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

Election 2024

Kari Lake Doesn't Know What To Do

Plus: Defunding NPR, defending Lionel Shriver, and more...

Liz Wolfe | 4.10.2024 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Kari Lake | Alexandra Buxbaum/Sipa USA/Newscom
(Alexandra Buxbaum/Sipa USA/Newscom)

No more legal abortion in Arizona: Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Arizona upheld a 19th-century law that bans all abortions, except in cases where the mother's life is in peril, with no exceptions made for rape or incest. The law stipulates two to five years in prison for those who aid abortions.

But it's not all cut and dried: "The court, whose justices are all Republican appointees, also put its ruling on hold for the moment and sent the matter back to a lower court for additional arguments about the law's constitutionality," reports The New York Times. "Abortion providers said they expected to continue performing abortions through May as their lawyers and Democratic lawmakers searched for new legal arguments and additional tactics to delay the ruling."

Previously, abortion had been legal up until 15 weeks in the state. That's past the first trimester, and several weeks into the second, which makes it more permissive than most European countries. (Pre-Dobbs, dozens of American states were more liberal/permissive on abortion than most European countries, including states you'd never expect.)

Interestingly, Republicans in the state went into a panic over the ruling, fearing what happens to their candidates' electoral changes in a battleground state, in an election year, given that voters do not tend to be huge fans of hardcore abortion restrictions. Possibly the most interesting reaction came from Kari Lake, the Republican vying for the seat Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an independent, has vacated.

My statement regarding today's Arizona Supreme Court Abortion Ruling⤵️ pic.twitter.com/bNAjXd80TN

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) April 9, 2024

Two years ago, Lake called abortion "the ultimate sin" while noting that it should be determined at the state level, which is not technically inconsistent with her statement yesterday.

Still, there's been a palpable rhetoric shift as Republicans seeking office realize abortion bans don't play well—and, increasingly, a fracturing conservative movement torn between those who believe this is an area worth compromising on and those who believe steadfast protection of unborn life is more important than their own political ambitions.

Another effect, beyond the political implications for former President Donald Trump and Kari Lake, could be a state-level backlash. Activists in the state have already been working to get a measure on the ballot that would add abortion protections into the state's constitution. "Advocates say they've already got more than 500,000 signatures, well above the threshold of 383,923 signatures needed by an early July deadline," reports the Arizona Republic. (More background on the amending-the-state-constitution strategy, which we will see a lot more of in the years ahead.)

And Democrats, of course, will have to factor the decision into their campaign strategy. "Vice-president Kamala Harris will go to Arizona later this week, in a visit that was planned ahead of the Tuesday decision," reports The Guardian. "She blamed the impending state ban on Trump, whose three supreme court appointees voted to eliminate the federally guaranteed right to an abortion."


Scenes from New York: You know the city has gone to the dogs when an elderly woman is mugged on the steps of her Greek Orthodox Church at 8:20 a.m.

Though the woman is critically injured and hospitalized, she is expected to survive. It's worth noting that the attacker's face was partially obscured by mask, so either he's really COVID-cautious or masks, more normalized now than pre-2020, have become widely adopted by criminals to hide their identities—another horrid unintended consequence of pandemic-era policy.

The New York Daily News notes that both misdemeanor and felony assaults are up this year when compared with the same time period in 2023.


QUICK HITS

  • Reading Tim Urban's post on his eclipse-watching experience, in the middle of rural Arkansas, was a beautiful way to start my morning. I hope you enjoy it, too!
  • "Ukrainian military intelligence was responsible for an attack on a Russian naval missile carrier in the Baltic Sea, according to an official familiar with the operation, underscoring Kyiv's effort to strike Kremlin forces far from the front line," reports Bloomberg. I finally got around to watching 20 Days in Mariupol this past weekend and highly recommend it, for those who remain interested in what President Vladimir Putin is doing to Ukraine.
  • This negative New York Times book review of Lionel Shriver's Mania just makes me want to read the book more. "Harrison Bergeron" vibes that offended the reviewer's sensibilities? Yes, please!
  • "Power bills will keep rising even after the Fed tames inflation," reads an ominous Bloomberg headline. In fact, "residential electricity inflation is outpacing the wider consumer price index" across the country.
  • What will it take to tame New York City's garbage problem?
  • "The National Health Service in England started restricting gender treatments for children this month, making it the fifth European country to limit the medications because of a lack of evidence of their benefits and concern about long-term harms," reports The New York Times. "For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress," concludes the report, researched over the course of four years and released last night.
  • YES:

In my lifetime I have seen the power of these so-called "gotchas" fade as governments fail to reliably provide the basic services that we're assured only a government monopoly can manage. https://t.co/5URXQ2gbLC

— Zach Weissmueller (@TheAbridgedZach) April 9, 2024

  • The only downside to defunding NPR would be libertarians no longer having as many threats to deploy to incentivize good child behavior:

Literally used to threaten my kids and their friends in the car that I would turn on Prairie Home Companion if they didn't behave.

— Nick Gillespie (@nickgillespie) April 9, 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: Americans Don’t Want a Dictatorship, but They're Creating One Anyway

Liz Wolfe is an associate editor at Reason.

Election 2024PoliticsReason RoundupArizonaAbortionArizona Supreme CourtDonald TrumpState GovernmentsRepublican Party
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (549)

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

    ...except in cases where the mother's life is in peril, with no exceptions made for rape or incest.

    Really the only truly defensible position if you favor outlawing it. Don't @ me.

    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      Yup. If a fetus is a human being, they’re a human being regardless of their provenance.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        2 abortion articles this morning. It is like bad Liz never left.

        There is always an influx of these articles when democrats seemingly get a new electoral talking point.

        The 15 week law was passed a year ago. My take is they undo the 1864 law as they just passed the new law.

        The oddity here is in most cases new laws supplant old laws. But for some reason the judge in this case did not make that determination. It seems made in order to generate headlines.

        1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   1 year ago

          It would be nice to get some actual coverage of the legal decision here.

          And to also quit mischaraterizing the Alabama IVF decision

          1. R Mac   1 year ago

            ITT, Lying Jeffy admits he thinks it’s possible for children to consent.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Well he is a pedophile.

              1. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                I think Jeffy is an incel pedophile, in that he is to morbidly obese and annoying to physically orally or psychologically get a child on his clutches. He supports predator friendly policies so he can one day indulge his pedophilia with democrat government assistance. Or so he likely believes.

                Pluggo is just a garden variety child molester.

            2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              He came to that conclusion here ages ago. At least he's being consistent for a change.

        2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          "2 abortion articles this morning. It is like bad Liz never left."

          Seeing as new Liz is somewhat pro-life it's pretty obvious that there are orders from above. Charles Koch isn't messing around this election.

          1. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

            Maybe he will follow his brother’s journey to the great beyond. In his case, Hell.

      2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

        What if it's illegal?

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Did you think this clever?

          1. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

            I’ll bet he even showed it off to his imaginary coworkers, at his imaginary job. Who are in all likelihood the other hobos who hang out near his refrigerator box.

        2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          With the assistance of the Biden administration, the fetus snuck into the US of it’s own accord and is illegally taking up residence?

          Golly, Sarc.

          1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            People in the comments are demanding an end to birthright citizenship. That would mean illegal fetuses wouldn’t be potential citizens. They’d never be citizens. Of anywhere. So why should they have basic rights like… life? They’re illegal, through and through. They aren't human. They're poison. Vermin. Their very existence is illegal. What’s wrong with ending it?

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              It is amazing to me on how ignorant on this topic you are. Very few countries practice jus solis. Vast majority are jus sanguinis.

              Literally 5 minutes of research would save you weeks of embarrassment.

              1. VULGAR MADMAN   1 year ago

                Sarc is the worst kind of idiot; An idiot who thinks he’s funny.

              2. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                Yeah, we can’t let him forget this one anytime soon.

            2. R Mac   1 year ago

              Poor sarc.

              1. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                Yes, pour Sarc.

            3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              "They aren’t human."

              This is you pulling a chemjeff and putting your narratives in other peoples mouths. No one here said that, and neither did Trump.

              "That would mean illegal fetuses wouldn’t be potential citizens. They’d never be citizens. Of anywhere."

              Virtually every country in the world will give a minor born to a citizen overseas, citizenship, as long as the parent citizen was born in that country.

              Your false dilemma is false.

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                Virtually every country in the world will give a minor born to a citizen overseas, citizenship, as long as the parent citizen was born in that country.

                Dude, that’s not even true for Canada.

                https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/children/birth-abroad

                Not all children born outside of Canada to Canadian citizens are entitled to Canadian citizenship.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  And what are the exceptions. Did you do any research?

                  The first paragraph.

                  Canadians who have a child born outside of Canada do not need to register the birth in Canada.

                  So what are the exceptions to the broad rule?

                  In the click through link in YOUR article it leads to:

                  https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/proof-citizenship/about.html

                  So it applies to refugees and immigrants in Canada. Because Canada doesn't practice broad jus solis.

                  1. R Mac   1 year ago

                    Good thing for him he’s got you muted today, otherwise he’d be embarrassed now.

                    1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                      Unfortunately, he doesn’t embarrass easily and seems to ask for more.

                    2. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                      Severe alcoholism is a helluva thing.

                  2. charliehall   1 year ago

                    Canada, like the US, México, Brazil, and almost every other country in the Western Hemisphere, has almost unrestricted birthright citizenship for anyone born in the country.

                    1. VULGAR MADMAN   1 year ago

                      Fuck that

                2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  What I said: "as long as the parent citizen was born in that country."

                  Sarcasmic: "Dude, that’s not even true for Canada. Not all children born outside of Canada to Canadian citizens are entitled to Canadian citizenship."

                  Ow. I facepalmed so hard I raised a bruise.

                  Hi Sarc, want to take a wild guess what the Canadian governments condition on that is?

                  1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                    You were wrong. You can run around with the goalposts all day long, but that doesn’t make that statement of yours I responded to any less wrong.

                    Admit it. You were wrong.

                    You can’t do it.

                    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Your statement was in fact wrong. As those children would enjoy citizenship in their parents countries. So yes. You were wrong. And your cite referenced refugees and other immigrants. Not by blood Canadian citizens. But you were told this. And too stupid to realize it. Lol.

                    2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      "You were wrong"

                      I explicitly fucking said the condition in my original post, you illiterate retard.

                      Look: "as long as the parent citizen was born in that country."

                      That's the condition. It only counts if one parent was born there.

                      It's like arguing with a cartoon.

                    3. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                      Cartoons are amusing. Sarc is just pathetic.

            4. DesigNate   1 year ago

              That’s not how it would work, seeing as how illegal immigrants, not being naturalized citizens, are technically still citizens of their home country.

              (And before anyone tries to pull “then they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction”, If I go to Italy and break the law, I’m subject to their jurisdiction in the sense that I can be tried, convicted, and sentenced to jail there. It doesn’t revoke my American citizenship. Not sure why this is a hard concept for so many people to grasp.)

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                illegal immigrants, not being naturalized citizens, are technically still citizens of their home country.

                I'm talking about their kids. As I pointed out to ML, children born abroad are not automatically granted citizenship of their parent's home country. If they're not given birthright American citizenship, then they could be like that Tom Hanks in that movie The Terminal. Citizens of nowhere.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  You didnt even bother with a secondary click through. Lol.

                  Those refugees and immigrants that pertains too often still have dual citizenship with their original countries. So they don't end up without a citizenship.

                  Read your own fucking links instead if using broad supposition.

                  1. R Mac   1 year ago

                    Being buddies with Lying Jeffy made him lie more. Now after becoming buddies with turd he doesn’t read through his own links.

                    What happens when he latches onto misconstrueman?

                    1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                      Hopefully he doesn't emulate the other thing SPB2 is known for.

                    2. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                      I’m not sure about children, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a drunken Sarc tried to corner an underage teenage girl……. or boy.

                2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  "As I pointed out to ML, children born abroad are not automatically granted citizenship of their parent’s home country."

                  If you would have actually read my comment, or followed the link in yours, you might have found out what that one big condition is.

                3. DesigNate   1 year ago

                  The whole argument about their kids is that they were born on American soil so they’re American.

                  I’m saying that ending birthright citizenship shouldn’t change that because I think that it has been grossly misinterpreted. Namely that the birthright rule requires at least one parent to be “subject to the jurisdiction” and clearly you don’t give up your citizenship just because you break the law (thus being subject to the law) in another country. You’re still clearly a subject of the United States (this should tell you all you need to know about what the government, even back when the 14th was adopted, thought about its citizens).

      3. BestUsedCarSales   1 year ago

        Though that makes the rape and incest (incest I've never understood, unless it's understood as rape as well) exceptions difficult too.

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          Yeah the incest thing assumes rape? What if it's consensual sex between first cousins or half siblings? Icky maybe but not rape.

          1. BestUsedCarSales   1 year ago

            That's my confusion. I'm not advocating incest, no matter how much Step-Mom porn is being pushed these days, but I'm not sure that consensual family relations really needs to end with a dead baby.

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              "no matter how much Step-Mom porn"

              What's really gross is that you know the "step" is only added for the sake of the appearance of probity.

              If you wank too much it takes more novelty and crazier and crazier things to get you stimulated.

          2. charliehall   1 year ago

            In many places, including much of the US, first cousins can marry legally.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              Not as much as you think. Interestingly, it's banned in Mississippi, but legal in California.

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

    2. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

      Two years ago, Lake called abortion "the ultimate sin" while noting that it should be determined at the state level, which is not technically inconsistent with her statement yesterday.

      So "ultimate sin" depends on lines on a map? Hmmm...

      1. Old Engineer   1 year ago

        Sins aren't against the law, crimes are. If sins were punishable by law, I suspect that we would both be up on crosses singing "Always Look at the Bright Side of Life".

        1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

          True, and the Religious Right crowd are working on those crosses too.

          And even though I neither have performed an abortion, nor have I been party to an abortion, and I am Childfree By Choice at age 56, that still doesn't make me innocent in my thoughts to the Religious Right crowd.

          The next stop after banning abortion will be dragging out The Comstock Act and updating it for The Information Age, applying it to communications about abortion, contraception, and "obscenity" in Cyberspace. That damn thing should have been repealed long ago and everybody, Left, Right, and even Libertarian were malignantly neglectful for never fighting like Hell to repeal it!

          1. R Mac   1 year ago

            Holy shit you’re 56?

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              Yeah, I was guessing early 30’s. I suppose I can't call him 'Young Encog' anymore if he has a decade on me.

            2. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Bet he is childless. And "totally" by choice.

          2. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

            Don’t mention Comstock. That lights the Hank signal.

            1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

              True, and I grit my teeth at that thought, but if the Act were repealed long ago as it should have been, Hank would be ranting about Jello™ Pudding and Boost™.
              🙂
              😉

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

        You are not clever.

        1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

          I don't have to be clever to observe and state a fact about moral cognitive dissonance. If something is morally wrong, it's morally wrong everywhere.

  2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    I see spittin tobaccy is up 3.5%
    Way to go , Joe.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      Just wait. Plugazoid will be along shortly to deny it and claim it’s the greatest economy ever in the history of the world. His unflappable stupidity and dishonesty is unmatched and unwavering.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        And some rant about "Fat Donnie".

        1. Sevo   1 year ago

          Envy is a bitch; just ask turd.

        2. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

          Which is even more nonsensical since it appears Trump has lost some weight lately.

    2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      But what about the rig count?

      1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

        Old news, y’all. The “inflation is a wingnut talking point” narrative has been abandoned in favor of “black dudes punching random women in the face in NYC are violent MAGA extremists. Oh, and crime is down.”

        It all makes sense in a buttplug kinda way.

  3. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Interestingly, Republicans in the state went into a panic over the ruling, fearing what happens to their candidates' electoral changes in a battleground state...

    At the very least they should have known they weren't going to be able to campaign on solving the issue when they solved the issue. That's why you don't solve an issue.

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Technically they solved it last year when they passed the 15 week law.

      1. HorseConch   1 year ago

        How about that poor woman who is at 39 weeks and suddenly realizes she has a girls trip to Napa Valley coming up she doesn't want to miss?

        1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

          If she is a poor woman, she can't afford Napa Valley, so not a real scenario.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Why we need to forgive student loans so people can travel per AOC.

          2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

            Remember, everyone making less than $400k is now poor.

            1. BestUsedCarSales   1 year ago

              Inflation has become so bad that now I have to frequent low-end prostitutes.

              1. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                What????? ENB is on the case!!!!!!!!

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Modern Republicans seem to consistently do stupid things that make them lose elections, while Democrats do stupid things and win elections. What kind of stupid do voters prefer?

      1. HorseConch   1 year ago

        The kind that have us teetering on bankruptcy and funding multiple wars around the world.

        1. charliehall   1 year ago

          The US is not teetering in bankruptcy and it is better to fight wars than to be ruled by the likes of Putin and Sinwar.

          1. Diarrheality   1 year ago

            ...it is better to fight wars than to be ruled by the likes of Putin and Sinwar.

            By all means, grab a weapon and take up a forward position; otherwise, shut the fuck up and skulk back to your hole, coward.

          2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            Really? We need to fight proxy wars with people who have no desire to conquer US territory? What crack are you smoking?

          3. R Mac   1 year ago

            One of the dumber false dichotomies I’ve seen here in awhile and that’s really saying something.

          4. GraniteLiberty303   1 year ago

            “than to be ruled by the likes of Putin and Sinwar.”

            Hillary is that you?

  4. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    Literally used to threaten my kids and their friends in the car that I would turn on Prairie Home Companion if they didn't behave.

    Probably better than beating them, but not by much.

    1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      As a kid I far preferred PHC to some of the musical choices my parents made us endure. Englebert Humperdink, man! No child should be subjected to that.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

        Worst vacation road trip ever: Dad listening to Clarence Thomas hearings for hours. God bless the walkman.

        1. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

          You mean you missed out on Biden’s bullshit blathering?

      2. Stuck in California   1 year ago

        PHC was one of the only GOOD things on PBS.

        Especially at the end, when Keillor retired and it got taken over by Chris Thiele, renamed Live from Here. All kinds of interesting non-mainstream musical acts and none of the hyper-left taint of Keillor at the end of his run.

        Alas, you can't find anything at all like that now. Trump broke NPR and there's nothing on there but croaky voiced young women pearl clutching about Trump and explaining why everything is bad for black and transgender people. Not even Saturday afternoon has a listenable show.

    2. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

      The only downside to defunding NPR would be libertarians no longer having as many threats to deploy to incentivize good child behavior:

      I would hope a Libertarian parent would incentivize good behavior in children the same way they would incentive it with everyone else. "Life is better when you do certain things."

    3. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

      I was going to post that my dad would put on Garrison Keillor in the car, which had to be worse than whatever Prairie Home Companion was. I looked it up just now to see if it was NPR or PBS, when I discovered that PHC was Keillor's show. Luckily my mom got so sick of it and had him stop. Unfortunately, the compromise was to play Rush Limbaugh all the time. As a child I couldn't stand Limbaugh's voice.

  5. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

    “Power bills will keep rising even after the Fed tames inflation,”

    Tames inflation…maybe we can all use the gaslights provided by Bloomberg as a reliable energy source.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      I thought gas was outlawed.

      1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

        Only in blue cities/states.

  6. But SkyNet is a Private Company   1 year ago

    Seems like Kari Lake knew exactly what to do

  7. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    ...another horrid unintended consequence of pandemic-era policy.

    Small price to pay for control over the masses.

    1. HorseConch   1 year ago

      It's almost as though those policies seemed absolutely fucking terrible at the time. Does stupidity/evil count towards the end result being considered unintended?

      1. charliehall   1 year ago

        They saved millions of lives.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          Evidence? We want citations and links.

          1. Diarrheality   1 year ago

            That would require both honesty and integrity, qualities foreign to that worthless asshole.

        2. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

          Sire they did. We believe you!

  8. JesseAz   1 year ago

    Not sure if many Hermiston to Tim Pool, but he has been highlighting some strangeness with the voter registration database run by SSA. This database is used to enroll voters without an ID. Aside from the tremendous increase of voters registering without an ID, there has been an explosion of 10s of thousands of voters somehow dying between registering to vote and being checked by SSA (a process that is stated to take under a week). These registrations per the database are only for new registrations, not to check validity of voter rolls.

    For example. Missouri had 23k people die between registering and being confirmed in one week.

    https://www.ssa.gov/open/havv/havv-weekly-2024-02-17.html

    Now a logical person may ask why this tremendous growth of registering without identification. Maybe someone using a database to generate false registrations for mail in voting. But we definitely shouldn't look into it.

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      No widespread fraud.

    2. HorseConch   1 year ago

      There wouldn't be that many in nursing homes, but they should also have ID's.

    3. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

      Maybe these people are in some combo "register to vote and get a COVID booster" program, that might explain the number of sudden deaths..

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

        Bingo. I think.

    4. mad.casual   1 year ago

      Missouri had 23k people die between registering and being confirmed in one week.

      It would’ve been 46k or more if they had gone with the Illinois “Register to vote and then die early and register to vote and then die often.” policy they were going to go with but a bunch of them were skeptical for some reason.

    5. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

      I fear we might see election fraud and interference in this election that dwarfs whatever shenanigans seemed to plague the 2020 election. Even if it happens to be so overt and obvious, I also fear the majority of Americans will just go along with it.

      I don't think the so-called deep state will allow Trump to serve another term. Whether that means "widespread" fraud, polling stations in Red areas discovering on election day that ballots were printed on the wrong-sized paper, Trump "mysteriously" getting ill and dying, or outright assassination, I don't know. (Maybe Trump will be found to have committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head twice, for example.)

      I don't have hard evidence that any of this WILL happen. I just have the gnawing suspicion that Trump won't be allowed to win or serve as President again.

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

        The courts have already said that nobody has standing to prevent it before the fact and after the fact it is moot.

        1. R Mac   1 year ago

          After the fact it’s a crime to challenge it.

  9. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

    Literally used to threaten my kids and their friends in the car that I would turn on Prairie Home Companion if they didn't behave.

    CPS is already opening an investigation, you monster!

  10. JesseAz   1 year ago

    Elon vs Brazil got turned up a notch as Brazilian judge seeks to charge Elon. Shit is getting crazy.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/04/free-speech-champion-elon-musk-battles-brazils-supreme-justice-over-censorship/

    1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      Brazil is quickly falling down the fascistic authoritarian rabbit hole as fast as that judge can move them.

      1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

        “When did de Moraes become the dictator of Brazil?” said Musk.

        Exactly. I have no clue how the Brazilian power structure works, but it seems odd that a judge can demand this much.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Judicial supremacy. The same way the left here invents laws and regulations through the courts and actions like sue and settle.

      2. JesseAz   1 year ago

        This is the danger of allowing the government censorship and defending it the last few years under the guise of Muh Private Companies.

        But this is what the left wants and why shrike abd jeff defend it.

        This judge was demanding X say the people were blocked due to X violations and not the judges orders. There are 5 people the judge sentenced to jail due to posts without trial. It is insane.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Just protecting democracy.

      3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        Brazil is quickly falling down the fascistic authoritarian rabbit hole as fast as that judge can move them.

        The inevitable result of any radical left regime.

        1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

          Bolsonaro vs Greenwald? Seems more of Brazilian thing more than a left/right thing.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            It’s right and left, and, according to Mike Benz, the CIA is involved in Lula’s side. It’s also bad enough that Greenwald, as he’s stated in a podcast, is on the phone for every second up until the podcast with his lawyer trying to make sure he doesn’t run afoul of Moraes.

        2. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

          We can only hope for a revolution in which the Brazilian left is overthrown and executed to the last.

      4. damikesc   1 year ago

        Thank gosh that fascist Balsonaro is out of power, amirite?

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          Just ask Jeffy or Sarc.

      5. BestUsedCarSales   1 year ago

        I don't know if this is the correct usage of "to be fair", but to be fair, Brazila goes down a fascistic authoritarian rabbit hole every 15-20 years.

        1. charliehall   1 year ago

          And all those fascist regimes were supported by US conservatives

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            Cite?

          2. Diarrheality   1 year ago

            Did it hurt when you pulled that one out of your ass?

          3. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

            This one is supported by your Marxist democrat masters,

    2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      Why do all these guys always look like Bond supervillains? This guy also kind of looks like Voldemort or Darth Vader when he took the helmet off.

      1. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

        Speaking of villains, I found a picture that closely resembles how I picture Jeffy……….

        https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Pearl_(Blade)

    3. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

      Their Mickey Mouse laws hardly apply to Musk.

  11. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    "have become widely adopted by criminals to hide their identities—another horrid unintended consequence of pandemic-era policy."

    But one widely predicted. I made comments several times that many states have anti-mask laws (based on criminals and KKK) that COVID-masking requirements violated.

    1. charliehall   1 year ago

      They will have to pry my N95 mask from my cold dead head.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

        Odds are, they probably will as an N95 won’t protect you from jack shit.

      2. R Mac   1 year ago

        Lol, found the retard still wearing a mask. In his car. By himself.

      3. Diarrheality   1 year ago

        Your troll game is weak.

  12. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

    My big fat Greek wedding 4: my big fat Greek mugging

  13. JesseAz   1 year ago

    15 government agencies knew Wuhan was
    conducting coronovirus research with taxpayer funds through EcoHealth Alliance. Before the wet market theory was created and lab leak theory censored.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/2959870/fifteen-agencies-aware-of-controversial-ecohealth-coronavirus-research-paul-says/

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   1 year ago

      A certain poster could argue it was due to bullshit

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Well facts did change.

    2. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

      ""and lab leak theory censored""

      More like attacked by an angry mob.

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      That is not what your link says.

      Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that 15 federal agencies were aware of a proposed project from 2018 that would have allowed virus research organization EcoHealth Alliance to genetically engineer a virus similar to SARS-CoV-2, sparking concerns about the extent to which the Trump administration should have been aware of the risks of research into dangerous viruses before the start of the COVID pandemic.

      The project ultimately was not funded, but EcoHealth Alliance-funded research in Wuhan, China, has been at the center of speculation on the part of congressional investigators about the origins of the coronavirus.

      Let me repeat the important part:

      The project ultimately was not funded

      One more time, for clarity:

      The project ultimately was NOT FUNDED

      1. R Mac   1 year ago

        Whoosh!

    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      And once again, for complete clarity:

      Jesse writes:
      15 government agencies knew Wuhan was
      conducting coronovirus research with taxpayer funds through EcoHealth Alliance. Before the wet market theory was created and lab leak theory censored.

      Based on the article, in 2018, the EcoHealth Alliance was NOT conducting "coronavirus research with taxpayer funds" in Wuhan. That is plainly false.

      If the narrative is supposed to be, "the government knew all along the virus was created in the lab and only generated the wet market theory as a CYA maneuver to cover up the truth", then the present article does not lend support to that narrative.

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

        Help me understand. It is not significant that 15 government agencies knew that a project to genetically engineer a similar virus was not just possible, but had actually been proposed by Eco-Health Alliance, the very group that had multiple members sign the "expert opinion" that a lab leak was the least likely scenario?

        Then you write this:

        Based on the article, in 2018, the EcoHealth Alliance was NOT conducting “coronavirus research with taxpayer funds” in Wuhan. That is plainly false.

        Which is fucking ridiculous. EcoHealth Alliance was without question funding research in Wuhan late in 2019 when the actual outbreak occurred. It has always been speculated that they switched to China for the GoF research because they were told they couldn't perform it here.

        Oh, and they also flat out lied that zero GoF research was being conducted.

        The article absolutely supports the narrative.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          Jesse wrote:

          15 government agencies knew Wuhan was
          conducting coronovirus research with taxpayer funds through EcoHealth Alliance.

          Based on the article, in 2018, is that claim true or false?

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

            Based on the article, in 2018, is that claim true or false?

            Jesse never mentioned 2018. His claim is that they knew, which they certainly should have, based on the information they had.

            15 agencies knew that EcoHealth had requested to fund such research as recently as 2018. Many of these are intelligence agencies. At the beginning of the pandemic, due diligence on where EcoHealth, who had previously requested to conduct such research, was currently funding research would have revealed it was China. Specifically Wuhan, coincidentally exactly at the epicenter of the outbreak.

            There is a reason you don't 2 +2 to equal 4, jeffy. But it does. If those agencies were not immediately speculating that such research was in fact being conducted at that lab, it was because they were told not to.

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              Lying Jeffy is being intentionally obtuse to defend the narrative. One of the many different ways he’s dishonest.

              1. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                I’m sure he would love to see another outbreak.

        2. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Jeff has his talking points and will stick to them. No matter how many memos or how much information comes to light.

          Sure. He has zero evidence. And the other side has large amounts. But they are the same because there is no still smoking gun.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            And the main reason we're never really going to get a definitive answer is because the Chinese yeeted whatever material might have implicated them, anyway.

  14. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

    Swastikas Are Progressive Now
    Vandalizing synagogues with swastikas is good, leftists argue.

    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      Just to be clear, these two far-left professors are debating whether painting a swastika on a synagogue is a defensible political act.

      Although I would argue that this argument isn’t coming from the traditional left, but rather the new intersectional/critical theory “left” philosophy of the Democrats, which was formerly known as 'Nazism'.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        The big DNC tent is getting a little uncomfortable.

        1. mad.casual   1 year ago

          Yeah, really puts a different spin on this commercial (which I think is dumb) when your response is “He ruined a perfectly good teaching moment by pulling away before his kid could get out and tell them!”

          1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

            Well, if you think the commercial is dumb, what do you have to drool on this subject?

      2. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

        It is like the trasitional left wants to conserve leftism.

      3. damikesc   1 year ago

        ...but...but...but Nazis were right-wing, right?

        Right?

        Sincerely,
        every Leftist on the planet.

        1. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

          Those ‘right wing’ socialists!

      4. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

        Not exactly Oxford Debate style, but here goes:

        Resolved with a 12 Gauge small-pellet sawed-off shotgun: Painting anything on private property without the consent of the owner is not right for any purpose. End of debate.

        FTFY, Malcolm Harris, David Austin Walsh, and Marshall Steinbaum.

        (Might I add, this also goes for all the "Jesus Saves" signs stapled up on utility poles along the highways, which violate their property rights and jeopardize the safety and lives of utility workers, not to mention add to the litter along the highway and are usually within short distance of homeless encampments. Who ever can climb like monkeys to staple a sign on a post could also swing a hammer or lay bricks in construction to increase the housing supply.)

        1. R Mac   1 year ago

          “Who ever can climb like monkeys to staple a sign on a post could also swing a hammer or lay bricks in construction to increase the housing supply.”

          Says the guy that admitted he buys bibles, inserts atheist writings into them, them donates them back to goodwill.

          1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

            I’ve swung hammers, painted, hauled waste and garbage, moved appliances, mowed grass, and built metal composter bins for landlords making new units, on top of doing my regular full-time work, so I get to have a say on these matters and I get to have my own hobbies. So there, nyah!
            :p
            🙂
            😉
            And the supply chain is from Value Village to GoodWill and The Salvation Army. You don't even have to thank me if you need a kidney one day.

        2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          “Jesus Saves” signs stapled up on utility poles along the highways, which violate their property rights and jeopardize the safety and lives of utility workers

          Hahaha, you're far worse than any Southern Baptist preacher on this stuff, Encog.

          There's no enumerated right to freedom from religion. As long as the government isn't posting those signs it's no problem.

          1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

            There are, however, laws against littering and stapling signs on utility poles, no matter what the signs are, and religionists do not get a pass on defacing property and endangering utility workers just because religionists do it in the name of Jeebus.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              I'm sure you have the same ire for lost dog posters.

              1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

                If they staple pictures up on utility poles, yes.

                It's the Twenty-First Century. Pet owners can post lost pets notices on Craigslist and other locale-related Web Sites and, since they have budgets for expensive pet foods and vet visits, they can afford to have their pets microchipped and geotagged.

                Sorry, as loveable as they can be, dumb animals do not have primacy over the Individual Rights and safety of humans.

                1. R Mac   1 year ago

                  I don’t go on any of those websites. There are frequently lost pet pictures on utility poles near me that I wouldn’t see if they weren’t. I see no harm in them being there.

                  1. R Mac   1 year ago

                    Also garage sale posters too! The horror!

                    1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

                      Again, they can advertise that with their own signs on their own yards and on electronic media.

                    2. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Around here they can also do it on utility poles.

                    3. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Advertising a yard sale only in your yard is sure to generate traffic.

                      Youre not a business major are you.

                    4. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

                      JesseAz, You could also post classifieds, again, via that newfangled Craigslist you never go on but which others do, as well as get consent from neighbors to post signs on their property. Then remove the signs when the sale iz over. The key concept here is consensual use of another's property and in ways that harm no one. The "Jesus Saves"-ers don't seem to get that.

                2. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

                  I should add that if people post religious signs on their own property and on their own houses of worship or if they rent privately-owned billboards on the highway, they have every right to do so and I will uphold and defend their right to do so.

                  I'm not out to shut down The Men's Prayer Breakfast, The Ladies Quilting Bee, or A Trans-Sunday Church-Up and Switch-Up (if that's what you'd call it,).

                  I am just against The Tragedy of the Commons and adding danger to some of the most crucial jobs in modern Western Civilization in the name of Religion.

                3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  "If they staple pictures up on utility poles, yes."

                  I bet a thousand bucks you don't. Admit it, you don't give a flying fuck what's plastered on lamp posts and utility poles as long as it's not something about Jesus.

                  1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

                    I am as against the junkification of U.S. urban areas as everyone else who has complained about it, no matter what form it takes.

                    And since Religion professes to be the sine quo non touchstone for human conduct, teaching by example might be more than a little in order.

                4. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                  You probably advocate for the swift collection and execution of any lost ‘stray’ dogs.

                  1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

                    If a dog is on the streets, it is because a human moral agent either let them get loose or deliberately put them there. And if the dogs are not innoculated against rabies and other spreadable diseases, again, it is a human moral agent's fault.

                    While I don't desire to see dogs dead, the above scenarios aren't something members of a free society should have to suffer either.

                    Pets belong in sapient, responsible hands and need to be prevented from violating the rights and safety of sapient beings.

      5. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

        Regardless, Biden is aggressively courting their vote.

    2. HorseConch   1 year ago

      At least they are showing their true colors as the racist anti-semites they have always been. It's amazing how reliable the minority and Jewish vote has been for the Democrats for all these years.

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        Their affinity for those who pose as the left stems from the shtetels they fled in the late nineteenth century, where it was seen as salvation from pogroms and the tsar.
        European Jews (particularly Soviet Jews) were dissuaded of the notion by the events of the twentieth century, but American Jews never were.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          European Jews (particularly Soviet Jews) were dissuaded of the notion by the events of the twentieth century, but American Jews never were.

          Plus, a lot of them believed the dumb stories about the streets being paved with gold, and thought "land of opportunity" meant "land of guaranteed outcomes." It's how so many of them ended up falling in with communist and marxist political groups in the early 20th century.

    3. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      It always was progressive in the west. It's only a conservative symbol in India and mongolia

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        And China, Japan and Korea.

        I have nothing against the swastika in it's Eastern context. But in the West its use is irredeemably poisoned, and the version they're debating is definitely being used in a Nazi context.

        1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

          But in the West its use is irredeemably poisoned

          And don't get me started on that mustache.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Jordan pulled it off.

            1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

              Nazis buy shoes too.

              1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

                But only Nazis buy shoes made by slaves in remote factory camps. Oh, wait...

          2. Randy Sax   1 year ago

            Somehow the WV Bug managed to escape that reputation. Maybe Herbie had something to do with it? That movie was made by Walt Disney.

        2. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

          The Swastika was a symbol of good luck and fortune in the East and in Native American cultures, which makes the Swastika stupid on top of evil.

    4. SRG2   1 year ago

      Can we expect that white supremacist supporters of Trump will now stop flying swastikas? Or will they make common cause with the far left on this matter?

      1. HorseConch   1 year ago

        It seems like there are more of them dressed like federal agents and doing innocent stuff like trying to get through subway turnstiles, counter protesting in Idaho, and carrying tiki torches.

      2. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Lol. Good one shrike. Defend it with baseless narratives the left loves.

        Meanwhile on campuses...

      3. R Mac   1 year ago

        Who are you talking about?

        Haha, just kidding, we all know you’re making up bullshit, shrike.

      4. LIBertrans   1 year ago

        Speaking of race suicide Trumpanzees, how is Arizona's FGM bill doing in the Statehouse?

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          Oh look, old Hank is now in favour of female genital mutilation. I guess it really is (D)ifferent when it's for Democrat constituencies.

        2. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

          So you’re against ‘girl bulliers’, but a big fan of mutilating them? You democrats are really a breed apart.

      5. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        "Can we expect that white supremacist supporters of Trump will now stop flying swastikas?"

        Can we expect that white supremacist supporters of Biden will now stop flying swastikas too?

        Ha ha, just kidding. I know from looking at Democratic party history that White Supremacy was part of the platform since the very start. I would never expect you guys to give up such an integral part of your history.

      6. charliehall   1 year ago

        No, they are the loyal Republican base.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          You misspelled “feds”.

          1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            How can anyone look at a Patriot Front march and not think that they're all grads from Quantico. Everything is FBI gear with the logos removed, from the boots to the hats to the watches.

      7. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

        I dunno Shrike. Will you democrats stop painting swastikas on synagogues?

  15. JesseAz   1 year ago

    No wonder Jeff loves the AP.

    Another entry change [Stylebook lead editor Paula] Froke pointed to is the entry for “Obesity, obese, overweight.” In part, the entry says: “People with obesity, people of higher weights and people who prefer the term fat use diverse terms – including those and others – in reference to themselves.
    .
    “Use care and precision, considering the impact of specific words and the terms used by the people you are writing about. When possible, ask people how they want to be described.”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/04/more-associated-press-woke-word-policing-in-new-style-guide-changes/

    1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      If someone has their prefered pronouns listed refer to that person as "evil retarded fag"

    2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      When possible, ask people how they want to be described.

      So what if what they want doesn’t match reality.

      1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

        It never does. That is the entire point.

    3. Randy Sax   1 year ago

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6YAkjdX5EM

      This is the proper way to address the issue.

    4. Anomalous   1 year ago

      Bigga please.

    5. BestUsedCarSales   1 year ago

      This is stealing the term "people of higher weights" from those decent bros who are racking 5 hundo.

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

      This should be considered medical disinformation. How else are you supposed to educate people about who is at risk for diabetes, heart disease and COVID?

    7. Diarrheality   1 year ago

      How would you like to be described? Is fat fuck all right? Or would you prefer I punch you in the stomach?

      Gotta go with the AP on this one. Asking makes all the difference.

  16. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Reading Tim Urban's post on his eclipse-watching experience, in the middle of rural Arkansas...

    I think it's terrible that flyover country got to witness it, too.

    1. HorseConch   1 year ago

      Living in the Midwest, I had accepted the fact that climate change is a coastal phenomenom. I'm scared shitless now that such a major climate event hit the Midwest.

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

        Watch out for those climate change induced earthquakes.

        1. HorseConch   1 year ago

          There's a major fault line running in the path of totality. We're goddamn lucky to have made it past Monday.

        2. JesseAz   1 year ago

          It warmed the ground to cause the earthquake. Don’t you get The Science from The View?

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

            You crazy science-denier. I was in the path of totality and it got colder. Cooling = shrinkage, which allowed the fault to slip.

        3. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

          Cicada super brood is the worst. Those aren't regular cicada, climate change has mutated them to the size of a skyscraper and they breath atomic heat beams.

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

            Only Godzilla can save us!

            1. Stuck in California   1 year ago

              Or Robert Smith of the Cure. https://youtu.be/1qhpk86qDQo

          2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            But are those the "good cicadas" or the "bad cicadas" that Joy Behar asked about on The View? Or are they the Ci-caw-das that Sonny Hostin brought up (pronounced with a short a sound in the middle of the word)?

      2. BestUsedCarSales   1 year ago

        I saw a chart yesterday and learned the only state in the history of the US to never have an eclipse over it is Utah.
        So, there's something being foretold there. Might also just be all the Arctic Circles there makes the eclipse afraid to tread.

    2. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

      I just hope some of the hostages being held in Gaza and Afghanistan were able to use the eclipse to escape their superstitious captors like in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
      https://youtu.be/XdN7HV3KBLM?feature=shared
      🙂
      😉

  17. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

    What will it take to tame New York City's garbage problem?

    One day a great rain will come down and wash the filth away

    1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      Not gonna happen - - - - - -

      Genesis 9;11
      I confirm My covenant with you that never again will every creature be wiped out by the waters of a flood; there will never again be a flood to destroy the earth.

      (side note: homosexual use of the rainbow is cultural appropriation)

      1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

        Well, let JHVH-1 bring his ass and show a Trademark, Copyright, or Patent on the rainbow.

        And while there have always been regional floods, there is no archeological, anthropological, or geological evidence of a global flood of the scale told of in Genesis, or in The Epic of Gilgamesh or any of the predecessor global flood legends.

        1. Diarrheality   1 year ago

          Are you a vegan too?

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            If he rides a bike with spandex thinking he's Lance Armstrong, we could go for the trifecta.

      2. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

        You haven't seen taxi driver have you?

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          Full quote:

          "Thank God for the rain which has helped wash away the garbage and trash off the sidewalks. I'm working long hours now, six in the afternoon to six in the morning. Sometimes even eight in the morning, six days a week. Sometimes seven days a week. It's a long hustle but it keeps me real busy. I can take in three, three fifty a week. Sometimes even more when I do it off the meter. All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets. I go all over. I take people to the Bronx, Brooklyn, I take 'em to Harlem. I don't care. Don't make no difference to me. It does to some. Some won't even take spooks. Don't make no difference to me."

          1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

            Sir you are technically correct
            Which is the best kind of correct

  18. JesseAz   1 year ago

    Canada and New Zealand become latest MAGA countries to be concerned with immigration.

    https://scnr.com/article/new-zealand-and-canada-express-concern-about-immigration_7b2c7cdaf5d411ee9c930242ac1c0002

    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      Trudeau started the massive influx for exactly the same reasons as the rest of the WEF trained leadership and has absolutely no intention of lowering numbers.

      He’s just adjusting his rhetoric because the premiers are publicly warning of a collapse in health, social services and housing, and a massive increase in crime like the country has never seen before.

      The polls say that if he loses a confidence vote in the house the Conservative Party will win a super majority in the subsequent election, perhaps of a size that will make the Liberals lose official party status. So Trudeau has decided to start lying about his intentions.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        He’s just adjusting his rhetoric because the premiers are publicly warning of a collapse in health, social services and housing, and a massive increase in crime like the country has never seen before.

        How is this possible with all the profit from illegal immigration.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Too cold in Canada for food trucks.

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

            Climate change will take care of that problem.

          2. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Ice cream lovers like Joe need food trucks too!

            Raspados and paletas!

      2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        Trudeau started the massive influx for exactly the same reasons as the rest of the WEF trained leadership and has absolutely no intention of lowering numbers.

        This can't be stressed enough. Schwab and the rest of the technocratic "open society" goons are absolutely obsessed with Third Worlding the west while ensuring the Third World itself remains indigenously pure. It's why they and their shills keep pushing the line that the west is in a demographic crisis and it will cease to function unless we keep importing infinite numbers of peon labor.

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          Really though, they don't give a flying fuck about the third worlders. They just think that they will be easier to control than populations long imbued with the notions of traditional Western culture. It's not the first time an empire has imported barbarians to quell and replace an unruly population.

          I hope they're wrong and their Ostrogoths and Vandals do to them what they did to the Roman elite.

  19. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

    "Power bills will keep rising even after the Fed tames inflation," reads an ominous Bloomberg headline.

    Yet natural gas prices are at all time lows.

    Proof that inflation is due to higher demand and not because Sleepy Joe said something that upset the delicate flowers in the energy world.

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      So youre back to Joe has implemented zero policies that have a negative effect ton energy extraction or transportation. Lol.

      Never change dummy. Never change.

      1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

        You're back to "Supply/Demand is a globalist liberal Marxist plot!"

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          How did you get that from his statement, shill?

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Because he is retarded and he knows he will at least trick sarc.

        2. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Should I repeat myself? Youre back to Joe's policies have zero effect? Namely on the supply side you just brought up?

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

            I know you're stupid so let me enlighten you:

            Law of Supply and Demand in Economics: How It Works
            ..
            The law of supply and demand combines two fundamental economic principles describing how changes in the price of a resource, commodity, or product affect its supply and demand.
            ..
            As the price increases, supply rises while demand declines. Conversely, as the price drops supply constricts while demand grows.

            https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-of-supply-demand.asp

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

              Now what happens when government policies (and threats) discourage business decisions and investments?

              1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

                WTF?

                US Oil and Gas production is at an ALL TIME HIGH.

                Are you fucking stupid?

                I know Jesse and ML are. Are you?

                US Oil and Gas production is at an ALL TIME HIGH.

                US Oil and Gas production is at an ALL TIME HIGH.

                do you get it now?

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  NO NEW LEASES ON FEDERAL LAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                    You’re stupid when you defend the pedo, you know that?

                    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      You’re stupid and childish when you say people are wrong simply because you don’t like them, you know that?

                      No, probably not. Being that truth in these comments is determined by the politics and popularity of the source, not the veracity of what it is said.

                      It’s sad to see how so many people never mature past their teenage years. I bet you still listen to the same music you listened to when you were 17.

                    2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                      Those were some great points you brought up, Sarc, about ideas. I'm glad you don't stoop to the level of personal attacks.

                    3. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Which muted troll are you? Dlam? Yeah. Shouldn’t have petted the puppy.

                      Shoo!

                    4. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Sarc with his daily Hitler like dehumanization.

                    5. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                      Those are the best insults you can come up with, Sarc? Pathetic.

                    6. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                      Which muted troll are you? Dlam? Yeah. Shouldn’t have petted the puppy.

                      Shoo!

                      I don't know if you were directing that at me or ITL, but I'm assuming you are claiming I'm one of your "muted trolls." Well, I'm not. It took me two years before I even made an account to comment, after just lurking and reading the comments. I've had an account for almost a year now. But go ahead, mute me. I don't think I've ever talked to you before.

                      If one comment pointing out your hypocrisy (you only discuss ideas and don't fling personal insults) is enough to get me muted, so be it. I don't think I'm missing out on any great conversation anyway. You've become progressively worse about doing everything you bemoan others do to you. And the non-stop shitposting about Trump in every article's comments section, even articles that have nothing to do with Trump, is beyond irritating.

                    7. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                      Sarc, he’s a moronic pedophile. Wrong on everything, but you can’t help yourself because of your hatred of Trump. Now you’re in league with this creature.

                      Being a drunk with a pickled shrunken brain doesn’t excuse this. You really are subhuman garbage.

                  2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                    So youre going with Joe has no effect on supply also.

                    Good to see retards uniting.

                  3. charliehall   1 year ago

                    The oil and gas companies don't want to drill on federal land. Should the federal government start its own drilling company?

                    1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                      Not that they don’t want to drill, they can’t get the leases to drill there as the Administration isn’t issuing them, dork.

                    2. Diarrheality   1 year ago

                      The oil and gas companies don’t want to drill on federal land.

                      Stick to balloon animals, you fucking clown.

            2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              Back before I put the fuckstain on mute it claimed that game theory negates everything we know about economics, from comparative advantage to free trade to supply and demand. 250 years of economic thought got it all wrong, and anyone who promotes that school of thought is a leftist. Smith, Bastiat, Hayek, Friedman, all leftists.

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

                POST YOUR MUTE LIST!

                1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  If that fucking Jesse made number one again, I swear...

                  1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                    =D

                  2. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                    You can’t compete ML. Sarc is not so secretly in love with Jesse.

              2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                sarcasmic 2 years ago
                Flag Comment
                Mute User
                Says the guy who mutes anyone who points out the logical conclusions of his emotional rants.

                Aside from that..

                Not what I said. But I don’t expect you to understand what I said as you admitted you refused to read any links or books I provided you. And now you’re defending your willful ignorance lol.

                Your comment also shows your base ignorance that economic theory doesn’t evolve.

                It is weird youre defending shrike who is intentionally deflecting from the question. But then again I did call it that he was trying to trick you and you proved my assertion. Fucking hilarious.

              3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                Post the list.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  Of what? Economists who are leftist because they contradict Trump? I think that would be all of them.

                  1. R Mac   1 year ago

                    WE WANT THE LIST!

                  2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                    WE WANT YOUR LIST!

                    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      It's easy enough to figure out for yourself.

                      Who do I not respond to, no matter how hard they try to goad me with lies?

                      There's your answer.

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

                      We figured it out a while back.

                      https://reason.com/2022/09/26/cancel-culture-jihad-rehab-meg-smaker-film-sundance/?comments=true#comment-9720604

                    3. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

                      "Who do I not respond to"

                      No one.

                    4. R Mac   1 year ago

                      We need to see where we are on the list! Is Jesse number one or not? Where am I at?

                    5. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                      Nice non-answer, Sarc.

                    6. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Obviously you're not on it, to your obvious shame.

            3. JesseAz   1 year ago

              3rd attempt.

              Have any of Joe's policies effected supply?

              1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

                They haven’t you dumb Trump Cultist.

                Natural gas supply (#1 input for energy production) is at all an ALL TIME HIGH and cost is at a CENTURY LOW.

                You are too stupid to understand DEMAND for electricity it causing prices to rise.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  It's probably explained by game theory or something. Biden isn't allowing news leases on federal land. Around ten percent of all natural gas production is on federal land. That's the vast majority of natural gas. That means the lack of new leases will dramatically reduce supply in the future. It will drop to close to zero. So in anticipation of that energy companies are hiking prices.

                  Or something.

                  1. DesigNate   1 year ago

                    I can count on two hands the number of times shrike has been right in the 16 years I’ve been reading and posting here.

                    And he’s wrong here too. Not only is crude production down (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=m), the increases we have seen since the pandemic (a dubious point to base off of) “have come despite declining U.S. drilling activity because the new wells are more efficient.”

                    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

                      You can't read your own chart, moron.

                      Oil production peak high is Dec 2023. Peak high year was 2023.

                    2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Did you look at your own chart? It peaks in 2023 and dips in January of this year. If you compare December to January going up the list, it drops at the beginning of almost every year, so that dip appears to be normal.

                      The US is the biggest oil producer in the world. More than Saudi or Russia. Look it up.

                      “have come despite declining U.S. drilling activity because the new wells are more efficient.”

                      New wells are more efficient so they’re drilling less of them? That seems like good business to me. You could argue that Biden not allowing new leases on federal land is the cause, but federal land only accounts for a fraction of total production. So new wells on federal land are a fraction of a fraction of total production.
                      I know some will argue that Biden is causing production to drop anyway, but they’re lying sacks of shit.
                      You’re not.

                    3. DesigNate   1 year ago

                      Shrikes claim wasn’t that it “had” it was that it currently “was” at an all time high. Which it clearly isn’t seeing as how it’s even below January of last year. (And peaked just barely above pre-shutdown levels after two years of basically flatlining).

                      Increased efficiency is fucking awesome and great from a business perspective. It’s hardly worth giving credit to an administration who’s been trying to strangle the energy sector since day one. (It also doesn’t make sense to give credit to an energy sector friendly administration as those increases were bound to happen due to said efficiencies.)

                    4. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Shrike is also claiming that increased production elsewhere is not hampered by decreased production somewhere else.

                      It is amazing how little shrike and sarc understand markets.

                    5. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Which it clearly isn’t seeing as how it’s even below January of last year.

                      Did you read what I wrote?

                      It’s hardly worth giving credit to an administration...

                      I can’t tell if he’s giving Biden credit, or mocking Trump defenders who still credit him for everything good that’s happened since 2016.

                    6. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Sarc, he deflected from a clear question regarding it 3 times. You know this. You defended him. Lol.

                      Yes. He is trying to deny Joe has had a negative effect. That is literally the fucking question asked retard. And you jumped in. Lol.

                    7. Sevo   1 year ago

                      "You can’t read your own chart, moron.
                      Oil production peak high is Dec 2023. Peak high year was 2023."

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

                    8. DesigNate   1 year ago

                      I did read what you wrote, that’s why I responded as I did (providing more context) because I had also looked at the chart I linked.

                      Shrike’s whole schtick is shilling for Democrats and their policies while pretending that they’re in any way good. If he can mock anyone he deems as Republican while doing so, all the better. But the core is still #defenddemocrats.

                  2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                    All else being equal, if you cut off 10% of a supply chain, does that affect the price? If we're getting so much production from the other 90%, do you think adding that 10% would mean even more production, lowering prices?

                    1. R Mac   1 year ago

                      “do you think”

                      Sarc? No, not really.

                  3. JesseAz   1 year ago

                    Sarc, youre bow claiming reducing production on federal lands has no effect on supply because private and state lands increased their production?

                    You two are full on Biden loving retards.

                2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  Lol. You think Joe has had no effect on any supply? What is production on federal lands? What are the transport cost

            4. DesigNate   1 year ago

              You calling anyone else stupid is farcical.

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                Looks to me like he's only calling one person stupid. And that person is stupid. Really fucking stupid. Like headache inducing stupid.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  Sarc. If you stopped pretending you had me muted you'd realize how dumb you look right now. Lol.

                2. Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick   1 year ago

                  You amd Shrike are both very, very stupid. I’m guessing you were originally just a bit stupid, but decades of severe alcohol abuse have caused your brain to shrink. You now are in the early to middle stages of alcohol abuse induced dementia.

                  You’re probably a candidate for hospice. Seek that out instead of posting here. They will give you free adult diapers, and even help you change them.

        3. Sevo   1 year ago

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

        4. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

          https://reason.com/2024/04/10/inflation-is-so-back/

    2. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      Did you just use the word proof?

    3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      “Power bills will keep rising even after the Fed tames inflation,” reads an ominous Bloomberg headline.
      Yet natural gas prices are at all time lows.

      Lol, and who is trying to stop power generation from natural gas?

      1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

        US Oil and Gas production is at an ALL TIME HIGH.

        US Oil and Gas production is at an ALL TIME HIGH.

        (this is a declarative sentence and fact)

        Your Cult Leader status will not suffer, ML. Reality is near.

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          Stop changing the subject, and answer the question.

          Who is trying to stop power generation from natural gas?

        2. Sevo   1 year ago

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

    4. Sevo   1 year ago

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

  20. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Harrison Bergeron vibes that offended the reviewer's sensibilities? Yes, please!

    I wonder why reviewers can't identify with Bergeron's plight.

    1. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

      Probably see themselves as the handicapper general's position or perhaps they fantasize about being part of the enforcement apparatus gunning down those with "privilege" of any kind.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        In the perfect social justice future world we will all be brownish, de-gendered, fat, and handi-capable.

    2. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      Because almost all people are better than them in every aspect. They only things lower on the list then jounolists is public school worker (I would use the term teacher, but that would be misleading)

  21. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Power bills will keep rising even after the Fed tames inflation...

    Almost as though inflation hasn't really been tamed.

    1. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

      Or perhaps this is not primarily a financial policy problem, but an energy policy problem?

    2. Jerry B.   1 year ago

      Even WAPO grudgingly admits it.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/04/10/fed-inflation-cpi/

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      'Almost as though inflation hasn’t really been tamed.'

      Like everything else in the progressive 21st century, inflation has been decriminalized.

  22. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    In fact, "residential electricity inflation is outpacing the wider consumer price index" across the country.

    Save at the pump; buy that electric car!

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      But remember, comrade, only to plug it in during approved times.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

        Followed shortly by: Only Kulaks have electric cars!

  23. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

    Howard Mittelmark wants a bubble where his biases are confirmed and that everyone else be required to pay for it, dammit!

  24. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    What will it take to tame New York City's garbage problem?

    Subsidize more garbage?

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Nah, just leave it outside by your front door in Amazon boxes.

  25. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    The only downside to defunding NPR would be libertarians no longer having as many threats to deploy to incentivize good child behavior...

    Libertarians shouldn't be trying to govern their offspring.

    1. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

      Especially with tactics which violate the Geneva Conventions.

      1. HorseConch   1 year ago

        That seems riskier than making a kid smoke a pack of cigarettes or drink a 6 pack so they will hate drinking and smoking. What if NPR turns them into an insufferable little shit?

        1. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

          Those kids are kind of doomed by genetics.

          1. HorseConch   1 year ago

            The drunks or the NPR lovers?

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              Yes.

    2. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

      See my post on this above. The future of Liberty in this nation and on this Planet may depend on it.

      1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

        Flourishing cape. ^

  26. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

    RE the photo of "garbage"-strewn railroad tracks in the X post by Bilaji: check my memory, but I think I remember seeing photos like that a year(?) ago. The breaking story then was how organized gangs broke into shipping containers and helped themselves to contents. They mess they created was not exactly the same as cities not collecting normal trash from people and businesses.

    1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

      The mess from last year probably remains and grows. Surely you don't think NYC cleaned it up.

  27. Sevo   1 year ago

    "...In fact, "residential electricity inflation is outpacing the wider consumer price index" across the country..."

    Wonder what it really costs to 'fill up' an EV.

    1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      Always factor in your personal time plus cost.

      This morning I filled my Tundra. 22 gallons @ $3.899 and it took about 5 minutes.

      How long does it take to charge an EV at 25%?

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

        Most people charge up overnight while sleeping.

        1. Sevo   1 year ago

          Which works just fine when you are traveling, right?

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

            Lots of hotels have chargers. Usually free for guests.

            1. Sevo   1 year ago

              Usually drive more than 150 miles per day, personally.

            2. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

              So I get to add a hotel stay to my fueling expense?

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

              Lots of hotels have chargers. Usually free for guests.

              I am sure you meant to say, "which they don't charge for individually but add to the room fees." Wouldn't want to misrepresent what they are actually doing. They don't get the power for free, so EV drivers are being subsidized by the rest of the guests. Also, I have not seen this personally in roadside hotels.

              1. Sevo   1 year ago

                And EV drivers are being subsidized (BIGLY!) in the purchase of their costume jewelry besides. I've yet to be thanked by the driver of any EV.

        2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Look at Mr. Richey Rich here, with his own garage.

          1. Sevo   1 year ago

            I'm waiting for the riders on home-owners' policies regarding fires resulting from EVs.

            1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

              Safe and effective with no downsides!

          2. JesseAz   1 year ago

            This is why Chicago wants to mandate all landlords install EV chargers.

      2. Sevo   1 year ago

        Assume you can get charge sufficient to get to the next charging station in, oh, half an hour. Everybody else with one of those toys did the same; how long is the line at the next charging station?

    2. Dillinger   1 year ago

      >>Wonder what it really costs to ‘fill up’ an EV.

      the row of TeslaLosers sitting together in the dark parking garage of my whole foods every Saturday morning is stunning. waste a day why don'tcha

  28. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

    SLEEPY JOE IS CAUSING CHCOLATE PRICES TO SOAR!

    Price of Godiva Chocolate Boxes Are Going Up as Cocoa Prices Soar
    Other ingredients have also experienced fluctuating costs
    Diversifying sources of cocoa is part of future plans

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-10/godiva-chocolate-prices-are-going-up-due-to-soaring-cocoa-cost

    (Wingnuts actually believe this)

    1. Sevo   1 year ago

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

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Lame

      1. Sevo   1 year ago

        Par for the course with turd; he's dishonest and has a bad case of STUPID.

    3. damikesc   1 year ago

      Feel free to name one who does.

      There is a whole civil war issue in the area where a lot of cocoa beans come from.

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        You’re not actually expecting that Buttplug is familiar with his trolling material, are you?

      2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

        Which is my point. Supply is seriously constrained.

        Tell Jesse and ML - the idiots who believe Joe is causing high cocoa prices.

        1. Sevo   1 year ago

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

        2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          Tell Jesse and ML – the idiots who believe Joe is causing high cocoa prices.

          This is just like your trying to relate fluctuations in precious metals prices to inflation before.

          Now you're trying to relate cocoa price increases from El Nino, black pod disease and swollen shoot virus to inflation.

          You're too dumb to troll and shill like this. At least read the article before you try and use it. This is why Open Society fired you.

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

            No, buttwipe, to you Top Men dictate all prices.

            Markets mean nothing in your myopic world. All prices are set by White House whim in your view of things.

            1. Sevo   1 year ago

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

            2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              Nobody said that, and you really did try and pretend fluctuations in the gold markets were inflation related, and now your pretending fluctuations in cocoa pricing are.

              The thing is, you have no fucking idea what the word 'inflation' actually means.

            3. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

              Got it. You don't like Top Men dictating to the market. Unless it's your top man, Biden, dictating to not allow new leases on federal lands; then it's fine, because "rig count is up."

              (BTW in my "libertopia," we don't have large swaths of the country owned by the government, anyway.)

            4. JesseAz   1 year ago

              When did you go full retard?

              Simple question strike. Does supply effect pricing given consistent demand? Yes or no.

              Is Joe limiting the amount of energy able to be produced in the US? Yes or no?

              1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                It's obvious he's being dishonest. He knows lowering supply from what it would have been affects the price. He even mentioned "supply and demand," while only focusing on demand to evade the supply question. But if he agreed with the obvious point, he'd have to criticize Biden, which he can't let himself do. Whether that's because he really is stupid, he is just so loyal to Biden, he can't let himself agree with "the other side," or some combination of the above.

              2. Diarrheality   1 year ago

                When did you go full retard?

                He's always been full retard. It's just obvious now that ActBlue doesn't have its hand up his ass.

        3. damikesc   1 year ago

          Can you point to Jesse and ML specifically blaming Biden for high cocoa prices?

          I've read a lot of their stuff and not seen that at any point.

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

            Well, I am honest. They didn't single cocoa out but they said when

            "Sleepy Joe canceled the Canuck leg of KXL it set off worldwide inflation herp-derp reserve currency bloop derp dollar hegemony grunt sickle cell".

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              I've never conflated Biden's fuckups into one single event. He's screwed America and the world over thousands of different times.

            2. Sevo   1 year ago

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

            3. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Cite?

            4. R Mac   1 year ago

              Nobody believes your bullshit.

            5. damikesc   1 year ago

              "Well, I am honest. They didn’t single cocoa out"

              ...so you lied.

        4. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          They never said any such thing, dipwad. Now, tell us how come you have a “2” after your name.

        5. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Shrike, if Joe biden out a policy in place to reduce the amount if cocoa grown on federal lands (if it was such the case) would it have an effect on prices and supply?

    4. R Mac   1 year ago

      Your bullshit is getting even more pathetic, somehow.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        As long as sarc keeps falling for it he will continue doing it.

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          I suspect that Sarc isn't actually reading what Plugly posts and is just jumping in out of sheer bloody-mindedness, and because he likes to troll too.

          1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            I’m not reading what the fuckstain and its sycophants are saying.

            1. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

              Yet you are constantly responding to it.

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

                He’s afraid to post the list of people he muted.

              2. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

                (they know who they are) is his new thing.

            2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              Me: "I suspect that Sarc isn’t actually reading what Plugly posts"

              Sarc: "I’m not reading what the fuckstain and its sycophants are saying."

              Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you just called Pluggo a fuckstain and yourself... a sycophant?

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                I am reading things that I reply to.

                1. R Mac   1 year ago

                  Lmao, yeah, that’s what he said.

                  Damn you’re retarded.

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

                    Starting to think that nobody is muted after all.

                2. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

                  There wouldn't be any confusion about this if you would just publish the list.

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                    He needs to publish that list like, yesterday.

                3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  "I am reading things that I reply to."

                  The evidence says otherwise.

                4. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                  That would surprise me if you actually did. Of course, it’s probably hard to read through beer goggles.

    5. Outlaw Josey Wales   1 year ago

      Woke Willy Wonka hardest hit.

  29. Uncle Jay   1 year ago

    If NPR and PBS is so popular, then why should the taxpayers subsidized them?

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      OK, let me explain the way 21st century American Democracy works.
      1. Our elite class decides what is good, for them and for us.
      2. Somebody else pays for it.

    2. LIBertrans   1 year ago

      Or the FDA, DEA, IRS and Transport Sozialist Arbeiterpartei?

  30. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

    Considering chemtard was going all-out on arguing that the COVID lab leak theory postulated early on in the pandemic was just "correlation doesn't equal causation!", a bit of actual truth-telling by the NPR whistleblower on their overtly biased coverage, in this case in regardes to COVID:

    Politics also intruded into NPR’s Covid coverage, most notably in reporting on the origin of the pandemic. One of the most dismal aspects of Covid journalism is how quickly it defaulted to ideological story lines. For example, there was Team Natural Origin—supporting the hypothesis that the virus came from a wild animal market in Wuhan, China. And on the other side, Team Lab Leak, leaning into the idea that the virus escaped from a Wuhan lab.
    The lab leak theory came in for rough treatment almost immediately, dismissed as racist or a right-wing conspiracy theory. Anthony Fauci and former NIH head Francis Collins, representing the public health establishment, were its most notable critics. And that was enough for NPR. We became fervent members of Team Natural Origin, even declaring that the lab leak had been debunked by scientists.
    But that wasn’t the case.
    When word first broke of a mysterious virus in Wuhan, a number of leading virologists immediately suspected it could have leaked from a lab there conducting experiments on bat coronaviruses. This was in January 2020, during calmer moments before a global pandemic had been declared, and before fear spread and politics intruded.
    Reporting on a possible lab leak soon became radioactive. Fauci and Collins apparently encouraged the March publication of an influential scientific paper known as “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Its authors wrote they didn’t believe “any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”
    But the lab leak hypothesis wouldn’t die. And understandably so. In private, even some of the scientists who penned the article dismissing it sounded a different tune. One of the authors, Andrew Rambaut, an evolutionary biologist from Edinburgh University, wrote to his colleagues, “I literally swivel day by day thinking it is a lab escape or natural.”
    Over the course of the pandemic, a number of investigative journalists made compelling, if not conclusive, cases for the lab leak. But at NPR, we weren’t about to swivel or even tiptoe away from the insistence with which we backed the natural origin story. We didn’t budge when the Energy Department—the federal agency with the most expertise about laboratories and biological research—concluded, albeit with low confidence, that a lab leak was the most likely explanation for the emergence of the virus.
    Instead, we introduced our coverage of that development on February 28, 2023, by asserting confidently that “the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a natural origin for the virus.”
    When a colleague on our science desk was asked why they were so dismissive of the lab leak theory, the response was odd. The colleague compared it to the Bush administration’s unfounded argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, apparently meaning we won’t get fooled again. But these two events were not even remotely related. Again, politics were blotting out the curiosity and independence that ought to have been driving our work.

    Sophists like chemtard constantly try to revise the history of their own actions and statements, while gaslighting about what actually happened and the counter-narratives against their propaganda.

    Don't let these vipers convince you that what actually happened, didn't happen, because "I'm a sooper dooper expert and so are these people, who are never wrong about anything!"

    1. Sevo   1 year ago

      "...The colleague compared it to the Bush administration’s unfounded argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, apparently meaning we won’t get fooled again. But these two events were not even remotely related..."

      Bullshit. Both are VERY closely related. Both are cases where someone who does not share my political views holds an opinion, which I must therefore refute.

      1. Its_Not_Inevitable   1 year ago

        In both cases, gubmint radio supported the gubmint line. Surprising, I know.

        1. DesigNate   1 year ago

          Are you shocked? I’m shocked.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            Yes, utterly shocked that gambling is going on in here. And, yes, thank you for my winnings.

    2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Facts changed!

      1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

        They did the best tehy could with the information they had! Any of you would've done the same!

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

          I was just following orders the science!

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      If the NPR whistle-blower really wants to complete his de-programing, he next has to address the collective TDS and their commitment to say and do anything to thwart Trump's reelection.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        That's addressed in the article, too--he talks about the Hunter Biden laptop and their swooning affection for Adam Schiff and the Russia collusion narratives.

    4. R Mac   1 year ago

      I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        ^ This

        Jeff is going to lie about things. It's what he does.

        1. MT-Man   1 year ago

          Smoke and mirrors tactics 100%

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

      Is the NPR whistleblower you are referring to Uri Berliner? Even NPR can't spin hard enough to make Berliner's criticisms look unfounded.

      https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243755769/npr-journalist-uri-berliner-trust-diversity

      I suspect Folkenflik will be on his way out as well. His reporting on Berliner paints a pretty accurate picture of the bias and does nothing to dispel the criticism that it is all about diversity for diversity's sake.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        Yeah, that's him. The best part is that he's so transparent about their bias that any criticism of him looks like sour grapes.

    6. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      So what? NPR was biased in how it covered the origins of the virus? Big deal. In other words, water is wet. It still doesn’t justify you and your team taking the opposite approach in early 2020 – believing with some level of unjustified certainty that the virus must ABSOLUTELY have come from a lab, based on nothing more than doing a Google search and seeing that there was a virus lab in Wuhan.

      What is your actual complaint here? That the lab-leak hypothesis wasn’t taken as seriously as you thought it should have been, early on in the pandemic? Let’s take a look at the evidence that was known at that time:

      Lab Leak Hypothesis: The pandemic started in Wuhan, and there’s a virus lab in Wuhan.

      Natural Origin Hypothesis: The virus is a SARS-type virus, and the previous SARS virus originated by jumping species, from an animal to a human, so it stands to reason that this current SARS virus emerged in the same way. Also there is a virus with a similar genetic sequence that is found relatively nearby in China. Plus a bunch of experts in Nature published an editorial that said it was the most likely explanation.

      Why exactly should even a neutral observer take your hypothesis more seriously than the natural origin hypothesis? Because you feel entitled that your use of Google Maps deserves equal time to the actual known behavior of SARS-type viruses and how they emerge?

      It is quite frankly insulting that you think that your amateur Internet bullshit deserves some exaggerated sense of self-importance compared to the knowledge and expertise of scientists who spend decades studying these things, let alone the KNOWN FACTS about SARS viruses.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        RRWP in March 2020:

        "Hey, look at me. I'm an Internet keyboard warrior who doesn't trust the so-called 'experts'. My only knowledge in microbiology, immunology and genetics is what I learned on the Internet about 10 minutes ago after a cursory Google search. And also guess what, there's a virus lab in Wuhan. THAT IS TOTALLY HOW THE VIRUS EMERGED! I just know it! And if you don't give my theory equal time compared to what all of the bullshit 'experts' are saying then I am going to throw a fit and a tantrum and scream 'bias!' and 'political persecution!' and call people names until you give me equal time."

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          When word first broke of a mysterious virus in Wuhan, a number of leading virologists immediately suspected it could have leaked from a lab there conducting experiments on bat coronaviruses. This was in January 2020, during calmer moments before a global pandemic had been declared, and before fear spread and politics intruded.

          chemtard in 2020:
          "There wasn't any lab leak and anyone stating so is a dumb conspiracy theorist"

          chemtard in 2024:

          "Hey, even though the "experts" dismissed any promotion of a lab leak as a right-wing conspiracy theory, and they've had to walk that back after months of gaslighting everyone, you should still believe everything they say because they are experts and are never wrong!"

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            “There wasn’t any lab leak and anyone stating so is a dumb conspiracy theorist”

            I didn't say that in 2020, the actual experts didn't say that in 2020, but other people DID say that in 2020, and they were wrong to say that in 2020. They were wrong to state categorically that "there wasn't any lab leak" because such a definitive statement could not have been proven true OR false at that time (and still can't).

            And - let's just be honest here - your team didn't stop with "the virus escaped from the lab", your team also proceeded with actual conspiratorial garbage such as "the virus escaped from the lab AND the government knew about it AND the natural origin hypothesis was all just one big coverup from the Deep State in order to 'get Trump' and sink his re-election chances". If your team wasn't a bunch of conspiratorial jerkoffs then maybe your team won't be confused so easily with conspiracy theorists.

            1. DesigNate   1 year ago

              “Reporting on a possible lab leak soon became radioactive. Fauci and Collins apparently encouraged the March publication of an influential scientific paper known as “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Its authors wrote they didn’t believe “any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

              Yes, they did. And yes, you did call people here conspiracy theorists for it.

            2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              If your team wasn’t a bunch of conspiratorial jerkoffs then maybe your team won’t be confused so easily with conspiracy theorists.

              If your team wasn't a bunch of credential-worshipping morons, then maybe your team won't be confused so easily with conspirators.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            And you even continue with the conspiratorial garbage:

            “Hey, even though the “experts” dismissed any promotion of a lab leak as a right-wing conspiracy theory, and they’ve had to walk that back after months of gaslighting everyone,

            with your strong suggestion that any proposed hypothesis other than the lab-leak hypothesis was offered in bad faith as 'gaslighting', and not as a good-faith reasonable hypothesis based on how SARS viruses operate.

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

              Fuck off, slaver

            2. R Mac   1 year ago

              This is actually hilarious.

            3. Dillinger   1 year ago

              from you anyway ...

            4. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              with your strong suggestion that any proposed hypothesis other than the lab-leak hypothesis was offered in bad faith as ‘gaslighting

              The bad faith came from the "experts" and their media mouthpieces that persistently asserted the lab leak theory was a "right wing conspiracy."

            5. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

              Unfuckingbelievable. You really don’t want to see any top men held accountable, do you Jeff?

              Do you work for the government?

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                That fat ass is on welfare. He doesn't work.

      2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        So what? NPR was biased in how it covered the origins of the virus? Big deal. In other words, water is wet. It still doesn’t justify you and your team taking the opposite approach in early 2020 – believing with some level of unjustified certainty that the virus must ABSOLUTELY have come from a lab, based on nothing more than doing a Google search and seeing that there was a virus lab in Wuhan.

        Now chemtard is trying to deflect by attempting this low expectations tactic--"LOL OF COURSE NPR IS BIASED, WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT"--while once again trying to diminish the fact that his side was dedicated to establishing that the lab leak theory had no basis in fact at all. To repeat: When word first broke of a mysterious virus in Wuhan, a number of leading virologists immediately suspected it could have leaked from a lab there conducting experiments on bat coronaviruses. This was in January 2020, during calmer moments before a global pandemic had been declared, and before fear spread and politics intruded.

        What is your actual complaint here?

        Now chemtard plays dumb by pretending that the lab leak theory wasn't portrayed as a right-wing conspiracy theory for months on end, even when someone from one of the Regime's own mouthpieces tells on them as to the extent of their reporting bias.

        It is quite frankly insulting that you think that your amateur Internet bullshit deserves some exaggerated sense of self-importance compared to the knowledge and expertise of scientists who spend decades studying these things, let alone the KNOWN FACTS about SARS viruses.

        Fuck your eternal appeals to authority. Thanks for once again proving my point that you're a gaslighting piece of shit with a manic predisposition to defend "the experts" at all costs, even when their propaganda has been shown to be just that.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          his side was dedicated to establishing that the lab leak theory had no basis in fact at all.

          First, *my side* is the one that is interested in the search for truth.

          Second, the actual experts never said "no basis in fact at all". Even in the article in Nature, they said that the lab leak hypothesis was "implausible", not that it was impossible.

          Third, your actual complaint isn't with the "experts", it is with the people in the media and elsewhere who didn't give equal time to your bullshit Internet theories. When it comes to matters of objective facts, all sides shouldn't be entitled to equal time! The flat-earthers don't deserve equal time with the round-earthers on the question of "what is the shape of the earth?"

          If you think that the lab-leak hypothesis should have been entitled to "equal time" back in March 2020, then you need to demonstrate why you think your discovery of how to use Google Maps to find a virus lab in Wuhan somehow represents a more compelling argument compared to: (1) the known behavior of how SARS-type viruses originate; (2) the genetic sequence of a similar virus also found in China (in bats) that could plausibly have made the jump from animals to humans, AND (3) the expertise of a bunch of professionals in those fields of study who, let's face it, spent way more time studying virology and genetics compared to your 15 minutes of Internet 'research'.

          1. MT-Man   1 year ago

            If they were wrong, are they experts? Why were bats here in the US with SARs type viruses discounted? Did they use google maps to find bats?

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

              you need to demonstrate why you think your discovery of how to use Google Maps to find a virus lab in Wuhan somehow represents a more compelling argument compared to: (1) the known behavior of how SARS-type viruses originate; (2) the genetic sequence of a similar virus also found in China (in bats) that could plausibly have made the jump from animals to humans, AND (3) the expertise of a bunch of professionals in those fields of study who, let’s face it, spent way more time studying virology and genetics compared to your 15 minutes of Internet ‘research’.

              Occam's razor, fuckstick. Which is what we said back in 2020.

              None of those things you listed proved to be true. The most similar natural virus was hundreds of miles away and jumping vast distances is not how viruses have emerged previously.

              Some experts did point out that the gene sequences, which were identified immediately in January, were consistent with GoF research. Other experts are on record saying that no GoF research was being done on bat viruses anywhere in the world, certainly not in Wuhan. Some of those experts are linked to EcoHealth Alliance. Again, Occam's razor points to a coverup.

              1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                Those are all great points...but don't hold up to Chemjeff's constant rebuttal of GoOgLe MaPs!

          2. R Mac   1 year ago

            Here’s Lying Jeffy equating the theory the covid virus came from the covid lab to…the earth is flat.

            Yep, he’s really that dishonest.

          3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            First, *my side* is the one that is interested in the search for truth.

            This isn't a philosophy class.

            Second, the actual experts never said “no basis in fact at all”. Even in the article in Nature, they said that the lab leak hypothesis was “implausible”, not that it was impossible.

            That's a distinction without a difference.

            Third, your actual complaint isn’t with the “experts”, it is with the people in the media and elsewhere who didn’t give equal time to your bullshit Internet theories.

            My complaint is with the "experts," and their media mouthpieces who immediately discounted a lab leak as a "right wing conspiracy theory" and did so for years.

            If you think that the lab-leak hypothesis should have been entitled to “equal time” back in March 2020, then you need to demonstrate why you think your discovery of how to use Google Maps to find a virus lab in Wuhan somehow represents a more compelling argument

            chemtard indulges in his false dilemmas again.

          4. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

            “….was “implausible”, not that it was impossible.”

            Wow! So they hedged a little just in case their bullshit blew up? (As they knew it would).

            Shocking! That’s never happened before in the history of gaslighting! Your arguments just get more and more convincing!

            Lol. Dumbass.

        2. Outlaw Josey Wales   1 year ago

          There were news reports of lab workers that fell ill in Nov or Dec of 2019. They disappeared. One was shown to have died. Then President Trump tried to stop travel from China and surrounding areas to the US. He was called xenophobic. Meanwhile Chinese New Year celebrations were encouraged in Feb 2020. Not long after, the virus started spreading, on the East Coast out of NY and the West out of the Bay Area and WA state. All of this was forgotten and no longer part of the potential story after March and the push for lockdowns.

      3. R Mac   1 year ago

        Amazing you keep arguing that everyone that got it right was still wrong because you’re stupid and believe official narratives.

  31. AT   1 year ago

    Kari Lake is just another Girlboss Trump. Like MTG, or Boehbert.

    All of them are amoral vacuous opportunists who mimic Trump (and most Democrats) in their position on any and every subject: "Whatever it is you want to hear."

    1. Sevo   1 year ago

      “…Trump (and most Democrats)…”

      Seek help; raging case of TDS detected.

      1. AT   1 year ago

        Certainly you don't deny that Trump approaches the job with the same mentality as they do. He has different policy goals (or, at least, that's what he says) - but both his campaigning and his governance are indistinguishable from that of the typical Democrat.

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          A typical Democrat from the 90s. I'd say Stalin and Mao are indistinguishable from that of the typical 2020s Democrat.

          1. Dillinger   1 year ago

            >>A typical Democrat from the 90s.

            still had other people in mind.

          2. AT   1 year ago

            Fair point. But I see a lot of Barack in Donald.

            They were both smug, petty, thin-skinned, vindictive, they both fomented partisan hatred playing this "us vs them" game (and always asserting themselves as the target for persecution and victimization), they both made it clear that they're only representing the half of America that liked them respectively while the rest could go to hell, and they both seemed to have this governing presence like that of a benevolent dictator (instead of a President) that would just ignore the Legislature - the branch closest to We The People - and do whatever the heck they wanted with agency action, emergency declarations, or a phone and a pen.

            But yea - the Congressional/Blue State Governor left, and whomever's hand is controlling the sock puppet that is Joe Biden - they're certainly more Stalin/Mao types.

        2. Sevo   1 year ago

          You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

          1. AT   1 year ago

            I mean, you saw it for four years in action. How are you possibly denying this?

    2. LIBertrans   1 year ago

      Adores Trump left out Marjorie Greene Teeth

      1. R Mac   1 year ago

        Poor Hank Phillips, that’s who MTG is.

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          To be fair, Hank is very, very old and was born long before initialism and acronyms were invented.

          Also, too old apparently to read the whole of AT's post.

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            At least we got a Hank post without mention of Comstock Laws or the 1972 Libertarian platform.

  32. LIBertrans   1 year ago

    TRANSLATION: The LP demanded women be respected as individuals for the first 100 days, got one electoral vote and the Denazified Supreme Court added 5 days and called it a Roe. Now that the Nazi Packed Court demands 13A 14A and 9A be spat upon as 15A was in Cruickshank arguments. The shole purpose of Christian National Socialism is to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people, in this case female people--the ones Lizard betrayed until that suddenly meant the girl-bulliers lose elections.

    1. Outlaw Josey Wales   1 year ago

      Sounds realistic. Thank you for that indepth report.

  33. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

    "The National Health Service in England started restricting gender treatments for children this month, making it the fifth European country to limit the medications because of a lack of evidence of their benefits and concern about long-term harms," reports The New York Times. "For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress," concludes the report, researched over the course of four years and released last night.

    The report itself happened to reference WPATH, which long has foregone any semblance of scientific study in favor of consulting political activists and castration fetishists for its recommendations, which medical doctors and university medical programs with an ideological axe to grind were more than happy to implement in the service of the cultural marxist revolution.

    1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

      Wow who would have thought.

      The 'experts' told us that they were certain castrating and mutilating kids to align with their wild emotional decisions of the day was a great idea, then the lefty useful idiots came at us questioning "Are YOU a doctor?! Where did you get YOUR degree?! Who are you to say what's good for kids?! The people with all the right knowledge and credentials say its good!"

      Then turns out, the experts selling us "water is dry, fire is cold" nonsense turned out to be wrong and our lying eyes were somehow, again, right all along.

      Calling Jeffy and friends. What's the scoop now? Facts changed? The science evolved?

      Man, I really am shocked genius methods such as "allow the mentally ill child to cut off their dick and have a neogash that they have to painfully dilate for the rest of their lives" didnt beat out crazy methods such as "therapy" for mental illness

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        It would help if you would actually characterize fairly what the "experts" said. Otherwise one might get the impression that you don't really give a shit what the experts say, you just don't want people telling you what to do *even if they are right*.

        The ‘experts’ told us that they were certain castrating and mutilating kids to align with their wild emotional decisions of the day was a great idea

        Show me any example of any bona-fide expert (not some idiot politician or activist) who said "hey, kids who think they are trans should get gender reassignment surgery based ONLY on what the kid happens to feel at any given moment in time". Not even WPATH advocated for that. You are exaggerating and mischaracterizing what the experts actually said.

        This is what WPATH actually recommends:

        https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/SOC%20V7_English2012.pdf?_t=1613669341

        Physical Interventions for Adolescents

        Before any physical interventions are considered for adolescents, extensive exploration of psychological, family, and social issues should be undertaken, as outlined above. The duration of this exploration may vary considerably depending on the complexity of the situation.

        Physical interventions should be addressed in the context of adolescent development. Some identity beliefs in adolescents may become firmly held and strongly expressed, giving a false impression of irreversibility. An adolescent’s shift towards gender conformity can occur primarily to please the parents and may not persist or reflect a permanent change in gender dysphoria

        [...]

        Moving from one stage to another should not occur until there has been adequate time for adolescents and their parents to assimilate fully the effects of earlier interventions.

        So that is what the experts ACTUALLY recommended, not your bullshit caricatured version.

        Furthermore, show me anyone here who said that any type of gender reassignment surgery "is a good idea". I did not. I only said that it *might* be a good idea for *some* kids who are really suffering, and that the state should not *completely ban* the procedure, although if they want to heavily regulate it then that would be fine.

        “Are YOU a doctor?! Where did you get YOUR degree?!

        Well, are you? Why should we believe that you know what is best for ALL kids?

        Who are you to say what’s good for kids?!

        Who do you want deciding what is best for YOUR kid:
        1. Your choice of medical professionals that you choose to consult, or not
        2. Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump

        Be honest, we all know the answer for YOU is #1, you would scream bloody murder if any politician dared to tell YOU how to raise your kid, but you are arrogant enough to think that you and the politicians that you support should be telling EVERYONE ELSE how to raise THEIR kids. That is you being a moralizing asshole.

        The people with all the right knowledge and credentials say its good!”

        As noted above, this is not correct.

        Any more bullshit you want to put on display?

        1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

          "Are YOU a doctor?! Where did you get YOUR degree?!

          Well, are you? Why should we believe that you know"

          LOL, your response to being made fun of for your prior (very incorrect) use of appeal to authority is...appeal to authority. Didnt learn anything did you?

          "Who do you want deciding what is best for YOUR kid:
          1. Your choice of medical professionals that you choose to consult, or not
          2. Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump"

          Well it looks like #1 was dead wrong and fucked up a bunch of kids with just the best of intentions. Another appeal to authority in a different flavor, again looking worse and worse as the experts backpedal.

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

            He appealed to authority with bold and words in ALL CAPS. I would never have thought I would miss Michael Hihn. At least he had original ideas and wasn't just parroting talking points of others.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            The "appeal to authority" fallacy is only a fallacy if one tries to prove that a claim is correct ONLY BECAUSE an authority figure claims it is. That is not a logically valid way to prove a claim.

            But there is absolutely nothing fallacious about claiming that, in about 99.9% of the cases, a doctor with an M.D. degree knows more about medicine than an average person who does not. By contrast, you are engaging in something like an "anti-authority fallacy": that just because an authority figure makes a claim, you automatically assume the claim is false.

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

              The “appeal to authority” fallacy is only a fallacy if one tries to prove that a claim is correct ONLY BECAUSE an authority figure claims it is.

              You are dumb. Let me show you an appeal to authority backed up by an appeal to authority:

              “Are YOU a doctor?! Where did you get YOUR degree?!

              Well, are you? Why should we believe that you know what is best for ALL kids?

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                A doctor is not correct BECAUSE he’s a doctor.
                A doctor is not incorrect BECAUSE he’s a doctor (Mike Parson’s apparent position).
                A doctor’s credentials generally lend credence to his/her diagnosis as being valid. But the credentials ALONE do not prove a diagnosis to be correct. THAT is the appeal to authority fallacy.
                If Mike Parsons, or anyone, wants me to be persuaded of their claims, then they need to provide evidence for their claims. One way to give that evidence more credibility is to back it up with some level of expertise or experience that demonstrates proper understanding of that evidence. Such as with a credential.

                Hope that helps.

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

                  One way to give that evidence more credibility is to back it up with some level of expertise or experience that demonstrates proper understanding of that evidence. Such as with a credential.

                  Yet another fucking appeal to authority? Is there no limit to how absurd you can get?

                  Hey, dipshit, evidence speaks for itself. It requires no credential, just the ability to comprehend. Refusing to accept evidence presented without credentials is as much an appeal to authority as insisting that credentials are evidence.

                  Your ALL CAPS demonstrates your desperation to not be wrong. But you are.

                  Hope that helps.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    How do you know what the evidence means? Who is going to explain it to you? Do you think you can figure it out by yourself? Probably not. So who are you going to ask to explain it to you? A person with a relevant credential? Or some nut on Facebook?

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

                      I can't argue with that much illogic. Evidence is not evidence unless it is explained by an expert?

                      You are the proverbial useful idiot.

                    2. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Just because you’re a moron doesn’t mean the rest of us are Lying Jeffy.

                    3. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Jeff, you believed CNN when they told you only reporters could look at Hunters laptop, didntya.

                    4. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Has Lying Jeffy even acknowledged that Hunter’s laptop isn’t Russian disinformation?

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

              you are engaging in something like an “anti-authority fallacy”: that just because an authority figure makes a claim, you automatically assume the claim is false.

              That is normally referred to as skepticism and is the required default position for the scientific method.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                Skepticism is different from paranoia. Skepticism is different from the genetic fallacy - dismissing claims based solely on where they originate from.

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

                  Skepticism is different from paranoia. Skepticism is different from the genetic fallacy – dismissing claims based solely on where they originate from.

                  Except that nobody but you has done that today.

                  From “Environmental Progress”? LOL this group is hilarious. It is clearly a right-wing organization cosplaying as some left-wing activist group.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    And I didn't say their claims were wrong BECAUSE they came from this source. Just that they ought to be treated with - get this - skepticism.

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

                      You can't have it all ways. Go fuck yourself.

                    2. R Mac   1 year ago

                      A blatant lie by Lying Jeffy.

        2. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

          "Be honest, we all know the answer for YOU is #1, you would scream bloody murder if any politician dared to tell YOU how to raise your kid"

          False. Here, the people appealing to #1 are abusing their children who cant consent, back by activist experts. No parent has the right to abuse their child.

          Jeff, what if the parent and child think having sex with each other is something they all consent to, and a democrat sex expert agrees that is a healthy and good thing? Should the gov have anything to say about that abuse?

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Mike, what if the Anointed Politicians decided to tell you that you are a bad parent because you have guns in the house with kids present, and wanted to forcibly forbid you from having guns in the house? Would you say "oh sure, I totally accept that politicians have every right to tell me how best to raise my kids"? Of course not.

            You are an arrogant fuckwad who thinks that he is more moral and more righteous than all those other parents doing things that you don't approve of. You won't even recognize a legitimate gray area, nope, your opinion is black and white, you are right and they are evil.

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

              Having a gun in the home is a recognized and codified natural right. Pretending that a child can be born the wrong sex is not.

              There is a arrogant fuckwad in the commentariat, but it isn't Mr. Parsons.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                The relevant natural right here is the right to self-defense, not the right to own a gun. The right to own a gun is protected by the Constitution. So you are appealing to the Constitution, which is a type of appeal to authority.

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

                  You have got to be getting tired of being wrong today. The Constitution is not an authority, it is a contract. An appeal to the terms of a contract is not a fallacy.

                  You just love to enrage people with stupidity. And it works. You win. I am enraged.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    We only have a right to own a gun because the Constitution says we have a right to own a gun. What makes the Constitution correct on the claim that we *should* have a right to own a gun?

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

                      Turtles. All the way down.

                    2. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Amazing.

                    3. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                      If the right to self defense can be largely limited to just what methods the government approves of, you don't have a right to self defense. I believe there are US states and other countries that require that you flee as opposed to defend yourself with a gun. Or if the is a large person without a gun, you must not use a gun against your attacker. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are stupid laws like that. Regardless, your natural right to self defense is violated by requiring you to disarm before attempting to defend yourself.

                      Obviously you can twist my first sentence to say that outlawing the dropping of a bomb on a burglar, killing hundreds of innocents in the area too would be a limit on self-defense, but the bomb-dropping would also be a violation of the NAP (against the innocent bystanders who did not aggress upon you).

                    4. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                      You really slept through your civics classes, didn't you?

            2. DesigNate   1 year ago

              Did you really try to make that argument? Really?

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

                He’s a dummy.

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

                  6 years ago I thought jeffy was a brainwashed hardcore lefty who really wanted to be a libertarian but couldn't tell the difference. Since 2020, he has proved to be just a very persistent Marxist agitator. A modern day Robespierre, he will argue for liberté, égalité, fraternité all the way to the platform where it will take 3 resets to get the blade through his fat neck.

                  Get a clue, jeffy. They aint your brothers. You can never apologize enough for their perversions. If you don't embrace them, you are the enemy.

            3. R Mac   1 year ago

              There it is.

              I love when Lying Jeffy gets to spinning so hard he does something like equating having guns in the same house as children to fucking children.

              Really tells you all you need to know about him.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            No parent has the right to abuse their child.

            The problem is that you have decided that going against your policy preferences is "child abuse". It is no different ultimately than the gun grabbers who claim it's "child abuse" if you have guns in the house with kids.

            1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

              Then an "expert" who is a "gun grabber" is wrong about the child abuse of having a gun in the house? So we shouldn't just defer to the experts, right? So maybe making an appeal to authority constantly on the child transgender issue is not a good approach to take.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                The expert who claims that having guns around the house with kids present is a form of child abuse, is not wrong *because he's an expert*. It ALSO doesn't mean that "experts" (plural) as a class of people are to be assumed wrong *because they are experts*.

                What I see a lot of in the comments, are people who reject out of hand what the experts say because they don't want to listen to the conclusions, or even the data, of these experts. They put their own biases and ideologies ahead of whatever the data says.

                And honestly, in this whole discussion, the only real "appeal to authority" here is the appeal to PARENTAL authority to decide what is best for their own kids. Parents should be free to accept or reject whatever the expert advice is (NAP violations notwithstanding).

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

                  It ALSO doesn’t mean that “experts” (plural) as a class of people are to be assumed wrong *because they are experts*.

                  Still wrong. Skepticism is the default position for the scientific method. That is why Science! is so bad at making accurate predictions.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    Skepticism is the default position - for areas of scientific inquiry that are still evolving. But there actually is a valid concept of 'settled science'. For example, gold is an element, this is a settled scientific fact at this point, and if you were to try to be 'skeptical' of this claim by demanding to be shown direct experimental evidence of this with your own eyes, then that makes you an obstinate nut rather than a healthy scientist.

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

                      You are just laughably dumb. You choose gold as the thing I should accept without direct experimental evidence. Probably the single most misrepresented element on the planet.

                      Even testing that gold is an element is a simple matter of heating it up. If it is elemental, it will not separate.

                    2. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Not satisfied by looking like a complete retard by equating the origins of covid to the earth being flat, Lying Jeffy adds gold being an element to the mix.

                      Is he really this stupid, or is he being dishonest? I’ll let you decide.

                    3. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                      You are conflating skepticism with cynicism. Skepticism is not believing a claim until there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is true, while cynicism is refusing to believe a claim despite sufficient evidence.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Even testing that gold is an element is a simple matter of heating it up. If it is elemental, it will not separate.

                      lol this is just dumb. How hot does your heat source get? The melting point of silica (sand) is above 3000 F. So you can heat sand in the hottest heat source that you have access to and it will appear to “not separate”. Does that make sand an element? You can take a eutectic mixture of two metals (like lead-tin solder) and melt it and it will not appear to separate even at its melting point. Does that make lead-tin solder an element? If you heat tin, it will appear to “separate” in the sense of undergoing a phase transition to a different allotrope. Does that make tin “not an element”? You suck at this chemistry thing. So maybe it would help if you had an actual chemist to be able to tell you things like this. But oh no, chemists have degrees and credentials and evidently THEY MEAN NOTHING and you can do all of chemistry on your own without ever having to consult anyone with one of those filthy degrees because you think you know how to use Google. Good luck with that.

                    5. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Chucky: you are not as smart as you think you are. There is a lot you don't know, and you have to rely on others to help you figure things out. Once you obtain the humility to admit this to yourself, then maybe we can have a productive conversation on this topic.

                    6. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      You really are an arrogant piece of work. What did you think the "chem" in my name meant? Drugs? No, actually it means I'm a chemist. And you thought you could lecture me about what makes an element an element?

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

                      Hey, jeffy the chemist. None of the shit you wrote applies to gold. Even in your area of expertise you engage in fallacy.

                2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                  No. I'm pointing out that you selectively make an appeal to authority when the experts concur with your point of view.

                  I don't see people saying we need to do the opposite of what the so-called experts say because the experts are always wrong. That seems like a strawman argument. I see most commenters saying that we should be very careful just taking what "experts" say at face value. That's skepticism (someone above made that point already). It doesn't mean do the opposite because some expert said to do it, as you are portraying.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    No, I see it as further than that. Genuine skepticism would mean that sometimes, the claims made by the experts are actually right because they have met some objective standard of proof for their claims. But that is not what I observe. What I observe instead, is that the claims made by the experts are virtually always dismissed based on ever-shifting and subjective standards of 'proof'. If you point out that a published journal article disproves their claim, then they say "but the publishing industry is corrupt" or "look at these other articles that were retracted" or "they are just saying that to get grant money". If you point to MANY journal articles saying the same thing, then it becomes a conspiracy fueled by the Deep State and Radical Left-Wing Activists or something. It's not skepticism, it is paranoia.

                  2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    I don’t see people saying we need to do the opposite of what the so-called experts say because the experts are always wrong.

                    They don't say it in so many words. But if you try to pin them down on what standard of proof that they would accept, it is either impossible to do so, or the standard of proof is so impossibly high, then it might as well be the same as "the experts are always wrong". At least that is what I observe.

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

                      Assigning motives? You are the perfect lefty. Always the most guilty of whatever malfeasance you are assigning to your critics.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      I am not assigning motives. I am describing what I observe.

                      If I observe a snake slithering in the grass, I am not assigning any motive to the snake as to WHY it is slithering in the grass. Just noting what I see.

                      You want me to understand your point of view? Why don't you try to understand my point of view by noting what I observe instead of trashing it.

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

                      Why don’t you try to understand my point of view by noting what I observe instead of trashing it.

                      I have been trying to do that for at least 6 years. What I have understood is that you do not engage honestly. Every rule of argument you identify in this thread, you also broke in this thread.

            2. R Mac   1 year ago

              Most people don’t actually see child abuse as a political issue you sick pervert.

              1. Dillinger   1 year ago

                ^

              2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                Well, to be fair, this is Lying Jeffy we’re talking about here.

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

                  He is , after all the “bears in trunks” guy.

              3. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

                Selectively nuanced people like Jeff do.

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

          You are obfuscating the truth, jeffy. It make no difference what WPATH recommends. What matters is what they have actually done.

          What they have actually done is pay no more than lip service to their own recommendations and experiment on children.

          WPATH Files

          You do this on purpose. It is obvious from your refusal to accept evidence.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            From "Environmental Progress"? LOL this group is hilarious. It is clearly a right-wing organization cosplaying as some left-wing activist group.

            But it doesn't matter because I've pasted the exact words of what they recommend, in black and white. You can't argue against that so you bring up this other fake group. If someone decides to ignore their advice then that is on them.

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

              The transcripts in that document are from WPATHs own files. I argued against what they recommended with their own words.

              You fail to obfuscate and you run away. You have been getting away with it for years, why would you ever change?

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                Your source is not credible. It is from an obviously right-wing group deceptively trying to pose as a left-wing environmental organization. I don't trust it for the same reason I don't trust Breitbart to be sources of objective truth.

                Here is but one example: If you go straight to page 10 of the report that you linked, it states:

                WPATH’s Standards of Care 8 recommends adolescents who have received a diagnosis of “gender incongruence” have access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries so long as the young person “demonstrates the emotional and cognitive maturity required to provide informed consent/assent for the treatment.” However, in video footage obtained by Environmental Progress of an internal WPATH panel titled Identity Evolution Workshop held on May 6, 2022, panel members admit to the impossibility of getting proper informed consent for hormonal interventions from their young patients.

                The *impossibility*? Really? It's not possible *at all*? That claim seems suspicious to me. And lo and behold, if you read on, their evidence for this claim is from this secret video footage (that they don't share, natch) in which doctors state that it is difficult to get both their minor patients and their parents to understand what the hormones actually do, since most typically don't know very much about the details of biology. Well, that just means that getting consent is *difficult*, not *impossible*. And furthermore, even if these doctors are saying that getting consent is very difficult, it doesn't nullify WPATH's recommendation that nevertheless getting consent is required. In fact, if getting this consent is so difficult and WPATH nonetheless insists that it be obtained, then that actually strengthens WPATH's position - that they insisted on getting this consent despite its difficulty.

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

                  You really are the worst. Despite demanding evidence elsewhere in the thread, you offer no evidence that this is a right wing group. You follow that up with parsing the word impossible.

                  It is indeed impossible to get informed consent from a child. They are literally incapable of understanding. You attempt to conflate this by adding back in parental consent, but that is definitively not what they stated was impossible, "proper informed consent for hormonal interventions from their young patients." The panel members acknowledged this themselves and yet you still deny it.

                  Dissemble, deflect, distract.

                  1. R Mac   1 year ago

                    Lying Jeffy just admitted he thinks you can get minors to consent.

                  2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    It's run by Shellenberger. You can look that part up yourself.
                    The biggest tell was that all of the articles on the main page were criticisms of environmental projects favored by left-wingers. It criticized offshore wind power by noting its effect on aquatic species. It criticized terrestrial wind power by looking at its effect on birds. It criticized solar energy by looking at its effect on turtles. And it is of course pro-nuclear. It just criticizes all the things that the left-wing environmentalists support. That is what I see when I read the front page.

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

                      You have had the ad hominem fallacy explained to you again and again, yet you never grasp it. Why is that?

                      Not a single thing you described in this post has the least bearing on the factuality of the WPATH files.

                      In addition, your listed "criticisms" are all facts, which makes no sense whatsoever. Offshore wind does affect marine wildlife. Terrestrial wind does kill birds. All solar does kill turtles. So the fuck what?

                  3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    It is indeed impossible to get informed consent from a child. They are literally incapable of understanding.

                    That is not true. It depends on the age of the child and the degree of consent that one is asking of the child. Why don't you try to make a more rigorous claim instead.

                    The panel members acknowledged this themselves and yet you still deny it.

                    You didn't even read the part I directed you to. In the part that I specifically pointed out, the doctors present didn't say it was "impossible", only that it was very difficult.

                    This type of comment just proves my other point. That it doesn't matter what evidence I present or what claims I prove, you just are going to believe whatever you want to believe anyway, and it doesn't matter if it is an expert telling you these things or not. You claim to be in favor of "skepticism" but you are not - you are just obdurate. You're just impervious to evidence and facts that stand in stark contradiction to what you are accustomed to, no matter the quality of the evidence. THAT is not the scientific method.

                    Maybe you should stop trying to lecture me about the scientific method and start practicing a little bit of it yourself.

                    1. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Haha, Lying Jeffy going full Hihn

                      UP
                      AND
                      DOWN
                      THE
                      PAGE!

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

                      That is not true. It depends on the age of the child and the degree of consent that one is asking of the child. Why don’t you try to make a more rigorous claim instead.

                      You are a full-on fucking sophist retard. Children are incapable of giving informed consent. The WPATH members acknowledged it themselves.

            2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

              So I'm sure you will condemn Biden unequivocally for giving lip service to the Constitution while violating it left and right (student loan "forgiveness," eviction moratoriums, banning icky "assault weapons," etc.).

              You said above, it doesn't matter how WPATH actually operates. What matters is they put in writing that caution should be the approach. Words are what matters, not actions?

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                Look, I posted a link to WPATH's own published standard of care. Are you claiming it's a fake? They obviously cannot compel people to follow their standard of care, but it is false to claim that their recommended standard of care is something other than what they have put forth.

                And of course every president ought to be condemned for their actions that violate the natural rights of all people, whether or not they are in the Constitution or not.

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

                  That standard of care that their own members admit to ignoring? How is it relevant?

            3. R Mac   1 year ago

              Shorter Lying Jeffy: nah nah nah nah can’t hear you nah nah nah nah can’t hear you!

            4. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              From “Environmental Progress”? LOL this group is hilarious. It is clearly a right-wing organization cosplaying as some left-wing activist group.

              chemtard radical deathfat can't refute the actual documents in the WPATH files, so he indulges in the same genetic fallacy as he accuses others of doing (he did the same thing with Legal Insurrection and their coverage of the Oberlin decision, incidentally) in a desperate attempt to deflect from what doctors were actually finding and puzzling over, based on their communications with WPATH.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                see above - no I didn't, I didn't say the claims were false because they came from this group. I threw shade on them because they deserve it - they are a phony organization attempting to deceive.

                by the way, if we are supposed to assess the validity of claims using evidence, why don't they present the primary sources for their claims?

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

                  I didn’t say the claims were false because they came from this group. I threw shade on them because they deserve it – they are a phony organization attempting to deceive.

                  A distinction without a difference.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    I'm sorry, I thought we were being rigorous and scientific here. No, those two claims are different. You WANT them to be the same but you cannot recognize it because you WANT to be right and you WANT me to be wrong.

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

                      Nobody will read what you wrote above and agree with you. You dismissed the WPATH files because you disagree with their politics. You wrote that multiple times. It is fallacious nonsense.

            5. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Anyone point out jeff dismissed the evidence with an ad hominem.

              1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                Isn't that just par for the course when debating the dipshit?

    2. mad.casual   1 year ago

      Remember when we all wore masks on the off chance that not doing so might kill someone's grandma? Yeah, turns out we kinda somewhat knowingly mutilated a lot of kids without any medical proof of any benefit whatsoever at the same time.

      You can almost hear Obama say it in his "We tortured some folks."/"This is how and what a human would say if they were actually apologizing." voice:
      ”In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 COVID and The Summer Of Love, we did some things that were wrong — we did a whole lot of things that were right, but we did some things that were contrary to our values, I understand why it happened. It’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were.”

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        Yeah, turns out we kinda somewhat knowingly mutilated a lot of kids without any medical proof of any benefit whatsoever at the same time.

        Such as the New England Journal of Medicine pointing out in April 2020 that several decades of research showed that community masking was largely psychological in its effectiveness, before being jawboned into walking it back and repeating the Regime mantra that "masks work."

  34. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>abortion bans don't play well

    moral reasons should outweigh legal reasons sans intervention.

    1. mad.casual   1 year ago

      And it's a women's rights issue so the logical solution of avoiding the problem entirely is right out.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        lol

  35. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>another horrid unintended consequence of pandemic-era policy.

    you assert this as though certain the consequence was unintended.

  36. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>with no exceptions made for rape or incest

    nothing needs to die because it is a victim of a crime ... or from the mind of that disgusting VC Andrews

  37. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Possibly the most interesting reaction came from Kari Lake

    interesting because correct?

  38. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>What will it take to tame New York City's garbage problem?

    watching Rome burn is kinda fun from Texas.

    1. DesigNate   1 year ago

      It’s all fun and games till the fire reaches Texarkana.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        our fire currently lies squarely in the middle of the Rio Grande

  39. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>The only downside to defunding NPR

    choosing only one reason is like a bad dilemma at the Thanksgiving dessert table.

  40. BestUsedCarSales   1 year ago

    Kari Lake is an empty suit. She should not be respected in the least.

    1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

      A wild BUCS appears

    2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

      Kari has that crazy MILF look.

      Definitely would.

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

        Waaay too old for your taste.

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

          Lauren Boebert is the "daughter" in my fantasy MAGA 3-way. Kari performs a car wash after I pleasure Ms Boebert.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            Tell us why you had to use SBP 2, you hicklib pederast.

            1. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

              His sticky note with the SPB1 password fell off his computer and got mixed in with all the empty bags of cheesy poofs all over the floor.

              1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                Imagine suddenly forgetting a password for an account you'd been using daily for years.

                1. R Mac   1 year ago

                  Which you can reset by clicking “forgot password” and entering your email address, which he also apparently forgot, somehow.

          2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            1. TMI, dork.
            2. Turd lies.

          3. Sevo   1 year ago

            turd certainly is dishonest, but he’s got a heaping helping of stupid to go with his dishonesty. Stupid, lying, despicable steaming pile of lefty shit and proud to be!

      2. Sevo   1 year ago

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

    3. mad.casual   1 year ago

      Kari Lake is an empty suit. She should not be respected in the least.

      I respect her enough to say that she can't be an empty suit with the way she fills out the chest region.

  41. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    In the piece, Berliner details a culture shift at the organization, in which "An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America."

    Berliner argued that NPR is plagued with an "absence of viewpoint diversity," which he considers to be a result of leadership's emphasis on promoting diversity and inclusion on the basis of race and sexual orientation. He also claims that he found "87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans."

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/npr-editor-s-critical-op-ed-ignites-debate-over-political-bias-in-journalism-this-essay-has-it-backwards/ar-BB1lpcFr?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=797662222ef34c2388d5a9d8499e692b&ei=15

    By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.

    1. R Mac   1 year ago

      Yeah, but people in the commentariat that were right didn’t come to the correct conclusion in the correct way and didn’t trust the experts that were wring like I did, and that’s more important that this guy from NPR admitting they were biased.

      — Lying Jeffy

  42. charliehall   1 year ago

    "misdemeanor and felony assaults are up this year"

    Misdemeanor assaults up 7.1%
    Felony assaults up 3.0%

    OTOH....

    Homicides down 15.4%
    Shooting victims down 21%

    NYC is safer than almost every other large US city.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      Uh, if assaults are up, that doesn't mean it's safer, you shitlib vermin.

    2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Holy shit , that’s terrible.

    3. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      Assaults up, homicides down could be just better medical intervention saving more lives. If the victim lives, it's assault or maybe attempted murder, but not a homicide.

    4. Sevo   1 year ago

      Well, since a lefty shit posted some numbers...

  43. Lester75   1 year ago

    Kari Lake's opponent can just run ads of her original 'pro-life' stance cheering the applicability of the 1800's law in an endless loop. What a dummy.

  44. anomaloid   1 year ago

    When a dog chases a car, what's that dog gonna do when it catches the car? That's the Republican conundrum on abortion right now. As I always suspected, most Republicans are actually about as pro-choice as the typical European country and the only reason that they have postured themselves as anti-abortion for decades is because they never thought they would catch the car and posturing themselves that way secured the evangelical vote.

    It is interesting that famously atheist countries like Germany, France, and Denmark limit abortion in most cases to 12 weeks. They must believe that there is some level of awareness in the fetus at that age that makes abortion afterward a cruel act. I think there's a decent amount of evidence to support that position. However, that will never be satisfactory to the evangelical right who believe that life begins at conception, so the issue of when the first inklings of awareness occur is irrelevant to them.

  45. AT   1 year ago

    Of all the options she had, "picking a fight with a satire website" was the last one I expected.

  46. upgrayedd   1 year ago

    Just wanted to stop back and say I cruised through (and thoroughly enjoyed) Lionel Shriners “Mania,” in which Shriver envisions a world created by Ellsworth Monkton Toohey and it’s every bit as incompetent and frightening as one could imagine.

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

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Wait, Lilo & Stitch Is About Medicaid and Family Separation?

Peter Suderman | 5.30.2025 1:59 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!