Can you explain to me how this is a joke?
His audience laughed because they're dumb. But to me, this looks like the negging thing where you anticipate being called out for your insult and say "It's a joke. It's just a joke!"
Texas' highest court ruled that the state law never required that the risk to a mother’s life be “imminent” when weighting whether they are eligible for an abortion. Because of this, the court wrote: “Ms. Zurawski’s agonizing wait to be ill ‘enough’ for induction, her development of sepsis, and her permanent physical injury are not the results the law commands,” the Los Angeles Times reported.
Oh, now that's interesting (in the dumbest way possible). Because the lawmakers who wrote the abortion law were ignorant fucks that wouldn't know a vagina from their own urethra, the near death experiences these women endured weren't caused by their attempt to adhere to the law?
That's just straight up malicious. If following the law puts your life at risk, then wtf is the point of following the law? Why shouldn't these women get an abortion if the choice is between abortion and jail or a very high likelihood of death?
Wtf does governing mean in Texas?
If you ever read "fifth circuit court of appeals", know that you're about to read some bullshit. Every bad decision the current Supreme Court has made started with the fifth circuit.
I was listening to Know Your Enemy's recent podcast titled Why the Right Loves Foreign Dictators (would definitely recommend a listen), and I came to a realization:
American conservative beliefs are not based on reality. That seems obvious, especially to this crowd, but like, the conservative dispossession of reality-based beliefs goes deep. Their version of rationality is adherence to an ideology and that is how they interpret the beliefs of others.
In this case, it manifests as opposing the removal of lead water pipes in the honest belief that, regardless of their danger—which is speculative to this idiot—it's too expensive and "infringes" on rights. The value of lead pipe removal derives from whether its economically beneficial and its comportment with his idea of what infringes on rights, rather than on...you know...the scientifically proven damaging effects of lead.
Because he interprets the beliefs of others as perceived adherence to some ideology (which he almost certainly doesn't understand), he dismisses the solid scientific evidence as speculative. It's ideology vs ideology for him. Scientific claims are just another ideology.
To generalize, that's why the pro-life movement "helps" women, that's why be against welfare "supports" the nation, that's why supporting Putin "defends" liberty, and that's why voting for Trump makes America "great". It's not about real results, it's just pure ideological adherence from the bottom to the top. It's fitting that Trump is their messiah. He's the greatest bullshitter modern politics has ever seen.
But then you read on and it says Apple is allowing the kit to not be used in the EU only. Outside of the EU, presumably, Firefox will still have to use the Webkit or whatever. So, while Apple uses its own engine in both the EU and the US on its phones, Firefox will be able to use its own engine in the EU, too, but will have to continue using Webkit in the US and other markets outside of the EU.
I'm not sure what disingenuous about that.
He will construct “freedom cities” filled with flying cars
Is that a joke?
...why would it be too late for you to date? People want companionship throughout their lives....
The Good Place.
That show is so good! But the ending fucked me up for like a week.
Also, how are you watching Xena? I used to love that show when I was a kid!
Maybe instead of a fine, it'll any amount of jail time instead.
I think it'd be more accurate these authoritarian motherfuckers don't want anyone to be anything other than their slaves.
Cato Institute was cited in the article, and, being a fervent right-wing think tank hater, they don't talk about profit. Instead, they'll argue for some shit like short term limited duration insurance because they're less regulated than other health insurance plans. This falls in line with their "De-regulate Everything" argumentative scheme. In other words, it's perfectly a-okay if companies can rip people off without federal oversight.
But for programs that in any way help other people...well...they're unconstitutional or an abuse of executive power.
It's interesting (except not at all, because they're all hypocrites) how they haven't said anything against DeSantis's use of executive power in Florida. Somehow, everything he does is constitutional and within the reach of executive power.
A body of corporations to regulate anything is not a body of regulation; it's a body of extraction constrained by managing public expectations.
The sympathy campaign begins