MWilson

The states to ratify a constitutional amendment to make abortion a constitutional right would be shorter, and take less time, than the majority of your posts here on this forum. The reason they don't do it is because it will fail. "It's not written down so therefore abortion is legal in all states" is not the way we do things in the USA. The Commerce Clause deals with anything involving money between states... that's why they are fighting over it all the time. So, what you're saying is each individual country has their own abortion laws. The EU hasn't been stupid enough to try to make them all do it their way... am I right? Wrong. The case brought forward was once again a state rightfully regulating abortion in their state after activist judges attempted to "constitutionalize" abortion and falsely declaring it as precedent. Abortion is not, and never has been, a Constitutional Right. We didn't make up "The Great Reset", and we didn't lay out the agenda. Don't confuse fear with non-compliance. We will not conform. Socialism is not our idea of a good life, and whenever you're ready to fight over it, we will accommodate. It's hilarious to me that you people think a civil war in the US will possibly have a good outcome for anybody

You cut off the important part... "You really think that's the only thing PP does that makes money?" That's a better question... Yes... that's the only thing PP does that makes money. One of the most over-used skills of a Progressive, deceptive editing. Elon Musk just lit NBC, your favorite place, on fire... "NBC basically saying Republicans are Nazi's..." "Same org that covered up Hunter Biden laptop story, had Harvey Weinstein story early and killed it, and built Matt Lauer his rape office. Lovely People." Again assuming where I get my news from, and you're wrong. Know why I'm not a republican? It's because I'm too smart for it.

Planned Parenthood is the abortion business... without abortion they would have no business. Medicaid is taxpayer money... which means taxpayer money is supporting the abortion business. How is this any concern of a Belgian? You really think that's the only thing PP does? Man, you really need to stop getting your news from entertainment outlets.

How do you expect to come up with the solution to anything when the go-to conservative response is always anger and fear of change?

I do own Twitter stock, but not directly. We are heavy in Vanguard, and Vanguard holds over 10% of Twitter. I don't know yet how this sale will affect my holdings in Vanguard. The First Amendment was created to protect the speech of all shit flingers... and I must correct you here... Twitter was a publicly traded company, but now that Musk has bought Twitter, it will soon be a private company. I believe he will close the San Francisco office, move it to Texas, and fire everyone that is not working for his vision of what Twitter will be. No you don't own twitter stock, you own a fund which holds twitter stock and therefore derives value from twitter's market capitalization. You're not a twitter shareholder, vanguard is and you get no say in how twitter is run. Also, Elon's offer is still subject to regulatory approval. TWTR is still publicly traded at 48.64 as of today's close. That leaves $6 of upside if you believe the deal is complete. First amendment doesn't now, nor has it ever, applied to private companies. You sure don't know shit about the market for a self-proclaimed individual capitalist.

An "Activist Judge" uses loopholes and bent interpretations of the Constitution to create new law out of thin air. A judge that kills an unconstitutional law is not an activist judge... they are a very good judge. I strongly doubt you know much about the law at all. A judge doesn't "create new laws out of thin air". Define an activist ruling and why you think it's a bad ruling. Also define what you think the role of the judiciary is. You also missed part 2, "What is the role of the Judicial Branch in America?"

Clearly you don't understand the terms of the financing deal. As a true capitalist, I expect you hold stock in twitter and voted against the board members that police right wing shit flingers. If so, congrats, be less poor and maybe they'll care about your opinion. If not, let private companies manage their own business.

I am not advocating a position... I'm giving you examples of activism. A state law is passed that effectively bans abortion in their state. The case is disputed all the way to the Supreme Court where some "Activist Judges" strike the law, and suddenly abortion is legal in every state. No one ever voted for this. A state law is passed that effectively bans gay marriage in their state. The case is disputed all the way to the Supreme Court where some "Activist Judges" strike the law, and suddenly gay marriage is legal in every state. No one ever voted for this. An "Activist Judge" is a judge that creates new law out of thin air. So the U.S. Constitution shouldn't apply in states where the legislature passes a law that deprives its citizens of protections and rights afforded by it? That's what you just said. It's not a personal preference... it's just the way it is. Your side lost the civil war, the Constitution applies to you guys just the same. If you don't like it, move somewhere else. Saudi Arabia hates gays and women, maybe you'd be more at home there.

An "Activist Judge" uses loopholes and bent interpretations of the Constitution to create new law out of thin air. A judge that kills an unconstitutional law is not an activist judge... they are a very good judge. I strongly doubt you know much about the law at all. A judge doesn't "create new laws out of thin air". Define an activist ruling and why you think it's a bad ruling. Also define what you think the role of the judiciary is.

Lol, the news I pay attention to is, "Russia invades Ukraine" so I can take a long position on natural gas futures. That response you just gave though is exactly why I don't have any respect for you.

Nicholas Sandmann was relentlessly vilified by Progressive media, and the lawsuits that followed resulted in monster awards. I believe his case single handedly destroyed what little reputation was left of CNN and led to the sale of the network. It doesn't matter who reports the story... it all sounds pretty damn accurate to me. You're missing the point. That's an opinion and not factually relevant. The story is "Sandmann settles suit". Additional narrative beyond the facts is the problem. Also, the details of the settlement aren't public, how do you know that it's a "monster"? I go to the news for facts, not opinion. My primary focus is "how do I make money based on this information?"

Trump colluding with Russia was a lie. Here is the current event. It's not my opinion. Hillary Clinton and her people did this. Durham issues trial subpoenas to Clinton campaign and DNC | Washington Examiner Hunter Biden laptop is real. It's not "Russian disinformation". Here is the current event. It's not my opinion. Democrats are jumping through hoops to keep it out of Congressional Record. Democrats Reject GOP Attempts to Upload Hunter Biden’s Laptop into Congressional Record: Report (yahoo.com) Nicholas Sandmann was wrongfully defamed by numerous media sources. It's not my opinion. Washington Post settles $250M suit with Covington teen Nick Sandmann (nypost.com) CNN settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann stemming from viral video controversy | CNN Business Nick Sandmann Reaches Settlement With NBC - American Faith Joe Rogan was prescribed Ivermectin by his doctor to treat Covid-19. It was reported that he was taking horse dewormer. It's not my opinion. Don Lemon denies CNN 'lied' about Joe Rogan's COVID treatment after claiming podcaster took 'horse dewormer' | Fox News Would you care to offer up a defense for Jussie Smollett? ........ I didn't think so. That's not my opinion either. Learn how to evaluate a source, these sites are ny post, americanfaith.com (Which merely cross posted from epoch times), fox news, washington examiner, national review, and CNN. None of these are good sources for news. For your education I've copied and pasted the NY Post article and highlighted what sort of language you should be on the lookout for when identifying news vs propaganda and other forms of misinformation. The Washington Post on Friday agreed to settle a monster $250 million lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann over its botched coverage of his 2019 encounter with a Native American elder. Sandmann declared the victory in a tweet on his 18th birthday. It’s unclear how much the newspaper settled for. “On 2/19/19, I filed $250M defamation lawsuit against Washington Post. Today, I turned 18 & WaPo settled my lawsuit,” he wrote. “Thanks to @ToddMcMurtry & @LLinWood for their advocacy. Thanks to my family & millions of you who have stood your ground by supporting me. I still have more to do,” he continued. It’s the teen’s second win in a whopping $800 million defamation battle against a number of news outlets including the Washington Post, CNN, ABC, CBS, The Guardian, The Hill and NBC. CNN agreed to settle with Sandmann in January this year as part of a separate $275 million claim. Sandmann and a group of his Covington classmates were vilified on social media after they were filmed wearing “Make America Great Again” hats after an anti-abortion rally while being yelled at by demonstrators. Nicholas Sandmann (left) and activist Nathan Phillips during the infamous encounter.Kaya Taitano via Storyful Sandmann, then 16, was singled out after footage of his confrontation with Native American activist Nathan Phillips was picked up by CNN and other outlets who claimed the incident was racially motivated. Footage released later showed it was the Covington students who were being harassed. In a subsequent tweet Friday, Sandmann fired a warning shot at Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. “We have settled with WAPO and CNN. The fight isn’t over. 2 down. 6 to go. Don’t hold your breath @jack,” he wrote. Even though this is factual, the characterization of the lawsuit as a "monster" and claiming that Sandman was "vilified" give this article an emotional charge that weakens credibility. Since you think I'm a hardcore liberal, I'll just tell you now that I get the majority of my news from the Wall Street Journal and local newspapers. The free, clicks-for-money online "journalism" news culture has contributed greatly to the downfall of american society. Here's a non-news article from the atlantic you won't read, but someone else might. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/

You post right wing opinion pieces masquerading as news. That's completely different than current events. Here's a helpful website for you to ignore completely. https://www.mediabiasfactcheck.com also, maybe consider learning how to identify propaganda or misleading sources. Here's a tip, if what you're reading uses loaded language that elicits anger, it's probably not news you're reading.

You're a fool to think the only other option is CNN. You don't have to try to convince me of anything, I don't respect you enough to care about your opinions. Your bernie daughter sounds like the smartest member of your family.

For someone who's so interested in "the truth" you seem to rely only on heavily right-wing biased media.