1M hits.

        CNN: Hillary Clinton, in an interview that aired Monday on NPR, said she “would not” rule out questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election if Russian interference is deeper than currently known.

        The comment, a remarkable step for the former Democratic nominee, exemplifies Clinton’s belief that President Donald Trump and his campaign could have knowingly received help from Russian operatives in the 2016 election.

        Clinton has said previously that she conceded to Trump quickly and attended his inauguration because the nation’s peaceful transfer of power is critical. But her comments to NPR signal that as the depths of Russia’s interference are revealed she could envision a time when she questions Trump’s legitimacy as president.

        NPR’s Terry Gross asked Clinton directly during the interview whether she would “completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?”

        “No. I would not,” Clinton said.

        Gross asked: “You’re not going to rule it out?”

        “No,” Clinton said. “I wouldn’t rule it out.”

        Glen Caplin, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, reiterated in a statement after the interview aired that the former secretary of state “has said repeatedly the results of the election are over but we have to learn what happened.”

        And her cohorts agreed...“Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.” Nancy Pelosi

        Media pundits spent years trying to fabricate fantastic scenarios in which Clinton is handed her Presidency...e.g., Newsweek

        "How Hillary Clinton Still Can, and Should, Become President After the Trump-Russia Investigation
        Oct 16, 2017 at 4:00 PM EDT

        Sure, it's been more than 340 days since Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton, but there's still one very narrow, highly unlikely and entirely unprecedented way that Clinton could become president.

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

      "bat phone"... heh.

  37. a.heroic.dose   2 years ago

    Perhaps the students striking over tuition were more affected by the rotting corpses of those babies found in Al-Shifa hospital after the IDF withdrew than Liz is. Although I thought mothers loved to fucking go on about how precious children are. Notice she never actually addresses the apartheid charge lol. Shame, if only they were white.

    1. Agammamon   2 years ago

      I'll take 'things that didn't happen' for $200, Alex.

    2. Sevo   2 years ago

      If only you had a brain cell.

    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

      Perhaps "a heroic dose" of Pancuronium bromide, potassium chloride, and midazolam would calm you down.

  38. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

    "We refuse to allow our tuition dollars to fund apartheid." Columbia students are holding a tuition strike for the spring 2024 semester in an attempt to get their school to "refuse to invest in ethnic cleansing and genocide abroad" and for "divestment from companies profiting from or otherwise supporting Israeli apartheid and Columbia's academic ties to Israel."

    These students are free to withdraw from Columbia, and find another institution more aligned with their politics. Maybe the University of Gaza (but wait for the next semester).

  39. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

    This is the direction to go if you want to have cleaner energy. Yes, Illinois actually did something right for a change.

    https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_3ab3e158-9877-11ee-84a9-3f1ea3530b32.html

    A new law puts an end to a statewide moratorium on new nuclear power plants from the 1980s, officially bringing the prospect of new nuclear power plants back to the Land of Lincoln.

    A revised measure from state Sen. Sue Rezin, R-Morris, was passed during the fall veto session and signed by Pritzker on Friday.

    Under the new law, the state can approve the construction of new small module reactors in different parts of the state. SMRs produce a large amount of low-carbon electricity but are a fraction of the size of a traditional reactor.

    Rezin reworked the bill during last month's veto session to address some of the governor's concerns.

    "This has been a long time coming," Rezin said. "This language is carefully crafted based on the governor's veto message. It makes a lot of changes to the original Senate Bill 76 that lifted the ban in Illinois."

    Rezin said advancements have been made since the state enacted its moratorium in 1987.

    "We must act quickly to ensure that our state has the opportunity to take advantage of the amazing advancements in new nuclear technology that have occurred over the past couple of decades," said Rezin.

    For the record, Illinois has the most nuclear power in the US, getting 13% of its electricity needs from nuclear power plants.

    1. mad.casual   2 years ago

      SMRs produce a large amount of low-carbon electricity

      Even in doing something right they still manage to make you want to hit everyone involved in the head with a pool cue.

      Windmills and Solar panels produce a small, unsteady amount of moderate-carbon electricity. EVs produce a large amount of high-carbon transportation.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

      What's the customary kick-back rate for power plants in Illinois?

  40. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

    Mothers Lament smiles approvingly,

    Missouri Republicans propose bills to allow murder charges for women who get abortions
    Kacen Bayless The Kansas City Star (TNS) Dec 10, 2023

    https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/missouri-republicans-propose-bills-to-allow-murder-charges-for-women-who-get-abortions/article_53b406c0-95c4-11ee-a67d-9339832ec1a0.html

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

      Again, absolutely the wrong option. They should be offering Amazon gift cards for Democrat voters who get abortions as a "flush your fetus" or "snap that spine" prize.

    2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

      Did you bother to read the whole thing before posting it here (as usual)?

      The bills do allow for a “duress” defense if a woman is charged with murder for getting an abortion. They also do not allow for criminal charges for “lawful” medical procedures performed by a doctor and if an abortion is performed to save the patient’s life or if a doctor accidentally aborts a fetus during a life-saving procedure.

      Both Republican-led bills will face a steep climb during this year’s legislative session as the state’s abortion ban faces intense criticism and has energized abortion rights supporters. They also don’t have the backing of at least one prominent anti-abortion lobbyist in Jefferson City, Sam Lee. One of the state’s top anti-abortion groups, Missouri Right to Life, also opposed a nearly identical bill from Moon last session.

      “There is nothing pro-life whatsoever about legislation that would allow the death penalty for a woman who undergoes an abortion or any other person who performs an abortion on her,” Lee said in a text to The Star.

      If the bills get committee hearings, Lee said, “we will vigorously testify against them and strongly urge other members of the legislature to vote them down.”

      Moon, a hard-right senator, is known for his extreme and fringe views within the General Assembly, including comments this year suggesting that children as young as 12 should be able to get married as he pushed legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for minors.

      Another Republican, state Rep. Brian Seitz from Branson also pre-filed a bill that would give fetuses the same protections as human beings — but his bill does not explicitly address criminal actions.

      Missouri Democrats have also pre-filed bills to repeal the state’s ban on abortion or to clarify that the ban does not affect access to birth control.

      1. Sevo   2 years ago

        Par for the course; turd lies.

      2. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

        Republicans control both houses of of Missouri's legislature. The fact that neither Bill has any chance of passing surely equals Republican support for these bills, right?

      3. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

        He's right that I do smile about the murder charges though. They're absolutely appropriate.

    3. Sevo   2 years ago

      turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    4. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

      "Mothers Lament smiles approvingly,
      Missouri Republicans propose bills to allow murder charges for women who get abortions"

      I certainly do, you bloodthirsty demonic freak. There's zero difference in ripping apart the baby at 8 months, or beating it to death at eight years.

      I'll smile when the cops catch you with those kids in your basement too.

  41. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

    Better poll question for inflation:

    Would you approve of price AND wage controls?

    (And yes, still a retarded choice.)

    1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

      Hey, don’t you remember how well those things worked in the 1970’s?

      1. Dillinger   2 years ago

        that racist Norman Lear & all his racist television sure was difficult to watch. Children's Television Workshop even worse.

        1. Fats of Fury   2 years ago

          Talk about a plagiarist.

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

      Well, we already have wage controls... so why not price controls too?

  42. Spiritus Mundi   2 years ago

    Cutting government funding for organizations that can surely operate privately is fine, but doing so in a way that attempts to punish politically disfavored groups is not.

    It is nice to see principles espoused so succintly in the round up. So glad ENB is gone. Keep up the good work Liz.

  43. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

    Oh, goody, the left and center-right got another forever war for them to rub themselves off to. NYT has the hilarious details:

    Some in the US military want Ukraine to pursue a "hold and build" strategy--to focus on holding the territory it has and building its ability to produce weapons over 2024...
    The goal would be to create enough of a credible threat that Russia might consider engaging in meaningful negotiations at the end of next year or in 2025.

    This is after WaPo revealed our moron ex-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, "Lipstick" Milley, jawboned the Ukrainians to conduct their spring offensive as a Desert Storm-style push through a low-lying area that happened to be a fucking minefield, and only clearing out enough of the area for small columns to pass through, turning the whole place into a damn kill zone. The Ukrainian military wanted to hit multiple points along the line, but acquiesced to General Lipstick because they didn't want to lose their arms supply.

    If you want to understand why the lines barely moved during the spring offensive--whose success multiple Pentagon sources were absolutely fucking clear was critical to pushing Russia out of the country--there you go. It's because the top military commander of the United States, who spent far more time in the classroom, being nursed up the chain of command, and sniffing politico ass than fighting on the battlefield, directed the Ukrainian army to waddle into a killbox.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

      This is a tacit admission that the offensive was a complete fucking failure, that Russia isn't anywhere near beaten and is much better at conducting defensive warfare than the US brass realized, and Ukraine's only option right now is to conduct insurgency operations in the apparent hope that the Dems and center-right Reps sweep the 2024 elections and open the money spigot.

      1. Nardz   2 years ago

        Average age of Ukrainian soldiers is now 43. There's not going to be an insurgency, at least not one by Ukrainians.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

          The center-right and left were clearly counting on Ukraine holding out long enough for their gayops to start a color revolution and get Putin out of power. Any possibility of that ended after the Wagner Group mutiny sputtered out.

          1. mad.casual   2 years ago

            IDK, not speaking against your point exactly, but the complete lack of even passive consideration for Ukrainian citizens or Russian citizens of Ukraine in the Donbas should be noted.

            Rather SNAFU that the people decrying the genocide of Hamas and calling for divesting from Israel are effectively funding the repatriation of the Russian-speaking Asov Division without regard for what any/all Russian speaking natives who would be hunted down and stabbed in the head by them might think.

            If by 'gayops' you mean engage in a pointless lesbian clusterfuck to get Putin out of power, agreed. Otherwise, nobody anywhere had or has the first fucking clue why we were or are there.

            1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

              Perhaps a kindly old German gentlemen who fought in operation Barbarossa can provide us some insight.

            2. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

              IDK, not speaking against your point exactly, but the complete lack of even passive consideration for Ukrainian citizens or Russian citizens of Ukraine in the Donbas should be noted.

              Globalists consider ordinary human beings to be no more sentient than gear cogs. They don't give a shit about them unless their deaths can be used as a cudgel against their enemies.

        2. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

          Why would it work out differently than Afghanistan?

          1. Nardz   2 years ago

            Terrain, geography, culture, opposition, investment, etc.

      2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

        But... but... Russkies stalled out on the road to Kyifff!

    2. DesigNate   2 years ago

      Isn’t Miley the morherfucker who committed treason with the Chinese?

      1. Nardz   2 years ago

        He's one of them

      2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        Um, yes.

      3. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

        Yeah, and prissed about wanting to know about "white rage."

        The hilarious part is that the very people they need to be the pipe-hitters in special warfare have no interest in signing up anymore because of perfumed princesses like him. That's why Durbin's trying to get illegal immigrants approved for enlistment.

    3. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

      When your average soldier is 43 years old, how fucking long do they expect you to hold out? Especially against a country that is ten times you population, and who the majority of their population is lower than the average age of your soldiers (nearly 58% of the population) and who has a birth rate of 9 per 1,000. There is zero way that math works out.

      1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

        Soon, if it already hasn't, each new draft class in Russia is going to be larger than the Ukrainian military. With an average age that high, it basically means the Ukrainian military can no longer replace those lost to attrition.

        1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

          The US Army was considered old in 1942, with an average age of like 25, almost 26. I don't think I've ever heard of a functioning military with an average age >40.

  44. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

    "The Treason of the Intellectuals". History Rhymes Again. (Long Read)

    https://www.thefp.com/p/niall-ferguson-treason-intellectuals-third-reich

    In 1927 the French philosopher Julien Benda published La trahison des clercs—“The Treason of the Intellectuals”—which condemned the descent of European intellectuals into extreme nationalism and racism. By that point, although Benito Mussolini had been in power in Italy for five years, Adolf Hitler was still six years away from power in Germany and 13 years away from victory over France. But already Benda could see the pernicious role that many European academics were playing in politics.

    A century later, American academia has gone in the opposite political direction—leftward instead of rightward—but has ended up in much the same place. The question is whether we—unlike the Germans—can do something about it.

    For nearly ten years, rather like Benda, I have marveled at the treason of my fellow intellectuals. I have also witnessed the willingness of trustees, donors, and alumni to tolerate the politicization of American universities by an illiberal coalition of “woke” progressives, adherents of “critical race theory,” and apologists for Islamist extremism.

    Throughout that period, friends assured me that I was exaggerating.

    Such arguments fell apart after October 7, as the response of “radical” students and professors to the Hamas atrocities against Israel revealed the realities of contemporary campus life. That hostility to Israeli policy in Gaza regularly slides into antisemitism is now impossible to deny.

    It might be thought extraordinary that the most prestigious universities in the world should have been infected so rapidly with a politics imbued with antisemitism. Yet exactly the same thing has happened before.

    A hundred years ago, in the 1920s, by far the best universities in the world were in Germany. By comparison with Heidelberg and Tübingen, Harvard and Yale were gentlemen’s clubs, where students paid more attention to football than to physics. More than a quarter of all the Nobel prizes awarded in the sciences between 1901 and 1940 were awarded to Germans; only 11 percent went to Americans.

    Lawyers and doctors, all credentialed with university degrees, were substantially overrepresented within the NSDAP, as were university students (then a far narrower section of society than today). To middle-aged lawyers, Hitler was the heir to Bismarck. For their sons, he was the Wagnerian hero Rienzi, the demagogue who unites the people of Rome.

    German academics acted as Hitler’s think tank, putting policy flesh on the bones of his racist ideology. As early as 1920, the jurist Karl Binding and the psychiatrist Alfred Hoche published their Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life, which sought to extrapolate from the annual cost of maintaining one “idiot” “the massive capital. . . being subtracted from the national product for entirely unproductive purposes.”

    A critical factor in the decline and fall of the German universities was precisely that so many senior academics were Jews. For some, Hitler’s antisemitism was therefore—not unlike woke intersectionality in our own time—a career opportunity.

    The Nazis’ antisemitism led, of course, to one of the greatest brain drains in history. Over 200 of the country’s 800 Jewish professors departed, of whom twenty were Nobel laureates. Albert Einstein had already left in 1933 in disgust at Nazi attacks on his “Jewish physics.” The exodus quickened after the pogrom known as the Night of Broken Glass in November 1938. The principal beneficiaries of the Jewish brain drain were, of course, the universities of the United States.

    Non-Jewish German academia did not just follow Hitler down the path to hell. It led the way.

    Anyone who has a naive belief in the power of higher education to instill ethical values has not studied the history of German universities in the Third Reich. A university degree, far from inoculating Germans against Nazism, made them more likely to embrace it. The fall from grace of the German universities was personified by the readiness of Martin Heidegger, the greatest German philosopher of his generation, to jump on the Nazi bandwagon, a swastika pin in his lapel. He was a member of the Nazi Party from 1933 until 1945.

    In La trahison des clercs, Julien Benda accused the intellectuals of his time of dabbling in “the racial passions, class passions, and national passions. . . owing to which men rise up against other men.” Today’s academic leaders would never recognize themselves as the heirs of those Benda condemned, insisting that they are on the left, whereas Benda’s targets were on the right. And yet, as Victor Klemperer came to understand after 1945, totalitarianism comes in two flavors, though the ingredients are the same.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

      But remember, education makes for good citizens.

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

      The fall from grace of the German universities was personified by the readiness of Martin Heidegger, the greatest German philosopher of his generation, to jump on the Nazi bandwagon, a swastika pin in his lapel. He was a member of the Nazi Party from 1933 until 1945.

      Ah yes... some of my intellectual lefty friends will wax on about Heidegger.

      This is how the left describes the "uncomfortable" link between Heidegger and Nazism.

      From The New Yorker

      It’s often said that Heidegger wandered into Nazism because, with the daft egotism of a great philosopher, he thought that the Nazis agreed with him philosophically; when he realized that they weren’t intellectuals, he pulled away. He remained a member of the Party until 1945, but was on its margins.

      So he 'wandered in', not with real purpose or belief, but sort of 'found himself' amongst 'em... then remained... but only marginally(!) until the very bitter end.

      After the war, he said privately that his participation in the movement had been “the biggest stupidity of my life”; Hannah Arendt, who carried on a love affair with Heidegger for many years, said that she thought of his Nazism as an “escapade”—a poorly thought through attempt to “ ‘intervene’ in the world of human affairs.” And yet Heidegger never truly apologized for being a Nazi; even worse, he never directly and publically addressed the reality of the Holocaust before he died, in 1976.

      At the Goethe Institute, it was still possible to take comfort in the idea that, as Berkowitz put it, Heidegger was “a Nazi in a different way than other people were Nazis.” The yearning for a higher, more intellectual form of Nazism hardly absolves Heidegger—but, if you see his Nazism as a kind of special case, it’s easier to argue that it shouldn’t eclipse his intellectual legacy.

      Behold... someone who was a no-shit Nazi shouldn't be canceled, his statues not torn down, his legacy within academia should not be judged too harshly.

      1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

        Both Marx and Hitler stated they were heavily influenced by the same German philosophical school of thought. I'm sure that's just coincidence.

        1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

          Also, remember the other day when I asked who the fuck has a favorite Nazi? I didn't expect there would be actual examples.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

            Ah, that would be out very own misconstrueman. His favorite is Göring.

            1. soldiermedic76   2 years ago

              Okay, let me rephrase. I didn't think there would be so many examples.

  45. Agammamon   2 years ago

    Yglesias thinks, because he's a 'generalist' 'reporter', that its ok for *him* to pontificate on everything but others should stay in their lane.

    But what he's really saying is since he doesn't have an area of expertise to stray out of, well, he should just shut the fuck up.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

      Isn't that what a lot of people what told Yglesias over the years, shut the fuck up? Yglesias is about as self-aware as certain commenters here.

    2. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

      I believe he's the same douche who was walking around NYC doxing parked cars for having out of date registrations and shit like that.

      An absolute soy boy hall monitor type. He's the worst

  46. Super Scary   2 years ago

    "Today, President Joe Biden will host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has traveled to the U.S. to hold out his hands for some funds"

    I am once again asking for your financial support.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

      Who the fuck does he think he is, PBS?

      1. Medulla Oblongata   2 years ago

        Is he handing out totebags?

        1. Chumby   2 years ago

          He’s on Antiques Roadshow. Biden is what he brought with him for an appraisal.

    2. Dillinger   2 years ago

      dammit put the Little Feat concert back on & I'll throw in a fiver.

  47. Dillinger   2 years ago

    >>Now, Cox says she will go out of state to get the abortion immediately.

    coulda done that last week & saved everybody the fucking trouble.

    1. JasonT20   2 years ago

      Maybe the Texas legislature could have written a law that wasn't draconian in requiring women like her to travel hundreds of miles to get medical care. That would have saved everybody even more fucking trouble.

      1. Dillinger   2 years ago

        that's why there's a New Mexico.

      2. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

        Maybe, but that's the feature of federalism, no? You certainly don't have a problem with her going to New Mexico where third-trimester abortions on demand are legal. So what's the problem?

        1. JasonT20   2 years ago

          Sure, your rights as an American depends on what state you live in. If you don't like your state's policies, move!

          1. Dillinger   2 years ago

            your rights as an American do not include murdering children.

          2. Nobartium   2 years ago

            Many an American have done exactly that, for this specific reason.

            1. JasonT20   2 years ago

              Yeah, if you don't like tax policies, land use policies, the education system, etc., sure. But would you say that is the way to go for your free speech rights? Gun ownership rights? 4th Amendment rights? Parental rights?

              I was specifically talking about basic rights, not general government policies. The 14th Amendment was supposed to fix the basic problem the Founders created when they had the Bill of Rights only apply to the federal government (by restricting Congress).

              1. Nobartium   2 years ago

                I don't know if you looked around, but yes, people moved other those as well.

                1. JasonT20   2 years ago

                  Should they have to?

                  1. Nobartium   2 years ago

                    Historically speaking, that is how people got their rights. The US and it's preceding colonies are a perfect example.

              2. DesigNate   2 years ago

                Killing another human isn’t a “basic right”. Whether or not you agree with allowing abortions.

                1. JasonT20   2 years ago

                  Except there is no other human being killed in an abortion. You can say it has human DNA, therefore it is human. You can say that well all went through that stage of development, therefore it is as human as we are. But that is still making a leap of logic and skipping steps of reasoning.

                  As a legal matter, a person comes into being when born. That is when a birth certificate is issued and a person is counted for purposes of every statistic, law, or procedural matter that asks whether a person existed. A fetus that is stillborn, even if it had a heartbeat an hour before delivery, did not become a person (unless doctors agree to fudge things to provide some kind of comfort to the couple that they wanted) for any of those purposes.

                  Historically, prior to the modern abortion political debates, harming a woman resulting in the failure of her pregnancy was not considered murder anywhere that I have ever seen. Not in Biblical times, pre-colonial America or in English common law. So why would a woman terminating her pregnancy be considered murder? Again, as far as I can tell, it wasn't. At most, it was a crime less than murder, which inherently means that killing a fetus was not morally the same as killing human person.

                  Personhood laws and amendments that the anti-abortion activists have pushed for years were trying to change that. None have succeeded as far as I know.

                  So if you want to declare that abortion is the same as killing a baby, child, or adult human being, you have a lot of work to do to make that argument hold up.

                  1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                    "As a legal matter, a person comes into being when born. That is when a birth certificate is issued and a person is counted for purposes of every statistic, law, or procedural matter that asks whether a person existed."

                    Oh my God! When has a legal definition ever comported with reality. At the very least you could say when a fetus can survive outside the womb, but you didn't even do that.
                    And don't forget that your whole "legal persons" argument was the same ideology used to deny human rights to slaves and women.

                    "You can say it has human DNA, therefore it is human. You can say that well all went through that stage of development, therefore it is as human as we are. But that is still making a leap of logic and skipping steps of reasoning."

                    Such as?...

                    Tell us about the magical birth canal fairy that confers humanity on a clump of cells, so it doesn't still count as a clump of cells when it's 80 years old.

                    The fact of the matter is that a individual human organism becomes an individual human organism when the sperm and egg cells fuse and a blastocyst is formed. You can dance around with all sorts of legal technicalities but the biological reality stands.

                    1. DesigNate   2 years ago

                      The great thing is I’m perfectly willing to compromise and allow it up to 16-20 weeks as a matter of pragmatism (still think it’s morally wrong, but I also know how ridiculous the government would get if it was fully outlawed), but the abortion uber alles morons can’t help themselves but to deny science and reality in order to make their worldview seem ok.

                  2. Agammamon   2 years ago

                    OK Jason - when does it become a human, worthy of having rights?

              3. Agammamon   2 years ago

                In my state, I would actually have *more* protected rights if we didn't have to bow down to the federal government.

                That *your* state is a controlling shithole and you need the feds to save you is something you should take up with your state government.

          3. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

            How does begging the question fall within this framework?

          4. Medulla Oblongata   2 years ago

            Exactly. New York State tends to stomp all over folks 2nd Amendment rights, among others. It's one reason people leave. Unlike getting an abortion, going to another state to buy a gun doesn't float in NYS.

      3. Nobartium   2 years ago

        You mean like how Canadians come here for healthcare?

        I'm not seeing this as an issue.

      4. Agammamon   2 years ago

        So Draconian - its literally a max of 1 day drive to get to the nearest abortion provider. Most places in Texas can be across the border, abort, and back home in the same day.

    2. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

      ^this

      She intentionally made it a court case. I'm not saying the Texas law is good or bad, but clearly she chose to push this into a public court case rather than taking a two hour drive to solve her problem.

      1. JasonT20   2 years ago

        Yeah, because people should never stand up to government overreach when they can just go out of their way to deal with it instead.

        1. Foo_dd   2 years ago

          ding ding ding!!!! yeah, the argument basically is that you should no oppose unjust laws because they have not closed all the workarounds. (yet.)

      2. DesigNate   2 years ago

        TBF, Texas is fucking huge so depending on where she lives, it could be a full day to get to a state that would allow it.

        1. Agammamon   2 years ago

          Its a 15 hour drive across Texas. You're talking 8 hours, tops, from the middle to the edge.

          You could leave mid-day, be in a hotel in your abortionist's city that evening, have a nice dinner, get your abortion the next morning, and be home before sunset.

    3. TJJ2000   2 years ago

      Making people escape nosy-outsiders tyrannical delusional-minds is so cool.... /s

      1. Dillinger   2 years ago

        a word exists for filing a lawsuit you know you will not win.

    4. Foo_dd   2 years ago

      yeah.... we should totally allow unjust laws to stand as long as you, personally, have the means to get around them.

  48. JasonT20   2 years ago

    "Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment," wrote the high court. "But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a 'life-threatening physical condition' or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires."

    So how much additional risk is enough? 1 woman dies from complications of pregnancy for every 4000 live births in the U.S. A figure which, by the way, was more like 1 in 6000 when I first started looking it up several years ago. And why no consideration for the fact that around 95% of the cases of trisomy 18 result in miscarriage or stillbirth, and of the remaining 5%, the median lifespan is 4 days with less than 10% living a year? And why no consideration for the other health risks to the woman, including to her ability to have more children in the future? (Which she wanted, just like she had wanted to be pregnant for her third child here.)

    This is all so ridiculous. Ken Paxton, Texas AG, sent letters threatening her providers with legal action if they performed the abortion while waiting to hear from the courts. (Doctors performing abortions in violation of Texas law can end up in jail for up to a life sentence.) These people aren't pro-life. They are just so reflexively anti-abortion or politically motivated that they just don't care about the women facing situations like this. They want her to risk her health, face increased risk of potentially life threatening complications (the legal exemptions for saving her life are probably being interpreted as needing to be really specific and/or immediate to apply), and her future ability to have more children all so she can mostly likely give birth to a dead fetus or watch it die within days of being born. They don't even seem to care about the suffering of any child that would survive more than a few days with that condition. This law and the Texas GOP more generally isn't exactly jumping all over themselves to help provide support for the intense medical care such a rare, disabled, surviving child would need. There's no compassion in this. There's no moral belief behind it.

    1. Dillinger   2 years ago

      >>So how much additional risk is enough?

      the child is the one that's going to die.

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        what child?

        1. Dillinger   2 years ago

          the one doctors are saying is going to die.

          1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

            Like dear old 130-year old grandpa who's life is literally nothing but a life-support machine having a 0% chance of inherently having any life at all outside of just other machines?

            1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

              No, like a viable human with their whole life ahead of them, you sociopath.

              1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

                Which you don't want to actually see happen (fetal ejection) by any other means than BS propaganda pumping used to force others to reproduce at the end of a gov-'gun'.

                1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

                  Willrape be your next 'gun' packing agenda in getting viable humans with their whole life ahead of them into action?

    2. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

      They don’t even seem to care about the suffering of any child that would survive more than a few days with that condition. This law and the Texas GOP more generally isn’t exactly jumping all over themselves to help provide support for the intense medical care such a rare, disabled, surviving child would need.
      As if you people are pro-choice.

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Exactly. Pro-Life was founded by the Democrat Party and it shows. Why the heck Republicans are carrying water for Democrats is beyond me.

    3. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

      Now do oregon where it's legal to kill the baby the day before the due date.

      1. JasonT20   2 years ago

        Is it? And if so, why would anyone want to? The point of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Delivering a child ends the pregnancy. At that point, if there is some dramatic need or desire to not be pregnant right now, they could induce labor and that would undoubtedly be safer than anything that would kill the fetus. Thus, would any doctor actually kill a fetus they could deliver alive perfectly safely for both it and the woman?

        Making that illegal is pointless. The real concern you seem to have is that you don't want any abortions at all, and so you invent some hypothetical sadistic women and doctors ready to kill a baby one day before a due date (which is an estimate, not some actual deadline anyway) as a straw man that is easier to knock down than to argue what you really want.

        1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

          you don’t want any abortions at all

          I said nothing on the matter.

          1. JasonT20   2 years ago

            I see, you're just making a straw man argument that is identical to those of supporters of abortion bans because you're just asking question or pointing out hypocrisy or whatever.

    4. Agammamon   2 years ago

      There is no additional risk here though.

      There is just 'this is pointless because the baby's likely to die before birth so I don't want to complete the pregnancy'.

      And I don't disagree with that reasoning - but its not enough to justify overturning that ban when she can just go across the border.

  49. Dillinger   2 years ago

    what is a generalist political pundit?

    1. Ska   2 years ago

      Just another asshole.

  50. Dillinger   2 years ago

    >>Harvard President Claudine Gay has come under fire for repeatedly plagiarizing

    Brandon skated though. got a whole 35 years more out of the gig. amazing.

  51. Dillinger   2 years ago

    >>I can see why cruise lines are cracking down on pot.

    last time I was on a cruise was 1990 but it was growing alongside a golf course we played in Aruba how are you supposed to not?

  52. Dillinger   2 years ago

    >>Columbia students are holding a tuition strike

    we can replace them!

  53. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

    Just say no (to price controls):

    The surest sign you are dealing with an economic ignoramus is if they support any kind of price controls.

    1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

      What would be wrong with setting prices for medical procedures, with the punishment being death if even a single penny more is charged?

      1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

        sarcasm i assume

  54. Nardz   2 years ago

    https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1734611887931981925?t=O0GOXLShCDJc1Jg5N2MDxw&s=19

    At first you might be surprised that gay men managed to dehumanize and commodify women to an incredible degree with the enthusiastic support of feminists until you realize that is all that feminism has ever done

    [Cartoon]

    1. Mike Parsons   2 years ago

      Feminism starts out asking for completely equal treatment of women and that we dont reduce them to sexual objects, then basically spends all of the rest of its time asking for special/different treatment than men get and reducing almost every interaction they have to some sort of rape sexual power metaphor.

      Between them coming full circle basically arguing against their own initial premise, they also have really stepped in it opening the door to the trannies and dealing with their shit storm they started.

      I guess its just popping the popcorn for the boring cis white males then

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

        As a marxist-inspired ideology, post-modern feminism has always treated every interaction as a transactional one.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

          Incidentally, it's also a big reason why so many men are opting out of the marriage racket, and why a lot of middle-aged women are finding it damn near impossible to find someone to settle down with after racking up a body count in their 20s. If a marriage is simply about your wallet rather than one of the heart, you're better off maintaining your own independence rather than risk your own mental and emotional well-being to someone who doesn't see you as anything other than an ATM machine and cheerleader.

      2. mad.casual   2 years ago

        [Frank Drebin voice]Like a woman complaining about dishonest men putting concealer on her face in the morning... [/Frank Drebin voice] Feminism starts out asking for completely equal treatment of women and that we dont reduce them to sexual objects.

        They didn't want equal treatment, they wanted to stop being the "old ball and chain" or "a side piece" and, instead, be referred to by name by everyone from the 'the guy' at the coffee place who makes their coffee to 'the guy' who does the landscaping to 'the guy' works the security desk at the office or pretty much any guy who just serves whatever irrelevant purpose. Except for 'the guy' at the strip club, with the abs, he can call her whatever he likes.

  55. TJJ2000   2 years ago

    At 20-weeks this doesn't even count as a Euthanasia case.

    Course the [WE] reproduction-slave gangsters thinks any women fertilized who doesn't want to reproduce is a murderer (imaginary closed-case crimes). F'En psychopaths that are plum full of over-lording power-mad judgements about others personal life's and situations they're so bigoted with BS propaganda they won't even consider anything else within reason.

  56. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

    To be fair, stoned boomers would pose a threat to the economics of the all-you-can-eat buffets on cruise ships, so I can see why cruise lines are cracking down on pot.

    Do cruise ships allow smoking?

  57. Mike Parsons   2 years ago

    New netflix movie, that Obamas consulted on.

    "if the world falls apart, trust should not be dolled out easily to anyone, especially white people"

    Just a daily reminder that racism against whites is the only acceptable and widely applauded racism allowed. Oh and also Obama might be the single worst thing that has ever happened for race relations in this country.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

      Fucking LOL, is that actually a direct quote?

      Glad to know if Skynet gains self-awareness, that ethnostates will be the order of the day instead of John Connor leading a combined resistance.

      And I'd argue it's not Obama that was the worst thing, but the neomarxist politically correct ideology in academia from the 80s-90s that created the social environment in the 2000s for him to gain legitimacy.

      1. Dillinger   2 years ago

        mandatory viewings of PCU necessary.

        1. R Mac   2 years ago

          ^

        2. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 years ago

          I went to college during the PCU era, and that movie was a fucking documentary. Too bad the real hero of the film, Rand McPherson, was a walking strawman.

  58. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

    It's likely that, if such a bill is drafted up at all, Biden will have to acquiesce to restrictions on asylum seekers as a condition for doling out more aid to Ukraine.

    What should be happening here is everyone should agree to disagree on this whole thing, and place tighter border restrictions AND refuse to fund Ukraine. If the progressives blew past $15 Now! and went all the way to $20, then why is such an agreement unrealistic?

  59. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

    Well now, this is interesting. Who the hell would pay $3,000 for a picture of a fucking pizza?

    https://twitter.com/LizCrokin/status/1734338745384530224

    There are a lot of suspicious listings on Etsy that have people wondering if child porn or children are for sale for sex on the e-commerce site.

    For example, there is a “picture of a pizza” listed for sale for $9,000 and the listing reads “delivery instant download.” In that photo, there is also a cell phone strategically placed in the pizza box. (See below along with other suspicious listings.)

    It’s been well-established that pizza is a pedophile code — via the FBI, DOJ, other law enforcement documents and mainstream media articles such as the Wall Street Journal report from earlier this year — which makes these listings extra alarming. Also, authorities have been able to bust many pedophiles because they used pizza as a pedophile code in an attempt to arrange to rape a child or to exchange child porn.

    1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

      creepy as fuck

    2. Chumby   2 years ago

      Hotel hallway pizza.

    3. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

      Buttface 2, can you confirm?

  60. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

    "We refuse to allow our tuition dollars to fund apartheid." blah blah blahbidee blah blah...

    The correct response is "This is our school and this is who's running it. If you don't like it you can go somewhere else."

  61. jafnhar   2 years ago

    "...some funds for his country's war against Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion."
    That's a lot of words to say "...some funds for his country's defense against invasion."
    Is this just bad writing and copy editing or is there some attempt to obscure that yes, Ukraine is still defending itself and Russia is the aggressor?

  62. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

    Ugh, no:

    Uh, did Liz just take Yglesias to task? Where do I donate, Reason?

    1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

      She's so wonderful... seriously.

  63. TJJ2000   2 years ago

    2040 Pro-Life in a nutshell....

    OMG! My wife just decided without my all-holy judgement to KILL our BABY!!!! She just flushed it down the toiled with her tampon like the baby killer she is! I could've saved it with my all-holy body intervention but she just said NO.... WTF!!! Murderer... /s

    How BS Propaganda leads sheeple minds into power-mad delusions.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

      And your girlfriend is coming after you for child support...

      It's choices all the way down...

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Since the 3rd party Forced-Reproduction gang is the crowd making that choice perhaps they should be the crowd paying for it.

        Are you really after Justice or just forcing your own choices/beliefs onto other people and expecting them to pay for YOUR choices?

        1. Agammamon   2 years ago

          You can just not have sex.

          1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

            (2) YOUR demanded personal-life choices for others doesn't cancel each other out.

            1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

              ...but it sure does demonstrate the religious roots of it all.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Chris Arnade on China, Wall Street, and Walking Around the World

Tyler Cowen | From the August/September 2025 issue

Trump Is Openly Using the Presidency To Enrich the Trump Brand

Matt Welch | 8.1.2025 5:00 PM

A Cop Lied, Fabricated a Sex-Trafficking Case, and Jailed a Teen on False Charges—and Still Can't Be Sued

Billy Binion | 8.1.2025 4:49 PM

Shattering Norms: Federal Immigration Agents Aren't Afraid to Smash Your Car Window

Autumn Billings | 8.1.2025 4:01 PM

Hiking Tariffs on Canada, Trump Demands 'Adequate Steps' To Achieve an Impossible Drug War Goal

Jacob Sullum | 8.1.2025 3:20 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!