Biden's Florida Test
Plus: IDF scandal, Latin America's "small penis club," Havana syndrome, and more...

Biden may sink abortion in Florida: Each year, one in 12 American abortions are performed in Florida. Up until 2022, the state had allowed abortion up to 24 weeks, making the red state far more abortion-permissive than almost every European country (something many people don't realize). All the way back in 1989, the Florida Supreme Court "ruled unanimously that Florida's constitution—which guarantees a right to privacy—protected access to abortion," per The 19th.
But then conservative Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis started running for president, and so in 2022, he set his sights on rolling back abortion, creating a 15-week ban, which allows all first trimester and some second trimester abortions. Then, "the Republican-run legislature passed a new law prohibiting most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, which would only take effect if the court overturns Florida's abortion rights protection," per The 19th. "Enforcement would kick in 30 days after a ruling."
Just this week, the Florida Supreme Court cleared the way for the six-week ban to go into effect, but also (in a separate ruling) permitted the issue to go to voters as a ballot initiative this November, if activist groups can collect enough signatures to qualify.
"The campaign to put abortion access on the ballot, which is led by the Floridians Protecting Freedom committee, reached the state's threshold of more than 891,000 state-certified voter signatures at the end of last year," reports Politico. Now "the campaign has essentially six months to drum up support—60 percent of voters must approve it for it to pass. They have to do it in a state where Republicans out-registered Democrats by almost 900,000 voters."
In other words, if they want permissive abortion laws, Democrats will have to convince a substantial number of Republicans to side with them. But President Joe Biden, who's vying for reelection, keeps trying to intervene and campaign in Florida—as part of his new abortion-forward approach, for which he keeps deploying Vice President Kamala Harris—which Florida organizers fear will turn off Republicans.
"We are focused on making clear to voters the decision at stake: Should the government get to make these decisions for doctors and women, or not?" campaign organizer Lauren Brenzel told Politico. "Floridians of every party, including Republicans, do not want politicians making these decisions for them."
Conflicting narratives: An Israeli military strike hit and killed seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers in Gaza on Monday night.
"I want to be very clear—the strike was not carried out with the intention of harming WCK aid workers. It was a mistake that followed a misidentification—at night during a war in very complex conditions," said IDF spokesman Herzi Halevi. "It shouldn't have happened."
But the organization said that the group had been traveling in a "deconflicted zone" in WCK-branded vehicles, having coordinated route with the Israeli military in advance, which casts doubt on the IDF version of events.
Now, World Central Kitchen—the nonprofit started by chef José Andrés in 2010 following the earthquake in Haiti—is pulling out of Gaza. Andrés had been "working with the United Arab Emirates to land amphibious crafts, loaded with food, on the shores of Gaza," per Axios.
Scenes from New York: Incredible: "The [Metropolitan Transportation Authority] has quietly demanded roughly $750,000 a year from the organization that runs the marathon, to make up for the toll revenue that the authority loses when it closes the Verrazzano—North America's longest suspension bridge—to vehicular traffic," according to The New York Times. The two organizations are now in a standoff, and if the Marathon won't pay the toll fees (and/or changes the route as a result), it will no longer be a five-borough race, as Staten Island would be excluded.
QUICK HITS
- Good: "The White House has missed its deadline to publish a rule banning menthol cigarettes, raising ire among public health advocates that the policy will be indefinitely delayed by election year politics," reports The Hill.
- The insults of Latin America's leaders (including plenty of zingers from Argentine President Javier Milei), from The Wall Street Journal: "small-penises club"; "murderous terrorist"; and instructions to "shove your opinions wherever you can fit them."
- A terrible earthquake, 7.4 magnitude, hit Taiwan early Wednesday morning local time. At least nine reported dead so far, but many hundreds injured.
- I too have Havana syndrome:
Why are so many random government agents claiming to be suffering from Havana Syndrome?
The devil is in the details…
The HAVANA Act, which passed in 2021, gives an untaxed lump-sum payment of one years' salary to government employees with a "neurological injury."
— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.today (@JordanSchachtel) April 1, 2024
- Nobody knows what things cost:
A few months ago a friend of mine said that though he supports Ukraine in theory he would rather us have spent that money to build a national high speed rail network. And, like, uh none of these people have any idea what anything costs.
— Ben Dreyfuss (@bendreyfuss) April 2, 2024
- I could've told you this without needing to do any research:
"Living with parents reduces birth rates" is pretty close to a cross-cultural universal. pic.twitter.com/C4aNEoC9L6
— Lyman Stone 石來民 ???????????? (@lymanstoneky) April 2, 2024
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.
Please
to post comments
The White House has missed its deadline to publish a rule banning menthol cigarettes...
What a drag.
Only a white supremacist patriarchy would ban menthol cigarettes. Really.
It is amazing how much the reasoning behind the push to ban menthol cigarettes parallels that for tougher sentencing for crack cochise, which Biden also supported back in the day, but is now considered intolerably racist by the Left.
How does spellchecker automatically substitute "cochise" for "cocaine"?
Agree. Should be meth.
RACIST!!
do not say Cochise to this dog!
Squirrels!
I'm just trying to imagine what crack Cochise look, taste, or feel like.
Well duh. Smoking menthol kills how many African Americans each year? Sounds like a perfect plan to increase permanent Democrat votes as quickly as possible.
Don't tell them how many "african" americans are killed by abortion each year.
Thank God for that. Imagine what this country would have gone through if all the terminated Black pregnancies after Roe had resulted in Black adolescents and young adults. We wouldn't have been able to build enough prisons.
Any news on them banning Black & Milds too?
The insults of Latin America's leaders (including plenty of zingers from Argentine President Javier Milei)...
They don't call each other white supremacists?
When did they become zingers and not hate speech? See Trumps insults.
They're zingers *because* they're not from Trump. Trump says it, it's hate speech. It's (D)ifferent.
Abortion truly is the most important thing in American politics.
Even cultish.
Every progressive knows the ultimate standard of liberty is the unconditional and absolute freedom to suck an unwanted baby out of a woman's pussy. All that other jazz about speech and privacy and guns and shit is just a suggestion.
But don't ask for choice about vaccines and masks, let alone recreational drugs. Only "birthing persons" control their own body, and only for the purpose of killing their baby.
The HAVANA Act, which passed in 2021, gives an untaxed lump-sum payment of one years' salary to government employees with a "neurological injury."
Who says nothing profitable comes from Communism.
I just don't know how they can tell which government workers are mental.
All of them?
Probably still too low. Many have multiple mental issues so should be double counted.
"I want a vote for each of my personalities."
A few months ago a friend of mine said that though he supports Ukraine in theory he would rather us have spent that money to build a national high speed rail network.
Across Ukraine?
Well, certainly not in his neighborhood.
Joe's building one across the Indian Ocean.
Is that the same one he took to ride to Iwo Jima when he fought in WWII?
And sadly watch his son die beside him?
I'm really surprised Trump didn't kill Beau with Covid.
Still seven months until the election.
Didn’t Biden single handedly beat the British in the War of 1812?
A few years ago, when AOC was first elected and was pushing the 'Green New Deal' and banning domestic air travel in favor of high speed rail, I calculated just how much rail we would need to lay down for the amount of new track that system would require.
It was somewhere between 7 - 10 years supply worth of the entirety of US steel production for all purposes. We would have to divert all steel to this one project for the better part of a decade.
We really need to rid morons like her from government. She really is a stupid little girl.
Living with parents reduces birth rates...
They want grandchildren just not ones they can't send away back to the parents after a short visit.
When I was in high skool living with my dad, when he got home from work he would also open front door loudly and announce "I am home!" because he knew me and my gf might be having sex and he didn't want to walk in on us. There were also a few times on the weekends when I asked him to stay out on his bike ride for another hour or two so she and I could get some in. He was cool with it.
He must've really wanted grandkids.
There were also a few times on the weekends when I asked him to stay out on his bike ride for another hour or two so she and I could get some in. He was cool with it.
LOL, seriously? My response to that would have been, "You don't tell me how to run my household, boy, no matter how much you need to get jerked off."
In all fairness he really likes riding his bike.
I don’t blame him. I like riding mine more than I thought I ever would. It’s also the best thing I’ve ever done for my core muscles.
Should the government get to make these decisions for doctors and women, or not?
I saw a political ad claiming "Laws about women should be made by women."
So, "Laws about children should be made by children." "Laws about animals should be made by animals." "Laws about doctors should be made by doctors." "Laws about government should be made by government."
Self defense laws should only be made by law-abiding citizens. Seems like crime will decrease significantly if so.
No, crime is committed by criminals so they should be making the laws governing crime...
*looks around at our politicians*
...oh right, nevermind.
"Laws about the unborn..."
I should've posted my comment about the Soho Forum debates about post-menopausal women making reproductive decisions for trans-women and birthing persons here.
Laws applying to fetuses need to made by fetuses.
Laws about guns should be made by Gun-Owners ...
Kinda like THAT one ...
That really is the bottom-line isn't it.
"Laws about *imaginary* children should be made by *imaginary* children."
...and since *imaginary* children don't exist; I guess it has to be a [WE] mob of nosy dictators left to dictate the Woman and Doctor.
Imagining children doesn't make the children cease from existing altogether. They're still real beings.
If the subject at hand existed it wouldn't need to be imagined into something it's obviously not.
...it will no longer be a five-borough race, as Staten Island would be excluded.
Turn it into a triathlon. How wide can the span be? It's called the Narrows.
*Real* athletes do the swimming part *last*.
I was gambling in Havana, I took a little risk.
Lawyers, guns and money, Uncle Sam get me out of this.
A "deconflicted zone"
Maybe they meant Gaza, Nigeria?
East Palestine perhaps?
East Palestine is populated mostly by unmarried women on welfare and their children, and the elderly. Not many military aged men.
Those elderly guys must be getting a lot of action to knock up all those young women.
The young men leave after they knock up the young women. You see this pattern in many impoverished small towns.
Who would have guessed people working in a middle of a war could get killed?
Not the aid workers Biden drone striked after his *check notes* #sloppypullout.
I read the part about "they were moving in a demilitarized zone in clearly marked vehicles..." and guffawed when the thought "Remember when we blew up a hospital staffed by doctors without borders?" popped into my head.
We blow up a (stationary) hospital? "It was an accident." suffices. Hamas blows up their own (stationary) hospital? "It was an accident." suffices. Some (non-stationary) vehicles get blown up by the IDF in the middle of the night? The IDF says, "It was dark, there was a lot of movement, things were happening, and mistakes were made. It was an accident." and the response is "We need something other than just your word that it wasn't on purpose."
An Israeli military strike hit and killed seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers in Gaza on Monday night.
Those poor women.
Former special forces/mercenaries for some reason.
Just think how many sandwiches were lost in this catastrophe.
Encouraging Poll: Most Americans don't favor Trump's presidential immunity claims.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/03/politics/poll-supreme-court-trump-immunity/index.html
But 62% of respondents opposed granting “former presidents” immunity, compared with 20% who supported that idea.
What I found most interesting though was what the pollsters slyly did:
So there is a definite share of Republicans out there, who just want special rules for "their guy".
Interesting.
What did they find out about Democrats and their responses?
As if chemtard radical deathfat would report on something that shaded his lefty allies.
Jeff has the audacity to say he is for free speech while supporting government resources being used to censor people. He is an unserious person.
Jeff isn't smart enough to understand the concept of presidential immunity, goes out waving his hands because of a CNN poll, an declares Republicans want Donnie to be special. We should definitely make all law and policy based on a CNN poll, especcially nuanced and complicated stuff.
Don't tell the useful idiots presidents have enjoyed presidential immunity for over 200 years.
Prosecutors and judges enjoy absolute immunity for official acts.
Not really. They enjoy civil immunity for official acts. But for example, if a judge takes a bribe and rules in favor of a party (an official act) they can still be prosecuted for the bribe. Taking bribes isn't an official act of course...but the fact they can be prosecuted also shows they don't enjoy absolute immunity. Unless you don't know what 'absolute' means. Which Trump's team also doesn't because they acknowledge a president can be prosecuted if impeached and convicted; which means they don't enjoy 'absolute' immunity from criminal prosecution.
They also argued impeachment without conviction attaches 'jeopardy' so a president who is impeached while in office but not convicted can't be criminally charged because it would violate double jeopardy. Even though impeachment has long been understood to NOT impose criminal jeopardy or consequences.
I don't see much talk about that dumb argument any more.
Is your assertion as an "attorney" that the executive branch has no oversight at all in elections?
He’s probably as much an attorney as ‘Bo Cara, Esq.’.
He said absolute immunity absolute FOR OFFICIAL ACTS.
You would think an actual attorney would understand that part.
Sadly, we can not expect that anymore.
Not really. They enjoy civil immunity for official acts. But for example, if a judge takes a bribe and rules in favor of a party (an official act) they can still be prosecuted for the bribe. Taking bribes isn’t an official act of course…but the fact they can be prosecuted also shows they don’t enjoy absolute immunity. Unless you don’t know what ‘absolute’ means. Which Trump’s team also doesn’t because they acknowledge a president can be prosecuted if impeached and convicted; which means they don’t enjoy ‘absolute’ immunity from criminal prosecution.
Bribery is not an official act.
They support jailing their opponents. These polls have been given to Jeffrey.
Support for immunity* changed from 9 to 4 when Trump name included.
*for Democrats (edit)
Not surprising that there's a bunch of tribalistic Democrats who are totally on board with "it's okay if my guy does it / treat the other guy worse than he deserves" just like the tribalistic Republicans.
Biden's been granted immunity due to his dementia.
The difference, the poll’s director said, appeared to be due largely to Republicans who generally oppose immunity for “former presidents” but who were more willing to support such protections for Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.
Be interesting to see what those same people say about giving immunity to Biden. My guess is that support would plummet to single digits or zero.
Still worried about what might happen while applauding lawfare now. Good work buddy.
The funny thing is Jeff and you support the use of novel criminal construction while complaining about others against such use of the law. Because youre both fascist.
But please continue to state you are against every other government abuse. Just not against your enemies.
100000+ So well said.
>>So there is a definite share of Republicans out there, who just want special rules for “their guy”.
skill at reading studies completely backwards is astounding.
It's annoying that the actual questions asked aren't clearly stated in stories about polls. The specific wording makes all the difference in many cases. Were they asking about immunity unqualified? Or something more specific about the claims Trump's lawyers are actually making?
Did they ask what instances of immunity they wouldn’t support? I think that would be a lot more revealing.
Edit: should have finished scrolling since Zeb said the same thing.
First he said mean things about the Koch Bros and now this,
RFK Jr.: Biden ‘Absolutely’ A ‘Much Worse Threat To Democracy’ Than Trump
https://www.dailywire.com/news/rfk-jr-biden-absolutely-a-much-worse-threat-to-democracy-than-trump
“I can make the argument that President Biden is a much worse threat to democracy,” Kennedy said. “And the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent. I can say that because I just won a case in the federal Court of Appeals and now before the Supreme Court that shows that he started censoring not just me — 37 hours after he took the oath of office, he was censoring me.”
“No president in the country has ever done that,” he continued. “The greatest threat to democracy is not somebody who questions election returns, but a president of the United States who uses the power of his office to force the social media companies, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter to open a portal and give access to that portal to the FBI, to the CIA, to the IRS, to CISA, to NIH to censor his political critics.”
“And the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.
Even if we accept RFK's claims of censorship at face value, Biden wouldn't be the first. Check out this guy:
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/abraham-lincoln/
LOL, this is like the "Reagan did this" nonsense that lefties like to indulge in when the right decides not to adhere to the culture war gentlemen's agreement.
“In other wartime actions that affected freedom of expression”
Go fuck your hat, Jeff. Are you claiming Biden is fighting a Civil War against Republicans and that legitimizes his fascist actions?
Hey, that’s his guy!
Funny how he gets into face-fanning mode over "It's okay when we do it" doesn't go in the direction he wants.
Globalists are always at war with individuals.
Are you constructing a strawman argument to stuff in my mouth? Why yes you are!
Why don't you show us all where I said anything about Biden's censorship actions being legitimate. I didn't.
The point is to show that RFK isn't the first-ever victim that he claims to be.
Pretty sure you don't need help stuffing things in your mouth. Maybe you can talk him into swatting them away before you gobble them up.
"Are you constructing a strawman argument to stuff in my mouth? Why yes you are!"
THE FUCK I AM, NAZI.
You clearly used wartimes measures enacted by Lincoln for the American Civil War, to justify what the Biden Junta was doing. Fascist fuck.
No I "clearly" didn't. All of the supposed justification crap is entirely in your head.
So wait, when anyone else here points out something that happened in the past it’s whataboutism and justification for the current action, but when you do it, it’s not?
Look.
Was Biden the "first president in history" to either "censor political speech" or to "censor his opponent"? Yes or no?
Haha. There’s that selectively nuanced defeatist we’ve all come to know and mock.
Outside of a war measures act? Ab-so-fucking-lutely.
It's not like Biden has enacted emergency legislation with martial law provisos and indemnities like FDR and Lincoln.
No, without any legal justification he's plowed ahead anyway. Fuck permission. That's unprecedented.
Outside of a war measures act? Ab-so-fucking-lutely.
Did RFK Jr. say that Biden was the first president to censor political speech outside of a war measures act? Yes or no?
Oh and by the way, sarc, you should take note of this, since you claimed ML argues in good faith.
I pointed out that Biden was not the first to engage in censorship. And ML twisted that comment into “so you are justifying Biden’s censorship by claiming he’s fighting a civil war??????” Which is a total lie. It is bad faith and it is wrong.
And the intent, IMO, is obvious: he wants to try to bait me into defending Biden's censorship. Which I won't do because it's wrong. But that is ML's MO.
Nobody cares if he was first or not.
RFK Jr. does.
“And the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.
RFK jr. is a nobody.
" to censor his opponent"
Would seem to be the operative wording. Not sure how Lincoln's general wartime censorship actions reached that particular level. Did Lincoln's censorship directly and specifically target George B. McClellan? Were McClellan's speeches not allowed to be printed in newspapers? Was McClellan singled out for prosecution of made-up charges? Was McClellan spied upon by Lincoln's spies, using court orders to inject themselves into McClellan's campaign?
I was looking more at the “censor political speech” phrase. To my knowledge, Lincoln did not directly censor McClellan.
So do you now concede that Biden is the first to do it to his opponent?
If I were to concede “opponent” is the same as “candidate”, then yes. However, Lincoln absolutely did censor his political “opponents” in the form of Democratic Senators. But I will concede in good faith that probably what RFK Jr. meant from that statement is “candidate” and not necessarily just any “opponent” per se.
Well let me take that back. Wilson threw Eugene Debs in jail in 1918 over protected speech, and Debs was a candidate for president in 1912. So I would say that is pretty close.
Willson didn't run in 1920, so Debs wasn't really Willson's opponent. And it's certainly not clear that Debs was imprisoned BECAUSE he was Wilson's presumed opponent (had Willson actually run for a 3rd term) but more like the wartime censorship "his speech denouncing American participation in World War I led to his second arrest in 1918. He was convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918 and sentenced to a 10-year term. President Warren G. Harding (R) commuted his sentence in December 1921."
But Debs may have been among the first presidential candidate to run a campaign from prison.
Also, Harding ran his campaign as a "return to normalcy".
And it’s certainly not clear that Debs was imprisoned BECAUSE he was Wilson’s presumed opponent
Well, if you want to play that game, it is not clear that Biden censored RFK Jr. way back in 2021 BECAUSE he was Biden's "presumed" opponent.
Regardless, if you want to play the "who was worse" game between Wilson and Biden, I think Wilson wins hands down.
I said that as long as I've been making an effort to not use terms like Trump cultist and treat him like an individual, that he hasn't been a complete tool. Mostly.
Jeff is lying to you. For some reason he thinks nobody can read his previous posts.
Look at the fact he really did invoke Lincoln’s enactment of wartime measures as justification of Biden’s actions against Republicans:
Jeff – “Even if we accept RFK’s claims of censorship at face value, Biden wouldn’t be the first. Check out this guy:
In other wartime actions that affected freedom of expression, Lincoln seized the telegraph lines and issued an order prohibiting the printing of war news about military movements without approval.”
That’s pretty black & white, and yet when Jeff realized it didn’t sound good, he pivoted on a dime, and said I was lying for pointing it out.
Everyone here doesn’t call him Lying Jeffy without reason.
Look at the fact he really did invoke Lincoln’s enactment of wartime measures as justification of Biden’s actions against Republicans
He’s not justifying what Biden did. He’s not using the Trump Defense of “It’s ok because someone else did it first.” He’s just saying that it’s not unprecedented. And I’m saying that contextually his argument is dumb. Not only because Lincoln did what he did while we were at war, but also because historians don't look kindly on his suspension of habeas corpus and all that.
“Trump Defense of “It’s ok because someone else did it first.”
Here again you post your daily lie. If you keep saying it enough, it will eventually become true?
Hey sarc, you fascist fuck. Consistent application and blind application of the law is a fundamental aspect of a legal system. Libertarians do not support subjective uses of the law. The fact you continue to misconstrue this shows your fascist tendencies.
"He’s just saying that it’s not unprecedented."
But it is unprecedented in peacetime.
And that is the point; by telling us that it isn't unprecedented Jeff is clearly comparing Biden's position to Lincoln's during a war.
Whether it was Adams, Lincoln, or FDR they did what they did in times of conflict. Biden did not, rather the legitimate political opposition.
No, I am disproving RFK Jr. statement as a lie. It's you who decided to bring up the "censorship justification" arguments in peacetime or wartime. You're stuffing a different argument in my mouth than the one I made.
You're wrong, you know you're wrong, but you refuse to admit it and will instead double down ad infinitum.
You deceitful lying fuck. Who do you think you're tricking? Everyone can read exactly what you wrote.
“Even if we accept RFK’s claims of censorship at face value, Biden wouldn’t be the first. Check out this guy:
In other wartime actions that affected freedom of expression, Lincoln seized the telegraph lines and issued an order prohibiting the printing of war news about military movements without approval.”
That's right. Biden isn't the first president to censor people. Lincoln did it, Adams did it, FDR did it, other presidents did it. RFK Jr. is wrong in his claim that "President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech". That claim is false. I said absolutely nothing about whether any of that censorship is justified or not. That was entirely you trying to stuff words into my mouth.
And here's where the fat fucking Nazi is moving the goalposts while pretending I've put words in his mouth. JFK Jr. didn't say "Biden is the first president to censor people".
He said: "President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent."
Notice how I'm always verbatim quoting Jeffy to back up my assertions, but he never quotes me. Deceitful fuck.
Oh my fucking lord. I have been quoting you generally throughout this entire discussion. Can you stop it with the lies for once?
You're right, RFK Jr. didn't say verbatim “Biden is the first president to censor people”. That's why I didn't put it in quotes and attribute it to him as a quote. That was you being dishonest.
If I wanted to be a picky nitpicker, I would also point out that the speaker wasn't JFK Jr. (who is dead), as you claimed, but RFK Jr. I might laugh and you and mock you for OBVIOUSLY LYING about who the speaker is. But I won't do that, because I realize that was just a typo, not an intentional lie.
What RFK Jr. actually said:
“President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.”
That statement is false, you know it's false.
Fuck off, you disingenuous pedant. Your dogged refusal to admit when you're wrong is a fucking embarrassment.
"But it is unprecedented in peacetime."
Also, RFK was talking about social media and I don't think Lincoln did anything, good or bad, in regards to social media.
I think you’re doing a Jesse and inferring things that aren’t there. jeff came up with an example. Granted it was a bad one, but I think you’re expanding his argument beyond what he actually said.
This whole thing of "You meant this" "No I didn't this is what I meant" "No fuck you this is what you really meant" "No I know what I meant" is why I've got fuckstain on mute.
Well, above he is using ALL CAPS and he is starting to get emotional. He is going to pull a "How Dare You!" and storm off in a huff but he is not going to admit he's wrong and he is not going to back down.
Takes two.
Who me? I'm not getting emotional and pouty over this. It's amusing quite frankly. It is so plainly obvious that ML lied from the start, got caught, and now won't retreat.
Now you’re accusing him of being emotional and pouty. How do you think he’s going to react? Takes two. As I said in another comment, I think you’re both being dicks.
How is he going to react? I predict, the same way he always does: he will storm off and run away, and then come back later and call me a Nazi again.
I am more than willing to try to have a civil conversation with him, but he has to knock it off with the Nazi crap. It’s a lie, he knows it’s a lie, it’s just an evil slander.
I think you’re both being dicks.
we will have to agree to disagree on that one
Funny thing. Since I stopped telling him what he things and feels, he stopped telling me what I think and feel. Try it. What have you got to lose?
No point with fuckstain, but he's American. Isn't the Canadian motto "We're not America"?
By pulling a me you mean deconstructing the idiocy and ignorance of yours and Jeff’s posts?
How is this different?
No, seriously. How is someone pointing out that such-and-such has been done before is a justification of Trumps actions, but this isn’t?
Or, could it be that neither are justifications.
I think there’s a difference between “They did it first so that makes it ok” and “This is wrong but not unprecedented.”
Not claiming that jeff was arguing the latter, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. Because he’s not defending Biden, while those arguing the former are definitely defending Trump.
Defending Biden like "he gave the documents back after 40 years?"
You are again ignorant with the issue of these prosecutions which even liberal legal professors admit to being novel interpretation of the law.
But nobody is explicitly saying the first and the second is heavily implied.
But nobody is explicitly saying the first
Not in so many words. However claims of “They got away with it and that’s unfair” amount to the same thing. To me anyway. Because they certainly aren’t calls to have “they” prosecuted as well make it fair.
the second is heavily implied.
This entire shitshow of a thread has been jeff defending himself from “You really meant…”
It’s the reason I have Jesse and others on mute. I won’t engage in such arguments anymore.
If two people break the same law in similar ways but one gets the full court press while the other gets a slap on the wrist, that is a gross miscarriage of justice and it’s right to call out the hypocrisy of the situation/statement/whatever. I don’t think that pointing out the hypocrisy rises to justification. Especially since most everyone has spilled tons of digital ink explaining why they think it’s different beyond just said hypocrisy.
And this thread turned into a shit show because Jeff used a piss poor example with major differences to RFK Jr’s quote and we’re all a little autistic on the internet.
Jeff used a piss poor example
Why is it "piss poor"? Censorship is censorship whether it happens in peacetime or in wartime.
I don’t think that pointing out the hypocrisy rises to justification.
Maybe for you. But it does for others it sure seems to.
Why is it “piss poor”?
I think that's been abundantly explained. Stop digging.
I didn't "pivot". You lied about me from the start and refuse to admit the error now. I never justified Biden's censorship, and when you realized that, instead of doing what a normal human being does and admit you were wrong, you just double-down and triple-down and dig in your heels and refuse to admit error.
What error. You clearly compared Biden's situation to Lincoln by saying it wasn't "unprecedented".
Yes, it's happened before, but never outside a wartime situation. That is extremely unprecedented as it isn't during a national emergency with war powers being invoked.
You clearly compared Biden’s situation to Lincoln by saying it wasn’t “unprecedented”.
1. I never said it was or wasn't “unprecedented”. That was you projecting.
2. I didn’t compare the two. That was you.
Biden wouldn’t be the first.
You lied. Censoring a critic is not even in the same realm as protecting troop movements. You clearly imply what Lincoln did is similar.
And ML twisted that comment into “so you are justifying Biden’s censorship by claiming he’s fighting a civil war??????” Which is a total lie. It is bad faith and it is wrong.
Then you tried to claim your critic was the one lied.
I never justified Biden’s censorship
Then you try to retreat while pretending that your intention was pure.
Dissemble, deflect, distract.
Both Lincoln and Biden engaged in censorship, thereby disproving RFK Jr.'s claim. That is my whole point. Whether they were justified acts of censorship or not is a different question.
Both Lincoln and Biden engaged in censorship, thereby disproving RFK Jr.’s claim.
Pure fallacy. That was not RFKs claim.
“I can make the argument that President Biden is a much worse threat to democracy,” was RFKs claim.
Disproving a fact given in support does not disprove the claim. Your disingenuousness is obvious.
I see that you failed to quote the rest of RFK Jr.’s statement.
“I can make the argument that President Biden is a much worse threat to democracy,” Kennedy said. “And the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.
The REASON supporting his claim is false. Therefore, BASED ON THIS METRIC, the claim is false.
It still may be true that Biden is a worse threat to democracy, but not based on the rationale presented above.
The REASON supporting his claim is false. Therefore, BASED ON THIS METRIC, the claim is false.
What metric? You are inventing your own rules of argument and your statement is fallacious. A claim is not falsified just because a fact given in support is later falsified.
You don't even parse what you yourself quoted correctly. Lincoln did not censor his opponent for the office he obtained nor censor anyone while a candidate. That next sentence is at worst partially incorrect.
What metric?
The metric of “because he’s the first president to censor his political opponents”. That claim is false. Therefore the claim that “Biden is a bigger threat to democracy” is false when justified by this claim. He still may be a bigger threat to democracy, but this claim based on the evidence presented remains unproved.
Lincoln did not censor his opponent for the office he obtained nor censor anyone while a candidate.
Those bolded qualifications on Lincoln's censorship are immaterial to the claim as originally stated.
The metric of “because he’s the first president to censor his political opponents”. That claim is false. Therefore the claim that “Biden is a bigger threat to democracy” is false when justified by this claim.
F-A-L-L-A-C-Y. Make sure you spell it correctly when you look it up.
Here.
Let P = "Biden is the first president in history to censor his political opponents"
Let Q = "Biden is a worse threat to democracy"
The construction:
If P then Q.
Not P, therefore Not Q.
is a logical fallacy (Denying the antecedent) because there may be other P's that could generate a Q that is true.
So what I am saying, is that Q is false IN THIS CASE because P is false, but I am not ruling out the possibility that Q may be true, i.e., that there exists some other P out there that makes Q true.
But no such evidence has been provided IN THIS CURRENT DISCUSSION.
Get it?
AND BESIDES, it was never my intention to argue the "not Q" part in the first place. THE WHOLE POINT was simply to prove "not P".
But no such evidence has been provided IN THIS CURRENT DISCUSSION.>/i>
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let P = “Biden is the first president in history to censor his political opponents”
Do you expect nobody will compare your contrived misquote to what was actually said? RFK clearly stated "to censor his opponent". Note that what he said was singular and possessive, not what you are interpreting loosely as "political opponents in general". Lincoln didn't censor the candidates running against him in the election. Biden would, without question, be the first to have managed that feat.
Chemjeff now - "1. I never said it was or wasn’t “unprecedented”. That was you projecting."
Chemjeff earlier - "Even if we accept RFK’s claims of censorship at face value, Biden wouldn’t be the first."
You just lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie, ad nauseum...
OMG. You caught me. I used the plural "opponents" when I should have used the singular "opponent". You got me.
It does not change the result, of course, but yes, you get to score a point. Do you feel like you accomplished something today?
Here is yet another example for you: Woodrow Wilson had his direct political opponent, Eugene Debs, thrown in prison because he expressed support for other prisoners - i.e., censored his views.
https://www.history.com/news/sedition-espionage-acts-woodrow-wilson-wwi
OMG. You caught me. I used the plural “opponents” when I should have used the singular “opponent”. You got me.
It does not change the result, of course,
It absolutely changes the results. The opponents that Lincoln censored were engaged in criticism of the federal government in a time of war, none of which opposed him in running for President. RFK specifically claimed that Biden was the first President to censor the speech his opponent, i.e., another candidate for the office of President. He is correct and cites the legal case to prove it.
Here is yet another example for you: Woodrow Wilson had his direct political opponent, Eugene Debs, thrown in prison because he expressed support for other prisoners – i.e., censored his views.
Another example that fails on every level to disprove what RFK actually said. Your desperation to be right is pathetic.
Do you feel like you accomplished something today?
Prevented a shitweasel Marxist apologist from rewriting history? Yes, I do feel like I accomplished something.
“And the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.
Is Biden the "first president in history" to "censor political speech"? Yes or no?
The answer is no. Evidence: Lincoln censoring both political opponents and the mass media during the Civil War.
“And the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.
Is Biden the "first president in history" to "censor his political opponent"? Yes or no?
Answer: no.
Evidence:
1. Lincoln censored a Democratic Senator from Ohio, even went so far as to have him "banished". "But but he wasn't a candidate for president!" So? RFK Jr. said political "opponent", not presidential candidate.
2. Wilson prosecuted Eugene Debs, an actual presidential candidate in 1918, for his speech, and threw him in prison.
No matter how you look at it, RFK Jr. was wrong.
Okay, I will admit that I was a little hasty in that response. Debs wasn't a candidate in the 1918 election (there was no presidential election that year) but he was a candidate in the 1912 election. So he was a former candidate at least, and Wilson still threw him in jail. Regardless, I still think that Wilson throwing even a former candidate in jail over protected speech is still pretty bad.
Oh, look, jeffy wants to pretend that his "fun fact" was not completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand with the intention of deflecting the conversation away from Biden.
Shut the fuck up, jeffy. Your apologetics are obvious.
LOL the entire point of my comment was dunking on RFK Jr. and proving him wrong. It was never about justifying Biden's actions. That is entirely an invention of you and ML.
the entire point of my comment was dunking on RFK Jr. and proving him wrong. It was never about justifying Biden’s actions.
Your defense is to pretend those things are mutually exclusive? You suck at this.
Oh, right. So you were able to read my mind and determine what my "REAL INTENTIONS" were that I didn't state. Got it.
So you were able to read my mind and determine what my “REAL INTENTIONS” were that I didn’t state.
Now you want to pretend that you have no history of engaging in logical fallacies, spiraling into nonsense when confronted and then running away?
I post the Bears In Trunks beatdown frequently, so I will try a different thread:
https://reason.com/2023/06/29/florida-cop-jails-toddler-son-for-poopy-pants/?comments=true#comment-10132693
Now you want to pretend that you have no history of engaging in logical fallacies, spiraling into nonsense when confronted and then running away?
So your argument now, is that if I once supposedly engaged in a logical fallacy, that every argument of mine forevermore is a logical fallacy? I think that argument itself is a logical fallacy.
So your argument now, is that if I once supposedly engaged in a logical fallacy, that every argument of mine forevermore is a logical fallacy?
You accused me of attempting to read your mind. My observations regarding your posting history are relevant. To that point, you have engaged in multiple fallacies in this thread including the fallacy that questioning your motives is fallacious.
Even if I have engaged in fallacies in the past, it does not prove that my current statements now are fallacies.
Calm down Jeff. You’re getting emotional again.
Even if I have engaged in fallacies in the past, it does not prove that my current statements now are fallacies.
Yet, they are.
"It was never about justifying Biden’s actions. That is entirely an invention of you and ML."
Why else would you be going out of the way to defend fascism?
"Even if I have engaged in fallacies in the past, it does not prove that my current statements now are fallacies."
Yeah, this one time he's being legit, folks! Old dog, new tricks...
Yet, they are.
No, they are not.
Why else would you be going out of the way to defend fascism?
I'm not 'defending fascism'. I'm dunking on RFK Jr. Nowhere did I defend any act of censorship by anyone. That was totally an invention by you.
I am not letting this lie of his stand unchallenged.
No, they are not.
Yes they are. I fucking tore your shitty logic to shreds. And I did it over a Democrat, which proves that I have some integrity, unlike you.
I’m dunking on RFK Jr.
The fuck you did. You got the ball slapped back in your face and now you are crying to the ref that you got fouled.
No, they are not.
And yes, I am dunking on RFK Jr.
It is you and your team which decided to twist the whole thing into "he's defending Biden!" when I never did.
Lol. Want the links to trump cultist and forever trumper labels? Fuck off lying shill.
I pointed out that Biden was not the first to engage in censorship.
That’s like fuckstain, I mean Jesse, demanding that I list of presidents who had no tariffs in the context of protectionism.
In this case we’re not at war, so your comparison isn’t very apt.
He's responding by claiming you're claiming we're at war because that's the context of your quote.
So you're both being dicks.
Look. RFK Jr. said "Biden's a bigger threat to democracy because he's the FIRST PRESIDENT who censored his opponents!" I showed that this statement is a lie by showing Lincoln censored his opponents, and moreover in a far worse manner than what Biden has been accused of doing. I didn't say wartime censorship was comparable to peacetime censorship. I didn't try to justify or excuse the censorship. I simply am pointing out that RFK Jr. is wrong. That's all. Please stop trying to insert an argument into my comment that I didn't make.
Your comparison was stupid because it implies that the Biden administration thinks we’re at war, which it’s using to justify its censorious actions, as opposed to simply practicing Marcuse's definition of "liberating tolerance."
it implies that the Biden administration thinks we’re at war
No it does not imply that. That is your bad faith projection.
You WANT to present Biden as uniquely evil or something, when that is not the case.
Are we in wartime?
No, we're not. But that doesn't matter to disprove RFK Jr.'s claim.
The claim was that RFK Jr. is this first-ever victim of Biden's censorship. And that is not true. Previous presidents have done lots of censorship in the past, whether justly or unjustly. RFK Jr. is not a special snowflake here.
But that doesn’t matter to disprove RFK Jr.’s claim.
Yes it does. It absolutely does. It makes your anecdote irrelevant.
No it doesn’t. RFK Jr. claimed that Biden was the first president in history to censor political opponents. That claim is clearly and obviously false, whether it is wartime or peacetime, whether or not any of the acts of censorship were justifiable or not.
We don't call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.
We don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.
Yeah you do, actually. It is over nothing.
You WANT to present Biden as uniquely evil or something, when that is not the case.
I'm not arguing that Biden is uniquely evil, but the modern left certainly is so.
Context matters. That's all I'm saying.
Sarc dictionary.
context
/ˈkɒntɛkst/
1. Anyway one can quibble over minor differences to blame Trump while excusing others.
Actually, fucknuts, Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in 1798. The new law prohibited publishing or saying anything “false, scandalous, and malicious” against the federal government, the president, or Congress.
But what you are deliberately trying to circle around is that both of these measures were considered exceptional and in place because of war and conflict.
Not because a fascist junta wants to squash legitimate dissent in peacetime.
This is one of thousands of reasons why I call you a "Nazi".
This is all a red herring because nothing that I wrote justified Biden's censorship. It is based IMO on your desire to project Biden as uniquely awful and evil, when that is not the case - yes he is wrong here, but there have been presidents in the past who were worse than him when it comes to censorship, regardless of their motivations.
"This is all a red herring"
Lol, the fuck it is. In fact you're the one who is trying to distract from a relevant question. Is what Biden did "unprecedented".
RFK Jr. said that this has never happened in the course of normal American politics before. Not as a wartime measures act but in a presidential race:
"I can make the argument that President Biden is a much worse threat to democracy,” Kennedy said. “And the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent. I can say that because I just won a case in the federal Court of Appeals and now before the Supreme Court that shows that he started censoring not just me — 37 hours after he took the oath of office, he was censoring me.
No president in the country has ever done that.
The greatest threat to democracy is not somebody who questions election returns, but a president of the United States who uses the power of his office to force the social media companies, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter to open a portal and give access to that portal to the FBI, to the CIA, to the IRS, to CISA, to NIH to censor his political critics.
President Biden, the first president in history, used his power over the Secret Service to deny Secret Service protection to one of his political opponents for political reasons. He’s weaponizing the federal agencies.
Those are really critical threats to democracy.
“Absolutely, who else has ever tried to — who else has ever tried to — what president in history has ever tried to censor political opponents? What president has weaponized the federal agency?”
RFK Jr. said that this has never happened in the course of normal American politics before.
That is not what he said. He said nothing about "normal American politics". I mean, you quoted exactly what he said! He said:
President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.
That claim is false, as demonstrated with Lincoln, Adams, FDR, and others.
Who do YOU think you are fooling by deliberately misquoting the guy whom you copied?
1. Do you really think that actions taken by a president under the war measures act are the same as one who is not?
2. Did Lincoln, Adams and FDR use a federal police force to illegally spy on and censor any of their political opponents? (Hint: Of course not)
There's no comparison no matter how your lying fat ass tries to reframe it.
"Who do YOU think you are fooling by deliberately misquoting the guy whom you copied?"
I quoted you and RFK Jr. verbatim. Stop lying. Everyone can read exactly what was posted. Your gaslighting won't work.
You're right, there is no comparison. I'm not making a comparison, you are. I am not trying to judge any specific act of censorship as being justified or not. I am simply pointing out that it has happened in the past, and that Biden wasn't the first.
Here, ML:
President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.
Is this claim, as stated above, without qualification or reservation, is it true or false?
This is one of thousands of reasons why I call you a “Nazi”.
So sarcasmic is supposedly a Nazi now too? Just more proof that you throw around the Nazi label carelessly against everyone that disagrees with you.
I call you a Nazi because you proselytize modern takes on the policies, ideas and platform of the NSDAP.
To my knowledge Sarcasmic does not.
No, I don't. You throw around the Nazi epithet carelessly because you are the mirror image of the people on the left who spent four years calling Trump a Nazi.
Where’s the line between understanding another point of view and agreeing with that point of view?
Something I see a lot around here is that when anyone makes a real effort to understand where “they” are coming from, that they’re accused of agreeing with and supporting whatever it is that “they” are doing.
You're supposed to just say that "they" are evil with bad intentions, full stop. Anything more is sympathizing with the enemy.
Where’s the line between understanding another point of view and agreeing with that point of view?
Apologetics is a form of argument attributed to Socrates. Not that you can be bothered to learn anything.
Something I see a lot around here is that when anyone makes a real effort to understand where “they” are coming from, that they’re accused of agreeing with and supporting whatever it is that “they” are doing.
Coming from sarc this is hilarious. Trump cultists, forever trumpers, Hitler comparisons.
I mean fuck, he runs into any thread even slightly criticL of Biden to throw shit against “them.”
What is with the delusions of jeff and sarc?
Also sarc, are you ever curious as to why the right understands the othersides point of view far better than the left does per multiple studies such as from Haidt?
I understand your view. It is one of ignorance.
"you are the mirror image of the people on the left who spent four years calling Trump a Nazi."
Trump never removed his opponent from a ballot. You guys did.
Trump never used the Government against his opponent. You guys did.
Trump never censored speech. You guys did.
Where’s the line between understanding another point of view and agreeing with that point of view?
Endorsement.
And Jeff not only endorses the policies and principles of the Third Reich, but he actively defends them and he is spiritually aligned with them.
Endorsement.
And Jeff not only endorses the policies and principles of the Third Reich, but he actively defends them and he is spiritually aligned with them.
I’m not going to defend the guy. But I will say that there’s a propensity in these comments to overassume, especially if you don’t like the person to start with.
I’m making an effort to not do that with you. I’ve asked jeff to be the bigger man in light of you living in the arctic and having a frozen penis, but maybe you can be bigger.
Ever heard of the band Metric? Pretty sure they're local boys and gal.
And Jeff not only endorses the policies and principles of the Third Reich, but he actively defends them
this is a lie, and if you think it is not a lie, then for the 1 millionth time, feel free to present your supposed proof where I have endorsed and/or supported the policies and principles of the Third Reich
and he is spiritually aligned with them.
WTF does "spiritually aligned" mean?
Trump never removed his opponent from a ballot. You guys did.
Trump never used the Government against his opponent. You guys did.
Trump never censored speech. You guys did.
Many left-wingers spent four years calling Trump a Nazi.
You've spent the last several years calling me a Nazi.
Both claims are meritless and are just used as epithets for flinging poo.
Both claims are *purposefully* meritless in order to gin up anger and rage against "the other side" because that is all they can do to win.
Well Jeffy, you’ve certainly supported, or advocated for, a large number of oppressive and dystopian democrat policies. Which includes open borders, even for known rapists and child molesters. Or your opposition to Florida’s policies keeping children under 10 from being exposed to a sexualized curriculum in government schools.
So I don’t know if you’re specifically a Nazi in the literal Third Reich sense, or just a global fascist advocating for oppression, rape, and child grooming
Okay, Jeff. You're right. Lincoln censored people during the Civil War during a wartime. Let's say that is true.
Does that negate RFK's point completely because he did not reference a president from the 1800's during a Civil conflict?
I don't think it does. In fact, it lends more credence to the argument RFK is making. Here we are, in a non-war climate, and the current President is using his Justice departments and other government resources to censor his competition and other citizens of the US. You should find this far more dangerous, even if Lincoln did it first in wartime.
Seems RFK has a point.
Okay, Jeff. You’re right.
Yes I am right. See people? That wasn't so hard to do.
Seems RFK has a point.
So if RFK wants to make the point that Biden is a bigger threat to democracy because in his opinion Biden is censoring people for illegitimate reasons, unlike those previous presidents who censored people for legitimate reasons, he is free to make that argument. But that is not the argument that he made above. It seems as though to me (I am not 100% certain because, unlike some of you, I am unable to read minds) that the argument that he is actually making is that Biden is dangerous to democracy because Biden is censoring people when *no other president* has done it before.
And IMO he has chosen to make that (false) argument, rather than the more truthful argument, because RFK wants to pose as the person who not only wants to paint himself as a victim, but he gets to 'stay pure' as a person who is 100% totally against censorship and doesn't have to get into arguments like what constitutes 'legitimate censorship'.
Biden isn’t censoring people ‘in RFK’s opinion’. Biden is censoring people in reality. Full stop. You really are slimy, disingenuous cunt, aren’t you?
that Biden is dangerous to democracy because Biden is censoring people when *no other president* has done it before
That's not the argument RFK is making. Biden is a danger because he is actively using administration resources to censor and openly go after his political opponents and opposition. If he inaccurately believes it has not happened before because he failed to research into a CIVIL WAR president's wartime actions that doesn't negate the current threat Biden's behavior poses.
Lol. You pretend trump is uniquely bad on tariffs and refuse to give us an example of when they weren't used. I love how you admit to your own change in acceptance based on Trump. Clowned yourself here buddy.
“That’s like fuckstain, I mean Jesse, demanding that I list of presidents who had no tariffs in the context of protectionism.”
Didn’t you claim he was a grey box in the other thread?
Also, dehumanizing language again.
Lol. Ok, so maybe you weren’t defending sleepy joe. But it sure was important to you to go back 160 years to try to push back on RFK.
Why would that be, Jeff, hmmmm?
Fuck it, I don’t care. You’re an idiot.
Why should I let a lie stand unchallenged?
Because it's not a lie and you are the father of them here?
Yes it is a lie.
Yes it is a lie.
Are you really so pedantic as to believe that? If so, you have the mind of a fucking child, Jeff, and shouldn't expect anyone here to take seriously your miserable tantrums.
Pedo Jeffy reflexively defending Biden? Impossible!
Now do FDR.
Another guy who was not great on free speech issues.
Heck, we can even talk about John Adams and the Alien & Sedition Act.
RFK is not the first-ever victim here.
Why do lefty shits choose handles totally at odds to their positions? I mean this steaming pile of shit is conformist to the bone, 'radical' only in his *complete* conformity.
Perhaps the "chem" might be true; constantly drunk?
They are weasels in all aspects in life.
Don't blame alcohol for evil.
And sarcasmic doesn't understand what sarcasm is. It is weird.
Sarc was probably never very smart, add age and brain shrinkage from decades of severe alcohol abuse, and you get a moronic, lying, rageaholic drunk. The leftism must be an underlying issue.
"Another guy who was not great on free speech issues."
Not "great", huh?
No, not great. Are you now going to claim that when I wrote "not great" that I am now somehow justifying or defending everything that FDR did?
It all depends if your Media Matters handler tells you to or not, I suppose.
Oh thank God, now we can all agree that the civil war was a loss for freedom.
It was for some, sure. Such as with Lincoln's targets of censorship above. And of course for all of the soldiers and civilians who died.
But it greatly expanded the freedom of millions of slaves who were set free.
Bad trade.
In fact, base libertarianism tells us that no war is worth fighting if freedom has to be lost.
I think the freed slaves would disagree.
Good thing they aren't around to consult on the matter.
Does base libertarianism matter or not?
Every war involves at a minimum soldiers dying on the battlefield, which necessarily reduces their liberty. So if your argument is that no reduction in liberty is ever justifiable in any context, then I suppose even wars of self-defense are not justified? Are you a complete pacifist?
It isn’t my argument, it is the argument of base libertarianism.
Anything that asks that those principles be sacrificed must therefore not be base libertarianism.
It’s for this reason that I don’t identify as a libertarian. Unlike what your screen name implies.
No it isn't. It is a caricature of libertarianism. At least that is what I believe to be true anyway. Libertarianism does not reject all war. Wars of self-defense are eminently justifiable.
Jeffy makes a good point. For example, I would consider it libertarian to eliminate Marxists attempting to oppress the American people, Marxists like the ones who run the democrat party.
Every war involves at a minimum soldiers dying on the battlefield, which necessarily reduces their liberty.
That may be the dumbest thing you have ever written, and you have written some seriously stupid shit.
Hmm. A dead soldier no longer has the liberty to do the things that a live soldier does.
And your response is to post something dumber?
There is no greater exercise of liberty than to fight for it.
Empirically, who has more liberty: a dead guy, or a living guy?
Empirically, who has more liberty: a dead guy, or a living guy?
An absurd question. I take it you are done with the conversation?
I will take that response as your admission of "yes chemjeff has a point but I will refuse to recognize it".
your admission of “yes chemjeff has a point but I will refuse to recognize it”.
You are a delusional shitweasel I have been shaming publicly for absurd posts for over 6 years now. Go check your trunk for bears, douchebag.
continued insults prove the point
Jeffy is done with the conversation, but the sophistry has just begun.
The conscripted soldiers on both sides might disagree, too, might having been forced to fight for things they did not believe in.
Of course. War by its very nature means that many people are going to lose a lot of liberty. Nevertheless it may or may not be justifiable.
United States went from plural to singular. That war fundamentally changed the relationship between states and the federal government. Beforehand the country was a federation of states voluntarily joining together for common defense, free trade, and all that. Afterwards the states became fiefdoms of the federal government.
Yep.
Yes, other presidents have engaged in censorship during wartime. Fair enough. Happened during WWI as well.
He still makes an important point.
The difference here is that the US is not at war, and Biden’s puppeteers are using censorship to wage war against their political opponents, and to silent any dissent.
So this entire thread, has been me making a truthful claim, and nearly everybody else arguing with me about it but never acknowledging that the claim was, in fact, true, and RFK's claim was false.
Good times, good times.
Rates of attempted suicide who identified as transgender more than doubled after receiving a vaginoplasty (surgically turning one's dick into a vagina), according to a peer-reviewed study published in The Journal of Urology.
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/attempted-suicide-rates-more-double-after-gender-reassignment-surgery-study
"*This* isn't how I had imagined it!"
Yep--turns out being a pornsick coomer isn't improved by chopping off the thing that helps you coom.
Contrary to what you're taught in high school, no hormone is single purpose. Testosterone and Estrogen are not simply sex hormones and both greatly effect brain development and function, ergo, if your genotype is XY, and you deprive yourself of testosterone, it is going to majorly fuck up your brain functioning/chemistry. Additionally, males produce both testosterone and estrogen, just the proportion of the former is magnitudes greater than the latter. Vice versa for females (also, your gonads are not the only organs that produce so called sex hormones, the adrenal glands also produce small amounts of both, however the proportion is extremely small in the latter, and is the primary production of estrogen in males and testosterone in females). Females who require a hysterectomy are generally placed on artificial estrogen largely to insure proper body, especially brain function. Chopping your dick and testicles of is going to cause major issues in brain function, as well as general health issues.
This is why the idea that if puberty blockers are stopped, the body simply goes through puberty as if it hadn't been interrupted, is absurd. While on the blockers, the body and brain continue to grow and develop, but without the influence of the vital sex hormones. This of course results in abnormal and stunted development.
Yeah, look at elite female athletes like gymnasts, who generally suffer from amenorrhea until they stop competing. Even years after they end competition they often continue to appear as pre-pubescent or early pubescent and almost always remain significantly below average height and weight. Elite track athletes, especially marathon runners, have a statistically greater difficulty conceiving, even after ending competition.
Research has found that suicidal thoughts and rates are much higher among those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and non-binary.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth are three times more likely to think about suicide and seven times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual youth.8
The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found:9
40% of transgender adults have attempted suicide.
50% of trans males reported a suicide attempt in the past year.
42% of nonbinary teens reported some type of self-harm in the previous year.
Less than 10% of cisgender males and 17% of cisgender females (those whose gender identity matches the gender that is most often correlated with their biological sex) reported suicidal behaviors.
Women tend to attempt suicide versus actually killing themselves. Women had 1.78 greater odds of self-reported lifetime suicide attempts than men. Men kill themselves.
These people are now "women" and so they do women-like things, like attempting suicide. Possibly had they not transitioned, they would have simply killed themselves, like men.
The big difference is that women tend to choose methods of suicide that leave less physical traces, whereas men tend to care less about this so are more likely to use things like guns, which have a far higher likelihood of success than overdose, or such (also, generally people vastly underestimate how much medication they will need to consume to actually cause death, and thus, people are far likelier to survive something like purposeful overdose, especially if it's a medication their body is used to, i.e. you normally take sleeping medications, the dose needed to kill you is going to generally be considerably greater than someone who never takes the same sleeping medication).
People who want to make some sort of emotional statement attempt suicide and use methods generally unlikely to actually kill them and which are readily reversed. People who want to end their lives use methods virtually guaranteed to accomplish the task.
The one exception, though, tends to be people associated with the Clinton family. They seem very determined to kill themselves when they attempt suicide, even going so far as to shoot themselves in the back of the head twice.
That Chappelle joke was pretty good
So the combination of the inability to conceive, and higher suicide rates, makes body dysmorphia a self-limiting problem?
Don't cancel me, I'm just following the science...
Steve McGuire
@sfmcguire79
A Princeton student argues that some courses are unfair because not everyone is equally prepared:
.
“In order to effectively address this disparity, Princeton needs to re-evaluate the difficulty of the STEM introductory courses and implement equity-oriented solutions that directly address the different levels of student preparation. After all, the level of academic rigor at Princeton can only be truly effective if all students are first able to work on a level playing field.”
Make kids dumber in the name of equality.
My work specifically avoids hiring grads from the ivy's. They are shit engineers
Lol. I am the same regarding hiring decisions.
Not just ivy's. Take every applicant, and cross reference their social media accounts. Pronouns, Ukraine, Palestine, rainbows, and any other shit in a profile that would make a candidate insufferable, is factored into eligibility.
After all, the level of academic rigor at Princeton can only be truly effective if all students are first able to work on a level playing field.”
Yeah, and this was managed in years past across academia by making the sympathy admissions, who routinely couldn’t even perform at an 8th grade level, take remedial courses in math and English to get them up to spec for the actual classes.
When the priests of cultural marxism determined that this was “racist and inequitable,” colleges started getting rid of the courses and admitting any non-white moron who could type out a barely literate essay on how oppressed they were.
They need to make basketball easier to play so Steven Hawking could compete!
How do you get the basket 6' under?
Are you discriminating against the unalive?
What does he think "level playing field" means? Seems to me it means that everyone can take the same classes and be held to the same standards.
This is why equity is the most evil part of DEI.
There used to be this thing called "the admissions process" that prevented unprepared students from attending.
No widespread fraud. No elections at risk.
At least 33 elections were either tied or decided by single-vote margins last year, while four elections were overturned due to voter fraud, forecasting potential issues for the 2024 presidential election, according to the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), an election integrity organization.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/33-tied-close-2023-elections-forecast-issues-2024-presidential-election
University program linking Christians, Republicans to Nazis granted DHS funds under 'anti-terror' initiative
Biden admin funding controversial efforts to treat conservative groups as radical, watchdog warns
It's the same trick the Democratic Party pulls using their SPLC and ADL super-PACs:
- Declare their organizations "respected"
- Have the organizations label groups opposing the party or its policies as "radical/extremist/racist/etc."
- Use the organizations as a citation source for Wikipedia and news reports
- Encourage corporations to refuse to do business with the labeled groups because they're labeled "radical/extremist/racist" by a "respected" organization.
- Have the DHS, IRS and FBI target those groups because they're "widely recognized" as "radical/extremist/racist"
It's 1938 again in America right now.
Well, yeah, because anything that resists left-wing theology is "right-wing extremism."
Anyway, just more evidence that the west needs to go through a Great Divorce.
If it hurts your side it’s a good thing.
Right back at ya, which is why we need more Kyle Rittenhouses.
I’m not on the side of the people that got shot by Rittenhouse
Rittenhouse is on my side, though, and that's good enough for me.
The 17 year old kid who thought it would be a good idea to go to a riot and “defend businesses?” That’s whose side you’re on?
If you wanna hitch your wagon to a stupid kid go ahead.
The 17 year old kid who thought it would be a good idea to go to a riot and “defend businesses?” That’s whose side you’re on?
A 17 year old kid who clapped two leftist vermin, one of whom was a convicted child rapist, the other of whom was a grandma-slapping drug addict.
Yeah, that's whose side I'm on, and proudly so.
Sarc and Jeff were adamant the left doesn't participate in us vs then mentality or comparisons to Hitler in the last populism thread.
The hilarious part is that in that grant application they used this "pyramid of far-right extremism" which pointedly did NOT lump in mainstream conservative institutions like the Republican Party, Fox News, etc., with the ones that genuinely are far-right extremists, like Daily Stormer, etc. They took pains to differentiate mainstream conservatism with far-right extremism and yet you all still complain.
So a few questions for you:
1. Do you think far-right extremism exists?
2. If so, do you think it merits study and/or scrutiny?
3. If so, who do you think should be doing the studying/scrutinizing?
They took pains to differentiate mainstream conservatism with far-right extremism and yet you all still complain.
And yet they lump them in the same pyramid structure. So this is stupid at best. The use of a pyramids tells me that right off the bat. Complex issues reduced to easily consumed graphics fall on their face nearly everytime they are used. Evolution for example isn't a straight line from monkey to man with defined steps in between.
Trust the experts.
LOL, they included “mainstream conservatism” in the same fucking pyramid, you disingenuous twat. They’re literally calling mainstream conservatives “extremists,” they’re just saying that the GOP is less so than neo-Nazi groups.
A few questions for you:
1. Why isn't this group studying left-wing extremism?
2. If they aren't studying it, do they believe it even exists?
You know that's (D)ifferent.
I don't know if they are or aren't. Maybe they aren't. That is fine, they can specialize in whatever type of extremism that they want. You don't have to study ALL extremism in order to make a meaningful contribution to SOME type of extremism. I totally agree that the topic of radical extremism should be studied in its entirety, not just its right-wing variant. But let's at least begin by admitting that there ARE right-wing extremists.
Literally nothing in your response should be taken at face value.
They literally created a pyramid of extremism which has the Republican Party, Fox News, etc. at the base supporting the Daily Stormer.
Jeff – ”they pointedly did NOT lump in mainstream conservative institutions
Go fuck yourself, shill. How stupid do you think everyone here is?
"So a few questions for you:
1. Do you think far-right extremism exists?
2. If so, do you think it merits study and/or scrutiny?
3. If so, who do you think should be doing the studying/scrutinizing?'
And the ChemJeff answers:
1. Anyone who's not a Progressive Democrat is a far-right extremist.
2. Study, enquiry, investigation, torture - whatever it takes.
3. FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD, DOJ, NGA, Barney Fife, Hillary's hit squad.
No, those are not my answers.
My answers are:
1. Yes, far-right extremism exists.
2. Yes, it merits study, and scrutiny by LEO only if actual crimes are committed.
3. I would want academic institutions to study the issue rigorously and objectively.
This is the same shit I was talking about the other day. They point to some actual nasty extremists (neo-Nazis, etc.) who are the fringiest of fringe politically and then lump most of mainstream conservatism in with it. It's a distasteful and dishonest tactic.
But that is what they are NOT doing! If you read the whole article, even the authors of that pyramid say the same thing, the whole point is NOT to put them all together, but to clearly say that they are separate groups.
You could have the same kind of pyramid for left-wing extremism, where you have Democratic Party/MSNBC at the bottom of the pyramid and, say, radical eco-terrorists at the top. They are different, not every Democrat is an eco-terrorist, not every MSNBC watcher is an eco-terrorist.
Now, I don't think it is true that there is ZERO CONNECTION between, say, Fox News and neo-Nazis, because I'm sure that if you ask neo-Nazis if they prefer Fox News to CNN, they would say Fox News. JUST LIKE, if you ask radical eco-terrorists if they prefer MSNBC to CNN, they are likely going to say MSNBC. It doesn't mean every Fox News viewer is a neo-Nazi, it doesn't mean every MSNBC viewer is an eco-terrorist. It doesn't even necessarily mean that Fox News is trying to cater to the neo-Nazi demographic, or that MSNBC is trying to cater to the eco-terrorist demographic.
I guess the real question might be, is it possible to even study this topic without everyone getting offended? Perhaps not.
"I guess the real question might be, is it possible to even study this topic without everyone getting offended? Perhaps not."
it would require everyone stepping outside the tribal mindset. it is a long standing problem. those focused on political gains tend to down play the worst from their camp while obsessing over the worst from the other camp. the goal is to make the other team lose support while not alienating any who support you (no matter how bat-shit they are.)
a more interesting study would be how this happening in both major political parties actively helps the insane ideas gain traction. both parties have a collection of terrible ideas that were once fringe that have become more mainstream.
But that is what they are NOT doing! If you read the whole article, even the authors of that pyramid say the same thing, the whole point is NOT to put them all together, but to clearly say that they are separate groups.
LOL, the whole graphic is literally titled, "The Pyramid of Far-Right Radicalization." They are actually calling all right-wingers "extremists," just that the degrees of extremism are different. Which is normal for how lefties try to split hairs when their reflexive instinct to call any right-winger a "fascist" is pointed out.
And it's perfectly fine for them to label all right wing fascists or whatever. That's their right. Like it's my right to ridicule anyone who does such. The problem LyingNaziJeffy is ignoring us when they are given government support to support and or broadcast said beliefs. Because the Constitution forbids the government from doing anything that may restrict freedom of speech, religion and association, and that includes contracting a third party to do what the government is forbidden to do. Contrary to what people believe, the government has no role or right in 'combating' radicalism or racism, as long as no laws are broken. And then the governments only job is to prosecute the crime, period. Otherwise you end up like Scotland and Canada.
And eventually if not checked, Mao and numerous other autocratic despots that felt they could use force to control what people thought and believed.
LOL, the whole graphic is literally titled, “The Pyramid of Far-Right Radicalization.”
The TOP of the pyramid are where the radicals are. Not the whole thing. It's not the author's fault if you refuse to interpret it correctly even with a caption.
Telling everyone not to believe their lying eyes again, huh?
The whole pyramid in the picture is called the "Pyramid of Far-Right Radicalization" replete with arrows to show it's progression. Not Just the tip top. The whole pyramid.
At the base supporting all the others is the Republican Party, National Rifle Association and Fox News, then you progress to MAGA and... fucking Quillette??? (lol), the next step is the Daily Stormer and the Nazi Party and then it's on to step four and some weird symbols that I don't even know what they are.
It's right there in the article. You can't lie your way out of this one Lying Jeffy.
Quillette, really? The Australian version of Reason magazine (often with more consistent takes).
Read the fucking article. The authors themselves make it clear. The top of the pyramid are the radicals. The Fox News and Republican Party are not.
Radicalization STARTS with mainstream right-wing media like Fox News. That is not the same as claiming that every Fox News viewer is a radical. If you were honest you would admit that.
Read the fucking article. The authors themselves make it clear. The top of the pyramid are the radicals. The Fox News and Republican Party are not.
So the authors are exercising a guilt by association fallacy with the graphic, while trying to claim that it's only the ones on the very top that are the extremists? And you're parroting this claim?
Uh, you were just saying up above that Daily Stormer was classed as extremist. They're in tier 3, not the top of the pyramid.
Stop lying.
Radicalization STARTS with mainstream right-wing media like Fox News.
Yeah, the left's been using that argument for a long time now. It's just as much bullshit now as it was 25 years ago.
The TOP of the pyramid are where the radicals are.
They're not making that distinction, you lying fat fuck. Just because you're trying to gaslight the title of the graphic with that hair-splitting doesn't mean you're not lying your ass off here.
It’s not the author’s fault if you refuse to interpret it correctly even with a caption.
It's not my fault that you're lying about the pyramid.
Lol. Chemjeff selectively nuanced defeatist is at it again!
Who designated them the experts to classify anyone as right wing extremists? What's the criteria? And why is my tax money being granted to study an obviously partisan issue? Additionally, I noticed you skipped the part about Christians, the dominant religion in the country? Why are we spending taxpayer money for a private group to denigrate political does and the dominant religion? Seems fucking fascists to me.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think one of the main documents this country is founded on specifically bars the government from restricting religion, speech and freedom of association. Which document was that again? Wouldn't spending federal money to study and counter domestic groups with be considered an infringement on speech and freedom of association, and adding religion also would strike me as an infringement of said document. Man if only I could remember where I've read that government cannot restrict those.
I think you could justify the study, if it encompassed all sides of the political spectrum*.
Countering it is a stickier wicket because I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong for the government to try and counter Naziism/Communism/Socialism/Fascism/etc. but one could argue that that is viewpoint discrimination.
*not really because that doesn’t seem like a legitimate function of the federal government as laid out in that document you were referring to.
As long as said groups are not actively breaking any laws, the government has no right to monitor, study, or counter any group for their beliefs. And when they do break a law, they should not be prosecuted for their beliefs, only for the crime they committed. Once you say it's okay to counter Nazis and Communists, where do you draw the line? And who gets to determine. That's why the first amendment is clear, Congress shall pass no law restricting....
Oh absolutely.
I was thinking of countering more as government funded propaganda/information about why those ideologies are bad/antithetical to liberty.
Which I also question if propaganda or information to persuade is compatible with our founding principles. I think such actions should only be used to counter the influence of foreign, adversarial countries, and not domestic groups and even with foreign powers, should be severely monitored and restricted. But propaganda has always been a part of our (and every system) but we should be clear what it is, and treat it accordingly. Not all propaganda is false but almost all propaganda is incomplete. The use of taxes for the purpose of propaganda is strongly suspect.
Here is the center that received the grant, if you want to know more about them.
https://udayton.edu/artssciences/ctr/hrc/index.php
And here is a description of the specific grant that they received that is the topic of the above article.
https://udayton.edu/news/articles/2022/09/dhs_grant_human_rights_center.php
Now I suppose some might think that this is all code for "oppress Republicans".
Not a fucking tovenrment function and is blatantly unconditional moron what part of that don't you fucking understand? Who fucking defines radical and how is that not fucking barred by the 1A freedom of speech and association? Fucking knee bending fascists is what you are. Viewpoint discrimination is not the fucking job of the US government per the fucking Constitution. Period. No ifs ands or buts, no fucking justification for this. Fuck off Nazi scum.
"Fuck off Nazi scum"
He really is.
It's code for the government restricting speech and association, I don't care what the partisan leaning is, that's fucking unconstitutional, period.
As long as you don't break any laws (e.g. murder, assault, treason) you can Believe whatever the fuck you want, and the government has no fucking right to study and or counter anyone's beliefs or attempt to prevent said beliefs. Period. No arguments unless we discard the Constitution and then you are the real threat to democracy not whatever Boogeyman you think the government has the right to prevent.
Now I suppose some might think that this is all code for “oppress Republicans”.
If they aren’t putting the same effort into identifying left-wing extremism, yeah. In fact, it's a unity-criticism-unity methodology that the Maoists practiced during the Cultural Revolution.
From some of their other projects, forgive me if I doubt that their studies will involved any instances of radicalization to violence by say, Antifa, black bloc, ELF, John Brown Gun Club, Jane's Revenge...maybe I'm wrong, but their language used for some of their other projects would be more in line with the views espoused by those groups, making it unlikely that they would be included in any study of "radicalism".
#SPHR23: RECLAIMING POWER
#SPHR2023 will offer scholars and practitioners a valuable space to exchange perspectives on the Decolonization and Development for Africa and People of African Descent.
UnHousing: Claiming the Human Right to Home
During the summer of 2022, the Moral Courage Team focused on the right to housing in Atlanta, Georgia.
Ferguson Voices Curriculum
A high school curriculum from the Moral Courage Project, the Ferguson Voices curriculum is grounded by the notion that our identities, experiences, and biases should be openly shared and discussed, since they deeply inform how we perceive the world.
Poison and Power Curriculum
A high school curriculum from the Moral Courage Project, the Poison and Power curriculum is grounded learning to identify the contributing factors to the water crises in Flint, Detroit, and Martin County and recognize how the impacted communities responded.
Moral Courage Project: Reflections from El Paso
In an op-ed published June 5 in Flyer News, Mary McLoughlin reflects on her time in El Paso, Texas, documenting the experience of the US-Mexican border in an attempt to disrupt the current narratives around immigration and humanize contentious issues.
"...for which he keeps deploying Vice President Kamala Harris—which Florida organizers fear will turn off Republicans."
First, it ain't droolin' Joe. Secondly, it ain't only Rs who are turned off; that woman is toxic to just about everyone.
"The Congressional Budget Office warned in its latest projections that US federal government debt is on a path from 97% of GDP last year to 116% by 2034 — higher even than in World War II. The actual outlook is likely worse."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/million-simulations-one-verdict-us-210022706.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKEmN4HuypD8J8jfS2mKFIJ3uFYUDlaJfaU1Hx5LiklrNV3YMjbGXrRMCNrTNV8eAlrleX0UgCoelDXXMfLowqR_no1Gj3pHA7jm6vKHddINBRxZUZbHnMM3qwp63doU2Dfzf4b4PgyytZDDkP5obSxi1UB8PjqTsMoQPoCzrJ5v
Thanks, droolin' Joe!
Yeah, but Joe isn’t the first to do it!
/dumbjeff
"Floridians of every party, including Republicans, do not want politicians making these decisions for them."
Actually, no.
The democrats want politicians making every decision for us.
(refer to their party platform)
Racist:
"Repeat after us: Expecting people to be able to do basic math is white supremacist patriarchy at work. Demanding that people understand how much things cost before flapping their gums is white supremacist patriarchy at work." - NOW, probably
Narrator: we could not have ended homelessness for $18B
Are we sure @realrobdurden (who?) isn't accidentally saying what he's thinking?
Because you can consider me among the dubious that domestic homelessness could not be ended at a 1:1, or better, exchange rate as ending homelessness in Gaza.
Maybe during the ammo shortage it would've been tough but now? EZPZ.
Everyone in Ukraine must have 3 or 4 houses by now.
And he calls himself “A Cynical Asshole”.
I remember when a meme made the rounds, something like "Powerball $1.3B divided by US population 300 million, everyone receiver $4.33M POVERTY SOLVED!"
The right answer is $4.33 per person, or about 6 orders of magnitude off.
Similar things about taking, say Elon Musk's net worth and dividing it into the population. Basic math just too much to handle.
Note: even if one used the old UK system of billion is one million million (10^12) instead of US billion (10^9), the actual answer is $4333.33, still a long way off of $4.3M each.
Apparently parents are cock blockers:
Perhaps this will be the one thing that unites humanity?
>But the organization said that the group had been traveling in a "deconflicted zone" in WCK-branded vehicles, having coordinated route with the Israeli military in advance, which casts doubt on the IDF version of events.
1. Coordinated how? The just called someone up and said 'hey, we're going to be over here - that doesn't mean its going to get to the troops on the ground.
2. At night, in the dark, its hard to tell.
3. Hamas is famous for not only using aid convoys to cover movement, but actually *getting aid from aid organizations*, including help guarding the hostages they took.
4. The US blows up kids because some drone operator can't tell the difference between a van full of water bottles and an VBIED - I think we can cut Israel some slack here.
5. War is hell. Sometimes the wrong people get killed. If you signed up to deliver aid in a war zone, even if you're supposedly in a "deconflicted zone" there's a chance you'll get killed by accident. It sucks, but the aid workers who died accepted those risks* when they volunteered to go there.
*I assume they were at least smart enough to realize that going into an active war zone meant there was a chance they could get blown up by one side or the other.
The US blows up kids because some drone operator can’t tell the difference between a van full of water bottles and an VBIED
1. We blew up a hospital full of Doctors Without Borders in Afghanistan.
2. After we blew up the hospital we said the Afghan Forces requested the strike and US-aligned officials claimed terrorists were using it as a human shield tactic.
3. Once it was revealed it wasn’t at the request of Afghan forces, we said kinetic action/fog of war/collateral damage.
4. Once it was revealed via comms and flight data that the pilots were dubious that the strike was legally justified and held off until they received unequivocal confirmation, we assured the world that our brass makes fewer mistakes than any other military in the world and that the mistakes they don’t make would never happen again.
5. After the assurances were made, the President officially apologized for the bombing and compensated the victims.
Re: Havana syndrome
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/havana-syndrome-hysteria-classified-documents-reveal-skepticism-of-foreign-actors-bolster-role-of-psychogenic-illness/
aka mass hysteria
Sorta like catastrophic climate change?
and gender dysmorphia...
and golden plates
I like how now we have "rapid onset gender dysphoria".
permitted the issue to go to voters as a ballot initiative this November, if activist groups can collect enough signatures to qualify
The Soho Forum debates about whether post-menopausal women should or shouldn't be making reproductive decisions for trans-women and birthing persons are going to be epic.
it's funny because it's true.
>Good: "The White House has missed its deadline to publish a rule banning menthol cigarettes, raising ire among public health advocates that the policy will be indefinitely delayed by election year politics," reports The Hill.
The Democrats are already pissing black people off with the 'support for illegal immigrants over native Blacks' stuff - no way they're banning menthols in an election year;)
>>he keeps deploying Vice President Kamala Harris—which Florida organizers fear will turn off Republicans.
in (R) Florida there can be only one K. Harris.
"deploying Vice President Kamala Harris"
RELEASE THE KAREN!
>>"We are focused on making clear to voters the decision at stake: Should the government get to make these decisions for doctors and women, or not?"
campaign organizer Lauren Brenzel has only asked 2/3 of the participants about the decision at stake.
>>World Central Kitchen ... is pulling out of Gaza.
there were ways to not die of starvation.
>>"Living with parents reduces birth rates"
these people don't have backseats?
When my folks came out for our wedding, my mother came charging into our house and straight to the bathroom (which was off of our bedroom) and my then fiance had not officially met my parents, and she sleeps in the buff.
lol do you ... shake hands?
I may have corrupted her from her rather conservative and sheltered Catholic upbringing, but then again, looking at her siblings, maybe not. One sister we're fairly sure is bisexual (yeah, you and your female best friend just always shared a bed behind locked doors whenever you were together before either of you were married for completely innocent reasons). None who have married other Catholics. The youngest son has been living with his girlfriend for 13 years without getting married and are expecting their first kid. So the corruption journey may not have been that difficult.
>>The White House has missed its deadline to publish a rule banning menthol cigarettes
if you thought waiving school loans was transparent, just wait! ~~Casa Blanca
>>Latin America's "small penis club,"
is this what's up with all the rapists heading norte?
Just this week, the Florida Supreme Court cleared the way for the six-week ban to go into effect, but also (in a separate ruling) permitted the issue to go to voters as a ballot initiative this November, if activist groups can collect enough signatures to qualify.
I am surprised by this, as the Florida constitution's privacy clause was adopted in 1980.
Not dwindling energy supplies.
Not inflation.
Not excessive national debt.
Not an open order.
Killing babies. That is what is important to democrats.
I wonder how this came to be.
FJB voted for the Human Life Federalism Amendment in 1982.
Dick Durbin wrote in a letter that Roe v. Wade be overturned.
The Pro-Life mob is actually rooted from the Democrat Party.
Roe v Wade was written by Republicans.
"Scenes from New York: Incredible"
Even a broken clock is right once (or twice) a day! Closing down one of the largest, densest cities in the world for a day for a foot race is just stupid. Of course that doesn't make up for the city's stupidity the other 364 days a year, but thank goodness for small favors.
The news I hear out of New York indicates that it's a *very* dense city.
"The [Metropolitan Transportation Authority] has quietly demanded roughly $750,000 a year from the organization that runs the marathon, to make up for the toll revenue that the authority loses when it closes the Verrazzano"
The enshittification of the world continues.
Wikipedia shows around 200,000 cars crossing per day. Tolls vary based on EZ Pay vs not. If we choose $8 as an average, that would be $1.6 million per day. 750k is almost half of that.
But the bridge is basically at the beginning of the marathon route, comprising basically Mile 1 and Mile 2. So the bridge does not need to be closed to traffic for a half-day. The MTA website provide hourly car counts, so we can work out the costs.
Picking a recent day from the dataset showed that 7296 cars used the bridge in the 07:00 hour, 8971 in the 08:00 hour, 10183 in the 09:00 hours, and 11042 in the 10:00 hour. With a race start time of 08:00, if we close the bridge 1 hour prior, allow 1 hour for everyone to get though Mile 2, then keep the bridge closed for one additional hour, it would be closed from 07:00-11:00.
That would be some 37492 cars that get diverted or delayed for a few hours. At $8 per car, that's just under $300k. But of course some number of those cars will just be delayed and they would cross later in the day, so there would be no loss of revenue (e.g., people who take a half-day off to avoid the race but go into the office after the bridge re-opens) for those people.
Demanding $750K is government agency bold...
"We are focused on making clear to voters the decision at stake: Should the government get to make these decisions for doctors and women, or not?" campaign organizer Lauren Brenzel told Politico. "Floridians of every party, including Republicans, do not want politicians making these decisions for them."
-----------------------------------------------------------
So dumb. So dumb. Does this line actually resonate with sentient beings (with apologies to Nick Gillespie who I believe repeats this line from time to time... to his discredit)? If a women wants to kill her unborn child for convenience (aka a typical abortion), why should a doctor be mentioned as 1 of only 2 stakeholders? Is the doctor acting like a Roman emperor giving his blessing with a thumbs up or down depending on his horoscope that day? It's so stupid. what about the baby daddie? what about the unborn child?
My point is that the decision to kill your unborn child for convenience is not a medical question, but a moral/ethical/legal one. A doctor has no greater value in expressing an opinion than anyone else.
If the baby daddy got a say, he might enslave the woman and force her to carry his offspring. Better we just let her decide, then get the government to force him to pay child support for 18 years if she chooses “keep”.
Its the paradox Dave Chappelle so eloquently described: "if you can kill it, I should at least be allowed to abandon it."
That's why I say that men who donate sperm to a pregnancy should not have any responsibility for the child unless they are married to the woman or otherwise agreed in advance to support any resulting child. No one should ever be forced to be parent against their will, male or female. Women own and operate the baby-making machinery and can decide not become a parent with morning-after pills, abortion, adoption, or legal abandonment ("baby boxes"). They are never coerced into parenthood. Neither should men be. Equal rights.
why didn't I think of that?
I've made that argument and the general response is you did the deed so your responsible for the outcome, but you don't deserve a day because it's a woman's body.
I'm actually fairly certain I've ever seen some writers here make that argument.
you did the deed so your responsible for the outcome
The problem with that argument is that the man has no control over the outcome (and should not); only the woman does.
why didn’t I think of that?
Internalized Puritanism, I would guess.
Genetic imbecility, I would guess.
Eat shit and die.
^Exactly Correct.
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/movies/jeff-dunham-returns-comedy-central-211449381.html
The Biden photo reminds me...I saw this special and was surprised to find Jeff Dunham's hand up Biden's ass instead of Obama's.
It would be nice if the Democrats believed in a right to privacy for any other transaction that two people could engage in, but alas…
Fascinating
Fuckoffanddie.