|
Evil Fluffy posted:unless there's video of Trump helping to abort white christian babies the GOP You'll need more qualifiers because there are a lot of hispanic white christians in ICE detention centers having "miscarriages" right now.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Especially if 2 years from now the North Korea deal is somehow still at least appearing to be intact. KJU could take a poo poo on the original Declaration of Independence on live TV and Trump's supporters would still think Trump alpha male'd him into submission.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You'll need more qualifiers because there are a lot of hispanic white christians in ICE detention centers having "miscarriages" right now. Oooh, I know this one: "papists aren't Christian and we are a nation of Laws, their sins are theirs."
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You'll need more qualifiers because there are a lot of hispanic white christians in ICE detention centers having "miscarriages" right now. Uh, every good conservative knows that all those Mexicans are brown.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You'll need more qualifiers because there are a lot of hispanic white christians in ICE detention centers having "miscarriages" right now. They're not white. Don't be silly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Especially if 2 years from now the North Korea deal is somehow still at least appearing to be intact. ...What deal? Did they sign a deal? I thought it was more like a non-binding "yeah peace is good I guess" resolution thing than anything enforceable
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/andrewperezdc/status/1016556588163665921 I'm so glad I don't give this rag my money anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:https://twitter.com/andrewperezdc/status/1016556588163665921 Stop reading the opinion pages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You'll need more qualifiers because there are a lot of hispanic white christians in ICE detention centers having "miscarriages" right now. I get what you're saying but whiteness is socially granted and our society does not grant it to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Stop reading the opinion pages. I'm not supporting dangerous propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Stop reading the opinion pages. here's the thing: the opinion columnists get paid six times what a reporter does, not including their speaking fees, so when you pay your subscription. well. y'know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:here's the thing: the opinion columnists get paid six times what a reporter does, not including their speaking fees, so when you pay your subscription. well. y'know. Amar isn’t a paid columnist. He’s writing that bullshit for free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
I mean, he's right, but still... https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1016777860357509120?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1016717181562904582
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Amar isn’t a paid columnist. He’s writing that bullshit for free. More relatively, they are printing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Amar isn’t a paid columnist. He’s writing that bullshit for free. Because he doesn't need the money, lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
have none of these fuckers read eichmann in jerusalem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You'll need more qualifiers because there are a lot of hispanic white christians in ICE detention centers having "miscarriages" right now. Hispanic =/= white to these people. Thwomp posted:Stop reading the opinion pages. Opinions that the NYT promote are opinions it agrees with. Doesn't matter if the article's written for free. The NYT fully endorses it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
This should end well: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1016816087818817536?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Because he doesn't need the money, lol Who better to write op-eds than those free of the biasing influence of poordom?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Opinions that the NYT promote are opinions it agrees with. Doesn't matter if the article's written for free. The NYT fully endorses it. This is like, not at all how an opinion page works at a newspaper. The editorials they print are an explicit statement of the views of the editorial board, but every decent newspaper in the history of newspapers strives to cultivate an opinion page with varied perspectives on issues. It's literally impossible for the NYT to endorse everything on the opinion pages because they frequently publish contrasting opinions on given issues. Maybe you think that a newspaper should only print (whatever you take to be) correct opinions, but that's not how reputable newspapers have worked for hundreds of years. And while there are things I don't like about the NYT, it's just petulant to call the entire publication trash because they printed some stuff you disagree with, that they explicitly refrain from endorsing, in an opinion section (in accordance with longstanding tradition regarding how papers work). Having said that it's obvious that the dude who wrote that just wants the prestige of having a former student on the court and yeah we shouldn't take him seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
im shocked some HYS shithead supports some other HYS shithead
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Yo can we keep it focused on the SCOTUS nominee and not turn this into Trump Thread Mk 2
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:This is like, not at all how an opinion page works at a newspaper. The editorials they print are an explicit statement of the views of the editorial board, but every decent newspaper in the history of newspapers strives to cultivate an opinion page with varied perspectives on issues. It's literally impossible for the NYT to endorse everything on the opinion pages because they frequently publish contrasting opinions on given issues. Anyway, let me introduce our new contributor, Literally Hitler. I think you'll find he provides a good balance to Literally Pol Pot
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
Kavenaugh: Net neutrality is an unconstitutional violation of ISP's free speech.The Right Honorable Kavenaugh posted:Internet service providers may not necessarily generate much content of their own, but they may decide what content they will transmit, just as cable operators decide what content they will transmit. Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN.com are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes. Also, a loving moron who didn't bother to learn how ISPs work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Kavenaugh: Net neutrality is an unconstitutional violation of ISP's free speech. Isnt title 2 a way to not be responisble for the content? So if they claim a free speach exemption to it, then they are liable for the speach?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
Devor posted:Anyway, let me introduce our new contributor, Literally Hitler. I think you'll find he provides a good balance to Literally Pol Pot That's not fair the New York Times would never consider hiring Literally Pol Pot. Tibalt posted:Yo can we keep it focused on the SCOTUS nominee and not turn this into Trump Thread Mk 2 Oh right good point. I'm not sure the prospect of Trump-Kennedy collusion is all that bothersome. If anything that makes it more likely that Kavenagh is going to toe the same line that Kennedy did. That tweet posted last page about how Kavenagh wasn't on the original Federalist list and was snuck in via update is similarly encouraging. It means that he hasn't been vetted properly* by conservatives, but still has enough of a right-wing record that it's risky for them to sink the confirmation**. *By which I mean the original Federalist list almost definitely consisted entirely of people known personally by the people who wrote it so they had inside information about what those judges would do if given a Supreme Court gavel. **By which I mean the Republican base will probably take Trump's side over Senate Republicans in any tiff, with all the negative blowback falling on the latter if confirmation of the next justice is delayed until next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:Isnt title 2 a way to not be responisble for the content? So if they claim a free speach exemption to it, then they are liable for the speach? I'm sure they'll balance this in a consistent way. There's no way they could make some arbitrary ruling where ISP's are within their rights to run a protection racket on competitors while also not being responsible for the child porn on their network. Why, it would be like stripping unions of agency fees without overruling their obligation to represent members in grievances. It would just be totally illogical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 11:59
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Kavenaugh: Net neutrality is an unconstitutional violation of ISP's free speech. Weird how everything is speech, except the stuff they don't like
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
The best is that forcing Doctors to lie to women about the health side effects of abortions is A-OK with fucks like this guy but forcing fraud crisis pregnancy centers say that they aren't a real medical center is BLATANTLY unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Clearly the solution is to have a non doctor explain the legal requirements before a doctor says the thing. Actually... can doctors say “the following is incorrect but required by law: <lawyer approved stuff> ignore all that.” edit: reminds me of health class in Kentucky “The answer to question 1 is set by the Kentucky state legislature”. The question was “what is the only 100% effective method of birth control”
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Clearly the solution is to have a non doctor explain the legal requirements before a doctor says the thing. I would be super surprised if a bunch of federal courts didn't start overruling those provisions, based on the NIFLA decision. I also wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS then granted cert to come up with a really stupid reason to allow them. But it's pretty difficult to look at NIFLA and see how doctor/patient speech in Texas should be LESS protected than fake-doctor/patient speech in California. quote:edit: reminds me of health class in Kentucky “The answer to question 1 is set by the Kentucky state legislature”. The question was “what is the only 100% effective method of birth control” Same-sex marriage?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Butt stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:edit: reminds me of health class in Kentucky “The answer to question 1 is set by the Kentucky state legislature”. The question was “what is the only 100% effective method of birth control”
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Is their answer medically incorrect? The answer is Abstinence. It is technically correct, but abstinence only education is an anathema to good sex education and healthy sex lives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The answer is Abstinence. It is technically correct, but abstinence only education is an anathema to good sex education and healthy sex lives. Technically speaking, abstinent virgins can become pregnant (but not with viable fetuses): quote:Spontaneous parthenogenetic and androgenetic events occur in humans, but they result in tumours: the ovarian teratoma and the hydatidiform mole, respectively. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987717302694
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Technically speaking, abstinent virgins can become pregnant (but not with viable fetuses): I mean, you can also jack off and cum on someone's vulva and knock them up, so it's not even technically correct although masterbation isn't really abstinence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The answer is Abstinence. It is technically correct, but abstinence only education is an anathema to good sex education and healthy sex lives. Does the first question on a test, which accurately describes the most reliable method, constitute abstinence only education? And isn’t technically correct the best kind of correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:Does the first question on a test, which accurately describes the most reliable method, constitute abstinence only education? See my above post. It's arguably not even technically correct. Abstinence is not a reliable method, either, because it isn't practical. And  if you think that a lot of kentucky schools actually teach sex ed instead of just having a test with the 1 legally required question and then checking the box.Just looked it up and KY is tied for the #15 state with the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the country at 62/1000. The highest state NM, is 80/1000 while the best state, New Hampshire, is 28/1000.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Wxhode posted:
I'd say the best kind of correct is the one that accounts for human behavior and medical outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:15
|
|