richardfun posted:

As a Dutch person, I'd like to both laugh at you guys and offer you a sincere apology. Our most (in)famous politician, Geert Wilders, is going to visit your fair country to (presumably) throw some oil on several fires.



What brings Wilders to the States, you ask? Well, he was invited!

By whom, you ask? By Louie Gohmert and Steve King, of course!

From Geert's own little blog, I bolded the most hilarious/unbelievable part.

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

So is there an actual chance that the GOP fucks this deal up?

SaltLick posted:

Now that's the scam to get in on. Next time there is a national "outrage" just be the one who sets up the gofundme page and skim off the top as administration fees

ReidRansom posted:

quote:

In 38 states, it is illegal for a minor to terminate a pregnancy without one parent's knowledge. (Some of those 38 states go further, and require a parent's permission.) Girls who are afraid or unable to involve their parents can ask a judge for permission instead. This confidential process, which the Supreme Court helped establish in the late '70s and early '80s, is called judicial bypass.

...

But Texas is the first state in recent memory to consider naming the judges who rule on bypass cases. One bill, introduced by Republican Rep. Ron Simmons, would name the judges outright. Another proposal, authored by fellow Republican Rep. Geanie Morrison, would list the courts that grant bypass petitions. Since some courts have just a few judges, Morrison's bill would make it easier for abortion foes to identify and pressure judges who give minors permission to get abortions. Morrison did not respond to requests for comment, and Simmons declined to comment.

Proponents of the bills have argued that they would bring accountability to the bypass process. Critics say that the bills are aimed at discouraging judges from participating in bypass hearings. "This isn't about transparency in the petition process. It's about punishing judges," warns Susan Hays, a Texas attorney who works with a nonprofit group called Jane's Due Process to represent minors in bypass cases. Texas, she notes, elects its judges. "We pass these bills, and suddenly you don't even have this option in huge swaths of the state."

KomradeX posted:

So whats going on with Missouri and their bill to ban people on SNAP from buying steak or seafood?

Amergin posted:

As proof of the new rising tide of freedom against the tyranny of social justice warriors and Tumblr, I present to you the resounding success of a quiet revolution in sci/fi and fantasy writing: The Hugo Awards were swept by Sad Puppies.

mastervj posted:

Is there any thread talking about this? Because, Jesus, this is hosed up.

Radbot posted:

You know what, I agree. I am being a crab in a bucket. I think we should start a goon project to ensure that people fired for murdering others get to have their families stay on their insurance. Who's volunteering?

Magres posted:

Hey guys I hear a Republican said something stupid

Let's talk about that instead of this god awful race to the peak of Mount Shitpost


Alternately, an actual question - I cannot remember the name of it, but there's an idea that a just society is one in which we can look at it and say "yes, without knowing anything about where I'd wind up in this society, I would be happy to be a part of it regardless of my status within it." Ring any bells? I'm trying to find it for an argument about SNAP. It's an idea that I really like and that has influenced my arguments with relatives about THOSE drat WELFARE POORS

Samurai Sanders posted:

Right, so my question is, how would market sharing/price fixing agreements ever be subject to the law then? Surely they wouldn't sit in a room together and write down "okay you guys get Chicago and we get New York", but the government would have to find evidence like that to make a case?

Nonsense posted:

Fireman interviewed -

Vice: "did you put out the fire?"

BFD: "unfortunately"