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

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Biden's Florida Test

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

Liz Wolfe | 4.3.2024 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Joe Biden in meeting in Oval Office | Julia Nikhinson - Pool via CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom
(Julia Nikhinson - Pool via CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom)

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

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

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

NEXT: With Rising Debt, the U.S. Federal Government Is in Bad Company

Liz Wolfe is an associate editor at Reason.

PoliticsReason RoundupAbortionBiden AdministrationJoe BidenIsraelFloridaState GovernmentsLaw & GovernmentReproductive Freedom
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (384)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    The White House has missed its deadline to publish a rule banning menthol cigarettes...

    What a drag.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Only a white supremacist patriarchy would ban menthol cigarettes. Really.

      1. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

        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.

        1. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

          How does spellchecker automatically substitute "cochise" for "cocaine"?

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Agree. Should be meth.

          2. Yuno Hoo   1 year ago

            RACIST!!

          3. Dillinger   1 year ago

            do not say Cochise to this dog!

          4. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

            Squirrels!

        2. Roberta   1 year ago

          I'm just trying to imagine what crack Cochise look, taste, or feel like.

    2. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

      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.

      1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

        Don't tell them how many "african" americans are killed by abortion each year.

        1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          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.

    3. Super Scary   1 year ago

      Any news on them banning Black & Milds too?

  2. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    The insults of Latin America's leaders (including plenty of zingers from Argentine President Javier Milei)...

    They don't call each other white supremacists?

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      When did they become zingers and not hate speech? See Trumps insults.

      1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

        They're zingers *because* they're not from Trump. Trump says it, it's hate speech. It's (D)ifferent.

  3. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

    Abortion truly is the most important thing in American politics.

    Even cultish.

    1. Diarrheality   1 year ago

      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.

    2. markm23   1 year ago

      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.

  4. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    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.

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      I just don't know how they can tell which government workers are mental.

      1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

        All of them?

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Probably still too low. Many have multiple mental issues so should be double counted.

          1. The Margrave of Azilia   1 year ago

            "I want a vote for each of my personalities."

  5. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    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?

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Well, certainly not in his neighborhood.

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Joe's building one across the Indian Ocean.

      1. HorseConch   1 year ago

        Is that the same one he took to ride to Iwo Jima when he fought in WWII?

        1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

          And sadly watch his son die beside him?

          1. HorseConch   1 year ago

            I'm really surprised Trump didn't kill Beau with Covid.

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              Still seven months until the election.

        2. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

          Didn’t Biden single handedly beat the British in the War of 1812?

    3. Minadin   1 year ago

      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.

      1. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

        We really need to rid morons like her from government. She really is a stupid little girl.

  6. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    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.

    1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

      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.

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        He must've really wanted grandkids.

      2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        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."

        1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

          In all fairness he really likes riding his bike.

          1. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

            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.

  7. Yuno Hoo   1 year ago

    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."

    1. HorseConch   1 year ago

      Self defense laws should only be made by law-abiding citizens. Seems like crime will decrease significantly if so.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

        No, crime is committed by criminals so they should be making the laws governing crime...

        *looks around at our politicians*

        ...oh right, nevermind.

    2. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      "Laws about the unborn..."

    3. mad.casual   1 year ago

      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.

    4. Eeyore   1 year ago

      Laws applying to fetuses need to made by fetuses.

    5. Nachtwaechter Staater   1 year ago

      Laws about guns should be made by Gun-Owners ...

      Kinda like THAT one ...

    6. TJJ2000   1 year ago

      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.

      1. Truthfulness   1 year ago

        Imagining children doesn't make the children cease from existing altogether. They're still real beings.

        1. TJJ2000   1 year ago

          If the subject at hand existed it wouldn't need to be imagined into something it's obviously not.

  8. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    ...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.

    1. Yuno Hoo   1 year ago

      *Real* athletes do the swimming part *last*.

  9. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

    I was gambling in Havana, I took a little risk.
    Lawyers, guns and money, Uncle Sam get me out of this.

  10. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

    A "deconflicted zone"

    Maybe they meant Gaza, Nigeria?

    1. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

      East Palestine perhaps?

      1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

        East Palestine is populated mostly by unmarried women on welfare and their children, and the elderly. Not many military aged men.

        1. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

          Those elderly guys must be getting a lot of action to knock up all those young women.

          1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

            The young men leave after they knock up the young women. You see this pattern in many impoverished small towns.

  11. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    Who would have guessed people working in a middle of a war could get killed?

    1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      Not the aid workers Biden drone striked after his *check notes* #sloppypullout.

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        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."

    2. mad.casual   1 year ago

      An Israeli military strike hit and killed seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers in Gaza on Monday night.

      Those poor women.

      1. American Mongrel   1 year ago

        Former special forces/mercenaries for some reason.

      2. mulched   1 year ago

        Just think how many sandwiches were lost in this catastrophe.

  12. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

    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:

    Pollsters asked half of respondents whether “former presidents” should receive immunity and the other half whether “former President Donald Trump,” specifically, should be shielded from prosecution. The share of respondents supporting immunity for Trump rose by 8 percentage points.

    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.

    So there is a definite share of Republicans out there, who just want special rules for "their guy".

    1. Knutsack   1 year ago

      Interesting.

      What did they find out about Democrats and their responses?

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        As if chemtard radical deathfat would report on something that shaded his lefty allies.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          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.

          1. HorseConch   1 year ago

            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.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Don't tell the useful idiots presidents have enjoyed presidential immunity for over 200 years.

              1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

                Prosecutors and judges enjoy absolute immunity for official acts.

                1. windycityattorney   1 year ago

                  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.

                  1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                    Is your assertion as an "attorney" that the executive branch has no oversight at all in elections?

                    1. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

                      He’s probably as much an attorney as ‘Bo Cara, Esq.’.

                  2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                    He said absolute immunity absolute FOR OFFICIAL ACTS.

                    1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                      You would think an actual attorney would understand that part.

                    2. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

                      Sadly, we can not expect that anymore.

                  3. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

                    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.

      2. JesseAz   1 year ago

        They support jailing their opponents. These polls have been given to Jeffrey.

      3. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

        Support for immunity* changed from 9 to 4 when Trump name included.

        *for Democrats (edit)

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          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.

      4. Fats of Fury   1 year ago

        Biden's been granted immunity due to his dementia.

    2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      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.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        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.

        1. TJJ2000   1 year ago

          100000+ So well said.

    3. Dillinger   1 year ago

      >>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.

    4. Zeb   1 year ago

      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?

    5. DesigNate   1 year ago

      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.

  13. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

    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.”

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      “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/

      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.

      Journalistic dispatches, U.S. mail, and telegraphs were all routinely censored as part of the administration’s war efforts. People were arrested for wearing Confederate buttons and for singing Confederate songs.

      Government officials shut down the Chicago Times for excessively criticizing the Lincoln administration. Editors were arrested, papers were closed, and correspondents were banned from the fields of battle. A military governor with the approval of the secretary of war, Edwin M. Stanton, destroyed the office of the Sunday Chronicle, a Washington, D.C., newspaper.

      During Lincoln’s administration, Clement L. Vallandigham, a prominent Democratic member of Congress from Ohio, was arrested for making an anti-war political speech in his home state. After his conviction by a military tribunal, Vallandigham was sentenced to prison. Lincoln, however, changed the punishment to banishment.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        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.

      2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        “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?

        1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

          Hey, that’s his guy!

        2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          Funny how he gets into face-fanning mode over "It's okay when we do it" doesn't go in the direction he wants.

        3. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Globalists are always at war with individuals.

        4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          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.

          1. HorseConch   1 year ago

            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.

          2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            "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.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              No I "clearly" didn't. All of the supposed justification crap is entirely in your head.

              1. DesigNate   1 year ago

                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?

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  Look.

                  Was Biden the "first president in history" to either "censor political speech" or to "censor his opponent"? Yes or no?

                  1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

                    Haha. There’s that selectively nuanced defeatist we’ve all come to know and mock.

                  2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                    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.

                  3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    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?

        5. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          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.

          1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

            Nobody cares if he was first or not.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              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.

              1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

                RFK jr. is a nobody.

              2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

                " 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?

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  I was looking more at the “censor political speech” phrase. To my knowledge, Lincoln did not directly censor McClellan.

                  1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                    So do you now concede that Biden is the first to do it to his opponent?

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    3. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

                      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".

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

          2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            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.

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              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.

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                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.

                1. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

                  “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?

                2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  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.

                3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  "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.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    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.

                    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      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.”

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      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.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    5. Diarrheality   1 year ago

                      Fuck off, you disingenuous pedant. Your dogged refusal to admit when you're wrong is a fucking embarrassment.

                  2. Super Scary   1 year ago

                    "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.

                  3. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                    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.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Takes two.

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    4. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      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.

                    5. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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

                    6. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      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"?

                    7. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      By pulling a me you mean deconstructing the idiocy and ignorance of yours and Jeff’s posts?

                4. DesigNate   1 year ago

                  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.

                  1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                    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.

                    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      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.

                    2. DesigNate   1 year ago

                      But nobody is explicitly saying the first and the second is heavily implied.

                    3. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      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.

                    4. DesigNate   1 year ago

                      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.

                    5. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Jeff used a piss poor example

                      Why is it "piss poor"? Censorship is censorship whether it happens in peacetime or in wartime.

                    6. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      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.

              2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                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.

                1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  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.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    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.

                    1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    3. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    5. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                    6. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    7. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                    8. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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?

                    9. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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".

                    10. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                      “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.”

                    11. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      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...

                    12. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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

                    13. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                    14. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      “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.

                    15. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                  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.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    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.

                    1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Oh, right. So you were able to read my mind and determine what my "REAL INTENTIONS" were that I didn't state. Got it.

                    3. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    5. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                    6. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Even if I have engaged in fallacies in the past, it does not prove that my current statements now are fallacies.

                    7. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

                      Calm down Jeff. You’re getting emotional again.

                    8. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      Even if I have engaged in fallacies in the past, it does not prove that my current statements now are fallacies.

                      Yet, they are.

                    9. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      "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...

                    10. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    11. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                    12. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

            2. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Lol. Want the links to trump cultist and forever trumper labels? Fuck off lying shill.

          3. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            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.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              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.

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                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."

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  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.

                  1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

                    Are we in wartime?

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      But that doesn’t matter to disprove RFK Jr.’s claim.

                      Yes it does. It absolutely does. It makes your anecdote irrelevant.

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    4. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      We don't call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.

                    5. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      We don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.

                      Yeah you do, actually. It is over nothing.

                  2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                    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.

              2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                Context matters. That's all I'm saying.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  Sarc dictionary.

                  context
                  /ˈkɒntɛkst/

                  1. Anyway one can quibble over minor differences to blame Trump while excusing others.

              3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                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".

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  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.

                  1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                    "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?”

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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?

                    2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      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.

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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?

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  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.

                  1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                    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.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      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.

                    3. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                    4. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      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.

                    5. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      "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.

                    6. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      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.

                    7. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      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.

                    8. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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?

                    9. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    10. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

                      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

              4. Outlaw Josey Wales   1 year ago

                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.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  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'.

                  1. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

                    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?

                  2. Outlaw Josey Wales   1 year ago

                    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.

            2. JesseAz   1 year ago

              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.

            3. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

              “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.

          4. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

            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.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              Why should I let a lie stand unchallenged?

              1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                Because it's not a lie and you are the father of them here?

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  Yes it is a lie.

                  1. Diarrheality   1 year ago

                    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.

        6. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

          Pedo Jeffy reflexively defending Biden? Impossible!

      3. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

        Now do FDR.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          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.

          1. Sevo   1 year ago

            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?

            1. Pepin the short   1 year ago

              They are weasels in all aspects in life.

            2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              Don't blame alcohol for evil.

            3. JesseAz   1 year ago

              And sarcasmic doesn't understand what sarcasm is. It is weird.

              1. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

                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.

          2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            "Another guy who was not great on free speech issues."

            Not "great", huh?

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              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?

              1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                It all depends if your Media Matters handler tells you to or not, I suppose.

      4. Nobartium   1 year ago

        Oh thank God, now we can all agree that the civil war was a loss for freedom.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          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.

          1. Nobartium   1 year ago

            Bad trade.

            In fact, base libertarianism tells us that no war is worth fighting if freedom has to be lost.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              I think the freed slaves would disagree.

              1. Nobartium   1 year ago

                Good thing they aren't around to consult on the matter.

                Does base libertarianism matter or not?

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  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?

                  1. Nobartium   1 year ago

                    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.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      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.

                    2. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

                      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.

                  2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                    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.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Hmm. A dead soldier no longer has the liberty to do the things that a live soldier does.

                    2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      And your response is to post something dumber?

                      There is no greater exercise of liberty than to fight for it.

                      It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Empirically, who has more liberty: a dead guy, or a living guy?

                    4. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      Empirically, who has more liberty: a dead guy, or a living guy?

                      An absurd question. I take it you are done with the conversation?

                    5. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      I will take that response as your admission of "yes chemjeff has a point but I will refuse to recognize it".

                    6. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      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.

                    7. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      continued insults prove the point

                    8. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

                      Jeffy is done with the conversation, but the sophistry has just begun.

              2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

                The conscripted soldiers on both sides might disagree, too, might having been forced to fight for things they did not believe in.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  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.

        2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          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.

          1. DesigNate   1 year ago

            Yep.

      5. Zeb   1 year ago

        Yes, other presidents have engaged in censorship during wartime. Fair enough. Happened during WWI as well.
        He still makes an important point.

        1. I…….. Fudd   1 year ago

          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.

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      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.

  14. JesseAz   1 year ago

    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

    1. Yuno Hoo   1 year ago

      "*This* isn't how I had imagined it!"

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      Yep--turns out being a pornsick coomer isn't improved by chopping off the thing that helps you coom.

    3. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

      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.

      1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

        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.

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          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.

    4. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      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.

    5. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      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.

      1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

        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).

        1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          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.

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            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.

      2. MasterThief   1 year ago

        That Chappelle joke was pretty good

    6. Use the Schwartz   1 year ago

      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...

  15. JesseAz   1 year ago

    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.

    1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      My work specifically avoids hiring grads from the ivy's. They are shit engineers

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Lol. I am the same regarding hiring decisions.

      2. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

        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.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      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.

    3. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      They need to make basketball easier to play so Steven Hawking could compete!

      1. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

        How do you get the basket 6' under?

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          Are you discriminating against the unalive?

    4. Zeb   1 year ago

      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.

    5. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      There used to be this thing called "the admissions process" that prevented unprepared students from attending.

  16. JesseAz   1 year ago

    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

  17. Mickey Rat   1 year ago
  18. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

    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.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      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.

      1. KARtikeya   1 year ago

        If it hurts your side it’s a good thing.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          Right back at ya, which is why we need more Kyle Rittenhouses.

          1. KARtikeya   1 year ago

            I’m not on the side of the people that got shot by Rittenhouse

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              Rittenhouse is on my side, though, and that's good enough for me.

              1. KARtikeya   1 year ago

                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.

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                  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.

    2. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Sarc and Jeff were adamant the left doesn't participate in us vs then mentality or comparisons to Hitler in the last populism thread.

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      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?

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

        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.

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

        Trust the experts.

      3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        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.

      4. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        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?

        1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

          You know that's (D)ifferent.

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          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.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            Literally nothing in your response should be taken at face value.

      5. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        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?

      6. Jerry B.   1 year ago

        "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.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          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.

      7. Zeb   1 year ago

        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.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          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.

          1. Foo_dd   1 year ago

            "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.

          2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            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.

            1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

              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.

              1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                And eventually if not checked, Mao and numerous other autocratic despots that felt they could use force to control what people thought and believed.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              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.

              1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                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.

                1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                  Quillette, really? The Australian version of Reason magazine (often with more consistent takes).

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  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.

                  1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                    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.

                  2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                    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.

              2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year 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.

          3. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

            Lol. Chemjeff selectively nuanced defeatist is at it again!

      8. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

        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.

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          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.

          1. DesigNate   1 year ago

            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.

            1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

              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....

              1. DesigNate   1 year ago

                Oh absolutely.

                I was thinking of countering more as government funded propaganda/information about why those ideologies are bad/antithetical to liberty.

                1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                  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.

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          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

          The Preventing Radicalization to Extremist Violence through Education, Network-Building and Training in Southwest Ohio (PREVENTS-OH) will raise awareness of what leads to radicalization and violence, create an education campaign for students about thinking critically of information in the media and online, and improve civic engagement throughout the community on sensitive topics related to domestic violent extremism.

          Now I suppose some might think that this is all code for "oppress Republicans".

          1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

            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.

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              "Fuck off Nazi scum"

              He really is.

          2. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

            It's code for the government restricting speech and association, I don't care what the partisan leaning is, that's fucking unconstitutional, period.

            1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

              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.

          3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            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.

          4. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

            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.

  19. Sevo   1 year ago

    "...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.

  20. Sevo   1 year ago

    "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!

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Yeah, but Joe isn’t the first to do it!

      /dumbjeff

  21. Longtobefree   1 year ago

    "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)

  22. A Cynical Asshole   1 year ago

    Racist:

    Narrator: we could not have ended homelessness for $18B

    "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

    1. mad.casual   1 year ago

      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.

      1. Eeyore   1 year ago

        Everyone in Ukraine must have 3 or 4 houses by now.

        1. mad.casual   1 year ago

          And he calls himself “A Cynical Asshole”.

    2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      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.

  23. A Cynical Asshole   1 year ago

    Apparently parents are cock blockers:

    "Living with parents reduces birth rates" is pretty close to a cross-cultural universal.

    Perhaps this will be the one thing that unites humanity?

  24. Incunabulum   1 year ago

    >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.

    1. A Cynical Asshole   1 year ago

      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.

    2. mad.casual   1 year ago

      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.

  25. SRG2   1 year ago

    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

    1. Sevo   1 year ago

      Sorta like catastrophic climate change?

      1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

        and gender dysmorphia...

        1. KARtikeya   1 year ago

          and golden plates

        2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          I like how now we have "rapid onset gender dysphoria".

  26. mad.casual   1 year ago

    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.

    1. Dillinger   1 year ago

      it's funny because it's true.

  27. Incunabulum   1 year ago

    >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;)

  28. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>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.

    1. Use the Schwartz   1 year ago

      "deploying Vice President Kamala Harris"

      RELEASE THE KAREN!

  29. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>"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.

  30. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>World Central Kitchen ... is pulling out of Gaza.

    there were ways to not die of starvation.

  31. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>"Living with parents reduces birth rates"

    these people don't have backseats?

    1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

      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.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        lol do you ... shake hands?

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          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.

  32. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>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

  33. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Latin America's "small penis club,"

    is this what's up with all the rapists heading norte?

  34. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

    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.

  35. Longtobefree   1 year ago

    Not dwindling energy supplies.
    Not inflation.
    Not excessive national debt.
    Not an open order.
    Killing babies. That is what is important to democrats.

    1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

      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.

      1. TJJ2000   1 year ago

        The Pro-Life mob is actually rooted from the Democrat Party.
        Roe v Wade was written by Republicans.

  36. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

    "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.

    1. The Margrave of Azilia   1 year ago

      The news I hear out of New York indicates that it's a *very* dense city.

  37. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    "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.

    1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      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...

  38. bobby oshea   1 year ago

    "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?

    1. bobby oshea   1 year ago

      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.

      1. DesigNate   1 year ago

        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”.

        1. bobby oshea   1 year ago

          Its the paradox Dave Chappelle so eloquently described: "if you can kill it, I should at least be allowed to abandon it."

        2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          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.

          1. Dillinger   1 year ago

            why didn't I think of that?

            1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

              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.

              1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                I'm actually fairly certain I've ever seen some writers here make that argument.

              2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                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.

            2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

              why didn’t I think of that?

              Internalized Puritanism, I would guess.

              1. Sevo   1 year ago

                Genetic imbecility, I would guess.
                Eat shit and die.

          2. TJJ2000   1 year ago

            ^Exactly Correct.

  39. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    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.

  40. DesigNate   1 year ago

    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…

  41. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago
    1. KARtikeya   1 year ago

      Fascinating

      1. Sevo   1 year ago

        Fuckoffanddie.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: Third-Rate Romance

Charles Oliver | 5.30.2025 4:00 AM

'Banal Horror': Asylum Case Deals Trump Yet Another Loss on Due Process

Billy Binion | 5.29.2025 5:27 PM

Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees To Curb Environmental Red Tape That Slows Down Construction Projects

Jeff Luse | 5.29.2025 3:31 PM

What To Expect Now That Trump Has Scrapped Biden's Crippling AI Regulations

Jack Nicastro | 5.29.2025 3:16 PM

Original Sin, the Biden Cover-Up Book, Is Better Late Than Never

Robby Soave | 5.29.2025 2:23 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

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

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!