Hodad

Yet you will repeat these claims without a shred of evidence. Not even one example. You can't cite where anyone was called a domestic terrorist for having an opinion on abortion. You can't cite even one example of the "full force" of the government coming down on someone for participating in a discussion. So what gives? These are obviously baseless claims. Why are you pushing them as if they are real?

Lol. Read the first two sentences of you quote you posted. And no, there was no such implication.

Noooooope. I wouldn't recommend that anyone read the NY Post, but if you had read your own link you would know: A. Nowhere does it call anyone a domestic terrorist for having anti-choice views. B. Nowhere is the full force of the government "coming after" someone for participating in a conversation. Rather, it says that if someone has become an impassioned believer in a cause, and has started to justify or rationalize the use of violence in support of that cause, then they are worth keeping an eye on. That's just common sense. Again, here's the hypothetical profile: “This is Ann, a resident of Elkville in rural America,” one profile reads. “Ann has always been religious but since the death of her mother, she’s become increasingly devout. She’s a regular in the small-town community, active in several church groups. While she has always been protective of her four kids, she has become increasingly more concerned about the welfare of other children including the unborn.” The document, obtained by American First Legal, then tells employees to consider ways to address the fictional Ann’s behavior after she questions whether “the bible justifies violence in defense of life” during a prayer group meeting and calls the mayor of her small town a “baby killer” at a ribbon-cutting ceremony. ^^So, this person states that a mayor who supports a woman's right to choose, is a baby killer, while also asking whether the bible would support someone using violence against this mayor because of his views. Yeah, anyone who thinks they have a biblical mandate to kill those with whom they disagree politically should be on all the watch lists.

A. So you were indeed, incorrect. He was explicitly talking about severe situations. B. There is a difference between letting a body die and killing a person, no? Again, anyone without a living will must rely entirely on the judgment of doctor and families to determine when to cease heroic measures to maintain a semblance of life. This is no different. it's pure nonsense to call it a "post-term abortion"--which is a silly word salad to begin with. Remember Terry Schaivo's "post-term abortion"? 🙄

You're tilting at windmills. Nowhere has anyone been called a domestic terrorist for having a point of view on abortion, and nowhere has the government's "full force" come after people for participating in a discussion. Seriously, why are you even posting this nonsense?

Aw, you silly, silly man. There are always monitors from both parties at polling stations. Nothing different there. And the only verified voter fraud to swing a federal election in the last 50 years was republicans--and they got caught because the system works just fine. I propose that you are among those easily fooled by this kind of disinformation. When you saw this claim, did you go watch or read the full quote in context? That should be the absolute first response to any crazy claim you see.

Certainly they are two separate things, thanks. The pride flag should not be controversial though. Students should know that they are safe and supported regardless of sexual orientation and that's the message it sends. It can help young people to hear that message and it is no capacity to harm, so there should be no problem with a pride flag. That book, on the other hand, is rather explicit. Is it used or available in schools? Who knows, because it's been presented with all the thoughtfulness we're used to I here, I guess the intention is to imply that it's not only in schools, but that it's in the kindergarten classroom next to Dr. Suess. That seems very unlikely. Perhaps it's part of sex education curriculum? Which is where we get into reasonable conversation. It's 2024. Our children live in a world of information with unlimited graphic, sexual content just a click away--and they are watching it. However I think we can all agree that pornography does not model healthy, caring relationships or safe and appropriate sexual behavior. In that context, do you see any argument for why an illustrated story that models safe practices and consensual sex has value? Is there a case for sex-positive counterprogramming to give young people a healthier perspective on sex than they get from their smartphones?

Do you subject a hopeless patient to heroic measures to maintain a pulse? That's the same conversation--between families and physicians--that every patient deserves. Think about a baby born without a brain or some other essential organ, for whom life is impossible outside the womb. Do you think they should do chest compressions on the thing until it's just a pile of mush? Or offer whatever palliative care they can and let it pass with grace? These are actual conversations that have to take place. They are difficult and heartbreaking. And here you are exploiting that fact in an effort to score some cheap political points. Have some decency.

Thanks for the permission. I would definitely like to engage in some belittling, starting with the fact that you are not even part of "this nation." You have a massive case of "freeness envy" and just can't manage to focus on your own business. You're not content with lashing out at your fellow countrymen, but instead manage to get your soiled knickers in a twist about the social progress in an entirely different country. lol But no, progress will march on. All the people your hate-filled little heart would love to oppress will continue to move toward equality in this country--and many others.

🤪Sure it does. Because the one thing we can count on is that progress will stop if enough old men shake their impotent fists at the sky. Or maybe you are magic? If you shake your fist hard enough a flag turns into a book!

Ah, so not a chain email, but rather a disinformation meme. Great. But Northam was only addressing what happens in cases where a baby is born with severe deformities and has a low chance of survival. So, yes, the fate of severely deformed newborns, who naturally lack a living will, should indeed be a discussion between parents and physicians. I wish people would do some critical thinking about random shite from the internet before sharing it like it's news.

Dude, you were posting about a pride flag. I have no idea the provenance of that image. Let me know how the story turns out though.

"You can be proud of who you are" is sexual messaging to you? Well, I guess if ones self esteem is low enough...

A. That's false. He didn't say anything about evangelicals, unless you'd like to make the argument that all evangelicals are Christian nationalists? B. I don't think you know what "voter suppression" means. For that to be true he would have to come up with some way to prevent or make it more difficult for them to vote. Purging view rolls, eliminating polling locations, adding new requirements, eliminating alternative voting times--you know, the Republican playbook.

Gonna need you to decode that. I didn't get your chain emails.

You were flirting with reasonableness for a few weeks there, but now you're just saying crazy stuff again. Nobody is taking about "post-term abortion" and Biden is not involved in any voter suppression effort. You forget your lines? Your job is to rail at Democrats for making it easier to vote.

Hang on, is it your position that evangelicals=Christian Nationalists? Are these terms interchangeable, in your view? And look, I didn't know who convinced you of the (wildly improbable) prescription motive here, but it's probably time to abandon that news source. At least read up on it before making hateful allegations. It's a for-profit college, so you should trust it about as far as you can throw it. GCU's beef with the DoE goes back to the Trump administration. Was that administration persecuting Christians as well? And these penalties don't seem extreme for the scale. Remember, students end up paying $10k to $12k more than they were lead to expect. "The penalty amounts to $5,000 per violation, which totaled 7,547—the number of students who enrolled in doctoral dissertation programs from Nov. 1, 2018, to Oct. 19, 2023. ... The department noted in its fine notice that it could have issued a maximum penalty of $509.7 million, because the agency can impose up to $67,544 fine per violation." So the penalty amount was about half of the "ill-gotten" gains and just 7% of the maximum assessable penalty for these violations. That sure doesn't seem vindictive. Relatively gentle, actually. Any of that information cause you to re-evaluate?

I can prove that none of it was hearsay? Yes. I provided you with video of the events as they unfolded, direct quotes and direct witness testimony. Q.E.D.

Was it a record violation? Do you even know the facts before you cry persecution? It's a for-profit college issuing more federal student aid than any other institution in the county. Hm...

news/national-international/grand-canyon-university-largest-christian-university-in-the-us-faces-record-37-7-million-fine-over-deceptive-practices/3458221/%3famp=1 Already doing it by levying unreasonable fines to shut down major evangelical universities. Nonsense. Oh, really? Are non-Christian universities held to the same standard? ,(They are.) so how is it religious persecution? Do you believe that being "Christian" means that the laws don't apply? BTW, which part of that post do you disagree with?

Nah, it's pretty well defined. The short version is that Christian Nationalists do not believe in a separation of church and state or the first amendment freedom of religion. Rather, they want the United States to be a nation of and for Christians. Which sucks pretty bad for everyone else. Think Taliban rule in Afghanistan, but Christian sharia.

Neither of those things will happen. This is a shallow and corrupt incarnation of the court, but even this tattered shadow isn't so far gone as to establish an executive with unlimited immunity. It's probably also worth pointing out that Biden IS an actual Christian.

Ah, the famous Akimov "Yuh huh" rebuttal. Expertly played, sir. 🙄

Your powers of projection are off the chart. Powers of reason? Not so much. You can't seem to muster a single argument for why these actions, which meet every defined criteria of a coup, should not rightly be called a coup. Instead, you simply repeat, ad nauseum, that it's not a coup. And, at this point you're just blatantly lying about the facts of the Gore recount. Nothing there was even unusual, let alone illegal. It was a VERY poor analogy to begin with, but if you have to fudge the facts it's probably time to let it go. And no, I think you're rather proving my point. You've argued for pages now, without a shred of reason, about whether the actions of Trump and his cronies can be described by a commonly understood and wholly appropriate word. Why would Smith risk his conviction by allowing some foolish juror to do the same dithering? Far better to nip that in the bud and go with the simpler charges and their stiffer consequences. Isn't that what any sensible person would do?

No, not weird at all. Many of these trials would be over if Trump hadn't cynically played every delay tactic in the book. Much easier to pretend to be a political victim if you marry the timing to politics! Clever enough to fool you, and probably some Americans. No, it will not eliminate those cases. Both are chock full of personal actions that have nothing to do with the duties of the office.