Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yep. Free speech is dying fast.

To you and the five people who liked your post, seriously, you guys really need to chill, and then you guys need to remember it's important to apply critical thinking,

We aren't fanning flames of war.

That depends on how broad a set you have in mind by "We".

We don't have the head of the FCC threatening a corporate merger ax'ing in order to get someone fired from television because they don't like what they are saying.

Maybe not, but it was you anticapitalists who made it possible and maybe inevitable, when you handed discretionary authority to block corporate mergers to executive-branch bureaucrats. Whether a corporate merger violates antitrust laws should depend on objective criteria spelled out in legislation.

Perhaps it'd been easier for some to know what happened at the campus if Gov. Abbott knew and didn't post false information.

Abbott didn't actually post false information. He posted the truth, just not the whole truth. Charitably, he was being a petty dick indulging himself in a bit of schadenfreude. Or maybe, as Arctish suggested, he was being deliberately misleading in order to throw red meat to his anti-free-speech base.

This Administration has arrested a judge, has <snip>

This administration has exceeded its legal authority any number of times because it reports to another dirt bag; but it's illegal to help a criminal evade arrest and judges aren't above the law.

... and is targeting "the left" because some entitled white boy shot another white boy over something personal.

Can't say what's in Robinson's heart, but he called Kirk a fascist and hateful, and those are shrink-wrapped leftist slurs. Quack like a duck, don't be surprised if you're taken for a duck.

It amazes just how far right some of the "conservatives" are here.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Yep. Free speech is dying fast.

To you and the five people who liked your post, seriously, you guys really need to chill, and then you guys need to remember it's important to apply critical thinking,

We aren't fanning flames of war.

That depends on how broad a set you have in mind by "We".

We don't have the head of the FCC threatening a corporate merger ax'ing in order to get someone fired from television because they don't like what they are saying.

Maybe not, but it was you anticapitalists who made it possible and maybe inevitable, when you handed discretionary authority to block corporate mergers to executive-branch bureaucrats. Whether a corporate merger violates antitrust laws should depend on objective criteria spelled out in legislation.

Perhaps it'd been easier for some to know what happened at the campus if Gov. Abbott knew and didn't post false information.

Abbott didn't actually post false information. He posted the truth, just not the whole truth. Charitably, he was being a petty dick indulging himself in a bit of schadenfreude. Or maybe, as Arctish suggested, he was being deliberately misleading in order to throw red meat to his anti-free-speech base.

This Administration has arrested a judge, has <snip>

This administration has exceeded its legal authority any number of times because it reports to another dirt bag; but it's illegal to help a criminal evade arrest and judges aren't above the law.

... and is targeting "the left" because some entitled white boy shot another white boy over something personal.

Can't say what's in Robinson's heart, but he called Kirk a fascist and hateful, and those are shrink-wrapped leftist slurs. Quack like a duck, don't be surprised if you're taken for a duck.

It amazes just how far right some of the "conservatives" are here.

"It's just a leftist slur!" they say while the majority of conservatives are totally fine with a president who wants to gain absolute power. "You just call anything you don't like fascist!" they say while they cover their eyes as the president attempts to gain absolute power.

 

[Elixir]

Whether a corporate merger violates antitrust laws should depend on objective criteria spelled out in legislation.

How would you “spell it out”?

An antitrust violation, as described by statute, refers to actions that break laws (that exist) that were intended (by spelling it out) to promote fair competition and protect trade and commerce from abusive practices, e.g. as price-fixing, bid rigging, market or customer allocation, price discrimination, monopolization etc.

The Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, all try to “spell it out”. If you can do better, have at it.
Or are you advocating for complete deregulation?

 

[Elixir]

cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles.

Whereas about that same number die annually from gunshots, in order that we gain the benefit of … being able to kill 50,000 people a year.
Makes perfect sense. Cars enable people to go places, and guns balance it out by making sure people can’t go anywhere.

Certainly that’s equal or greater value than being able to go somewhere, right?

 

[Elixir]

FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it. I

Why do you keep repeating that falsehood?
The RvW decision affirmed that 14A protected women’s right/access to abortion.
THAT MADE IT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
What part don’t you understand?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And, yes, sex work.

Sex work is work in the same way that child labor is labor. Call it what it actually is: exploitation and commodification of women's bodies for the sexual gratification of men who don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of the people that they're LITERALLY using.

And that is somehow different than any other single-service hiring of any other worker?? I hire an electrician, I show him the wires and what I want done, I consider him far more qualified than me in judging the safety of the situation so I don't concern myself with it.

 

[pood]

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Holy shit, I click on this thread about this wretched person after anvoiding it for so long and the first thing I see is the above colossal dumbassery.

Needless to say, but going to say it anyway, that is NOT what he said.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of the points he makes is that cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles. He pointed out that if citizens have the right to own guns, it's impossible to have zero gun-related deaths - it's not going to happen. His argument was that we should do everything we can to minimize those deaths, just as we do everything we can to reasonably minimize auto accidents and deaths. But if we wish to have gun rights in order to protect ourselves from a zealous government, then we as a society are accepting that there's going to be some deaths as a price for that right.

Too bad that we are not doing “everything we can to minimize” gun deaths.

The parallel of guns with cars continues to be used despite the absurdity of the comparison.

We could only hope that guns, designed for killing, were regulated as tightly as cars, not designed for killing.

I’m pro-Emily’s approach to gun control: license, registration, insurance, inspections, recalls. Take a number; I’ll be at window 3.

License: Yes, and for ammunition and gun parts also. Any gun-related transfer you should have to show your license. Look at driver's licenses for how it should work, although I would apply the same approach to functional parts (purely decorative stuff would not be regulated) and ammo. Gasoline has uses other than cars (first time I bought gas was well before I was of age to drive), gunpowder does not.

Registration: Basically useless. It's a false flag meant to get a list of guns, the holy grail of the gun banners. We used to have a handgun registration here--finally removed when they were forced to admit it had never been of any value in any criminal case.

Insurance: Backdoor version of registration, coupled with the reality that insurance never covers intentional misdeeds and so would do almost nothing.

Inspections: For what? It's very unlikely an inspection would catch anything, once again it's a backdoor for making a list.

Recalls: Why do you think we don't have that now? People keep claiming gun manufacturers are immune from liability--no, that's not what the law says at all. The law says they are immune to liability for misuse. The equivalent would be allowing somebody to sue Ford because they got hurt by a drunk driver in a Ford. Makes no more sense with guns than cars. And it was a response to a plan by the gun-banners to bury the gun makers in more lawsuits than they could defend--not that they would have been successful.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Holy shit, I click on this thread about this wretched person after anvoiding it for so long and the first thing I see is the above colossal dumbassery.

Needless to say, but going to say it anyway, that is NOT what he said.

This is why I have people like this on ignore. They're never about honest discussion.

 

[Elixir]

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Holy shit, I click on this thread about this wretched person after anvoiding it for so long and the first thing I see is the above colossal dumbassery.

Needless to say, but going to say it anyway, that is NOT what he said.

This is why I have people like this on ignore. They're never about honest discussion.

I’m a charitable person, so I assume Jason’s incomprehension rather than blatant dishonesty. Still, stunning.

 

[pood]

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Holy shit, I click on this thread about this wretched person after anvoiding it for so long and the first thing I see is the above colossal dumbassery.

Needless to say, but going to say it anyway, that is NOT what he said.

This is why I have people like this on ignore. They're never about honest discussion.

I’m a charitable person, so I assume Jason’s incomprehension rather than blatant dishonesty. Still, stunning.

Indeed. Not sure which is worse, though.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Holy shit, I click on this thread about this wretched person after anvoiding it for so long and the first thing I see is the above colossal dumbassery.

Needless to say, but going to say it anyway, that is NOT what he said.

This is why I have people like this on ignore. They're never about honest discussion.

I’m a charitable person, so I assume Jason’s incomprehension rather than blatant dishonesty. Still, stunning.

The problem with charitability to me is you can be as charitable as you want, but someone else is still going to mischaracterize your position no matter what you do.

 

[zorq]

FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it.

The fuck it wasn't. Roe v Wade made a constitutional right. What the Supreme Court grants, it can remove.

Which amendment was the abortion amendment?

9th.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

It was a precedent setting case.
Stare Decisis, nothing more, nothing less.
Stare Decisis, which at least two of the three Trump justices (not sure about the third) swore to respect during the confirmation hearing pageant.
What a joke.

BTW Ems,
In its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution provides a right to abortion. That fact can easily be confirmed by any respectable source.

You keep forgetting what "in The Constitution" actually means. It means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States of America says it means.
It is just as correct to say that the right to abortion WAS affirmed in the Constitution, as to say that CURRENTLY it is not.

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Those wouldn't be good examples, as they provided excuses for unequal protection of the law among a particular class of people. Roe v Wade did not. Dobbs only ruled whether abortion was a Federal issue. And in doing so, weakened precedence regarding the 14th Amendment's application to law since the late 1890s, including the observed right to privacy.

 

[pood]

Lincoln on Dred Scott:

We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.

Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.

If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.

But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country,,,

His conclusion:

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the “Fourth,” tomorrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate; and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose after you read it once in the old fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas’ version. It will then run thus: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then-residing in Great Britain.”

And now I appeal to all – to Democrats as well as others, – are you really willing that the Declaration shall be thus frittered away? – thus left no more, at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past? thus shorn of its vitality, and practical value; and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it?…

Lincoln has analyzed the situation correctly and as always eloquently. Deference to a Supreme Court decision does not mean mindless endorsement of it, and that goal always remains to overturn horrid decisions like Dred Scott. His conclusion comports with what he always argued: The “sheet anchor” of American democracy is the Declaration, not the Constitution.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it.

The fuck it wasn't. Roe v Wade made a constitutional right. What the Supreme Court grants, it can remove.

Which amendment was the abortion amendment?

9th.

The Bill of Rights strongly implies a right to privacy from the Government. The right to religion and speech in the 1st Amendment are clearly about how the Government is not to interfere with the minds and opinions of people. The 4th Amendment puts limits on how the State can even get involved into the life and property of someone, by stating the State must have viable reason to insert itself into the life of a citizen. Obviously the 9th Amendment does what it can to stop the ignorant repeated question of "well what about the rights they didn't enumerate?"

And this began being observed by SCOTUS in 1891 in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford. The afforded understanding of the right to privacy expanded from there, including into parental decisions, marital decisions, police surveillance, and our own self (which actually was part of the 1891 case).

Ultimately, the idea that there are certain parts of the body the Government can regulate the care of seems absurd.

 

[Gospel]

One of the points he makes is that cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles. He pointed out that if citizens have the right to own guns, it's impossible to have zero gun-related deaths - it's not going to happen. His argument was that we should do everything we can to minimize those deaths, just as we do everything we can to reasonably minimize auto accidents and deaths. But if we wish to have gun rights in order to protect ourselves from a zealous government, then we as a society are accepting that there's going to be some deaths as a price for that right.

Too bad that we are not doing “everything we can to minimize” gun deaths.

The parallel of guns with cars continues to be used despite the absurdity of the comparison.

We could only hope that guns, designed for killing, were regulated as tightly as cars, not designed for killing.

I’m pro-Emily’s approach to gun control: license, registration, insurance, inspections, recalls. Take a number; I’ll be at window 3.

License: Yes, and for ammunition and gun parts also. Any gun-related transfer you should have to show your license. Look at driver's licenses for how it should work, although I would apply the same approach to functional parts (purely decorative stuff would not be regulated) and ammo. Gasoline has uses other than cars (first time I bought gas was well before I was of age to drive), gunpowder does not.

Registration: Basically useless. It's a false flag meant to get a list of guns, the holy grail of the gun banners. We used to have a handgun registration here--finally removed when they were forced to admit it had never been of any value in any criminal case.

Insurance: Backdoor version of registration, coupled with the reality that insurance never covers intentional misdeeds and so would do almost nothing.

Inspections: For what? It's very unlikely an inspection would catch anything, once again it's a backdoor for making a list.

Recalls: Why do you think we don't have that now? People keep claiming gun manufacturers are immune from liability--no, that's not what the law says at all. The law says they are immune to liability for misuse. The equivalent would be allowing somebody to sue Ford because they got hurt by a drunk driver in a Ford. Makes no more sense with guns than cars. And it was a response to a plan by the gun-banners to bury the gun makers in more lawsuits than they could defend--not that they would have been successful.

Would make more sense if my comment was misinterpreted as tongue-in-cheek, rather than an actual proposal. It’s neither, by the way, but hey, do your thing.

 

[Gospel]

FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it.

The fuck it wasn't. Roe v Wade made a constitutional right. What the Supreme Court grants, it can remove.

Which amendment was the abortion amendment?

9th.

The Bill of Rights strongly implies a right to privacy from the Government. The right to religion and speech in the 1st Amendment are clearly about how the Government is not to interfere with the minds and opinions of people. The 4th Amendment puts limits on how the State can even get involved into the life and property of someone, by stating the State must have viable reason to insert itself into the life of a citizen. Obviously the 9th Amendment does what it can to stop the ignorant repeated question of "well what about the rights they didn't enumerate?"

And this began being observed by SCOTUS in 1891 in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford. The afforded understanding of the right to privacy expanded from there, including into parental decisions, marital decisions, police surveillance, and our own self (which actually was part of the 1891 case).

Ultimately, the idea that there are certain parts of the body the Government can regulate the care of seems absurd.

"We have to take away your freedom in order to secure your freedom." - Every authoritarian government ever.

 

[ZiprHead]

'Scary as all hell': Onlookers horrified as Stephen Miller parrots Nazi speech

Stephen Miller delivered a venomous speech at right-wing activist Charlie Kirk's memorial service that bore a close resemblance to one given by a notorious Nazi leader at a similar event, according to reports.The White House deputy chief of staff and top adviser to President Donald Trump called...

www.rawstory.com

 

[Derec]

Please post links to the videos.
We don't all utilize the same news feeds. There's no reason to assume everyone here has seen the same reports.

They are pretty easily searchable. Unfortunately, there isn't a "supercut" that shows the entire incident without editorializing.
This video shows the hat incident itself, but unfortunately it also has an annoying voiceover.