Nope. Pregnancy and abortion aren't contagious. One person's pregnancy doesn't threaten a third party's life. This isn't Alien.
Foreign material in my body or not.
A fetus isn't foreign material. It is a dependent fed and grown by the woman's body using her reproductive system, dependent on her continued consent to grow and support it.
She chose to be injected and now wants to kill the result of that injection.
First, not every pregnancy is the result of consent on the woman's part. But beyond that, consent to sex isn't the same thing as consent to getting pregnant. Sex statistically leads to a successful pregnancy about 10% of the time at most, so it's nowhere near a certainty. A fertilized egg isn't likely to attach to the uterine wall more than half the time. And condoms and birth control can fail, but their usage at any stage also constitutes proof of lack of intent. But even with intent to get pregnant, women are allowed to change their minds about carrying a fetus to term. They retain autonomy and agency and constitutional and human rights.
Twitter is in fact making money now (it wasn’t before Musk bought it)
Twitter has lost more than half of its income since Musk took over. You know people can just look it up and fact check your bullshit right?
Remember how Musk literally said he was going to sue companies that stopped advertising with him after he told them to fuck off? Definitely things you say when you're making lots of money and staying in the black.
This is basic economics.
Neckbeards muttering "basic economics" is always a red flag. Economics are rarely basic and anything that is purported to be simple is just the result of an uneducated chud deep-throating the Dunning-Kruger effect while thinking he's the smartest guy in the room because he half remembers a 4chan post about finance.
Anyone else who bought it would ALSO have to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars a year or make drastic cuts retard.
Oh hey look at Dr. Strange here with his time gem able to see all possible realities...
It’s like YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESE THINGS HAVE TO MAKE MONEY.
It's like you don't understand the difference between funding and direct egocentric influence...
If it were owned by a variety of shareholders who valued an independent media rather than a single individual who demanded his interests taint the perspective of the paper, it wouldn't be as tainted.
But also, again, if it could only make money by presenting false representations that served the egos of billionaires, it would deserve not to exist.
Y’know what’s making money now, despite enormous bitching and whining by BestNetTech? Twitter.
ExTwitter's revenue is less than half of what it was when Musk purchased it, such that Musk literally sued companies and influenced sycophantic conservative attorneys general to sue companies who refused to advertise with him anymore. It's valuation is less than what he paid for it. But please, definitely hold up that shit sandwich, take a big juicy bite, and smile for the cameras as you proudly tell us how tasty the e coli and excrement is.
So yeah, stupid commies, the lot of you.
"My telescreen told me that the chocolate ration is up from 30 grams to 20 grams!"
Some of your citations appear to be 8+ year old citations from random academics with vague discussions about legal theories during the 1st Trump administration, not politicians or practicing legislators or billionaires who donate large sums to actively influence elections and the politicians who benefit from such contributions. It seems like you're comparing powerful and influential people with actual power to regulate speech like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump in various mediums and platforms to random academics who have no influence beyond the students in their programs and random podcast listeners who number in the significant minority of the American voter populace.
The Pew Research reference seems like a dead end. I can't find the actual survey questions to see how they were phrased. The links referencing the survey either go to another filtered report about global results or to a 404 page where they're no longer hosting the raw survey data, so it can't be reliably audited or reviewed. You also don't provide any justification as to why the 40% of millennials referenced in the survey were all progressives or representative of progressives. I'd also want to see a current survey of the same individuals to see how they feel currently rather than 10+ years ago.
This seems like a cherry picked both sides argument.
There indeed might be some self-identified progressives with regressive perspectives on free speech, but it's disingenuous to pretend that random discussions on the topic or expressions of opinion are equal to the actual violations of free speech principles by conservatives who proudly proclaim themselves to be "free speech absolutists."
BestNetTech writers include citations in the articles, which you would know if you read them instead of skipping to the comments section to pants-shit your dementia all over the text box based on a hasty skimming of the headline.
Every news story about this administration just runs like a cycle of "Troops are being housed in American homes. This is blatantly illegal!" "Actually this is completely legal and it's always been the most patriotic thing to let soldiers sleep with your daughter!"
They have no lines they haven't already crossed in their own minds. Everything is permissable as long you hate the outgroups enough.
Nah, you don't speak for the rest of us. I prefer individuals retain their own thoughts rather than adopt the boss' chosen slant. That's exactly what's wrong with Bezos owning the Washington Post. It's not journalism, just Bezos' slant on stuff happening.
You should fucking applaud Mike for not trying to force BestNetTech writers to assimilate a single perspective on a nuanced topic.
Imagine wanting less free thought and intellectual honesty and sincerity in the world...
They speculated and then you speculated and then you criticized them as if they were drawing conclusions hastily despite their final sentence stating, "Those are the only two items that come to mind that check all the boxes for me, but as said, there’s obviously other possibilities with this administration."
What I can guarantee is that whatever it is, the administration is minimizing damage to Trump or other Republicans and/or weaponizing something against perceived outgroups and enemies.
They've been pushing unitary executive puppet master theories in which Trump's personal agenda is the federal government's agenda and all power shall be brought to bare to appease his wrath and lash out on his behalf. So a run against the 2020 election which is one of the biggest glowing red vulnerable spots on his ego seems perfectly possible if we're considering that the CIA might be operating domestically. The conspiracy theory that Maduro supposedly interfered seems like an angle a disingenuous administration lackey might decide it's "foreign" since it involves Maduro to investigate internal election integrity in sovereign states with sole authority to administer those elections.
We addressed this bullshit during the pandemic.
And, again, fucking again, this is just one more stupid fucking instance of conservatives not understanding the things that they criticize and demonstrating that ignorance when they attempt to weaponize it. A woman's body and the fetus growing inside it is her business. It is literally her life and property, which are enumerated rights under the Constitution.
Contagious diseases are not isolated to your own body, hence the contagious part, dumbass.
Note how your "joke" wasn't funny and just a means of dismissing the plight of vulnerable people. You're punching down and not even being clever about it.
This exact bullshit literally got called out in the first paragraph and again later. You're not reading the articles before you jump to the laziest trolling. Have you no pride in your slop?
Except the SCOTUS decision for no standing was found based on the lack of evidence.
You are lying by omission, pretending that lack of standing is mutually exclusive with a lack of verified evidence, when in fact the former was due to the latter.
"The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 26, 2024. The 6–3 majority determined that neither the states nor other respondents had standing under Article III, reversing the Fifth Circuit decision. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, stating: "To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction."[31] Barrett cited a "dearth of facts" to support the claim that any action taken by the social media companies was a result of executive branch action for each of the plaintiffs, writing that in some cases there was no evidence that any government defendant had mentioned them at all.[32]
Barrett also wrote that the Fifth Circuit's decision relied on a "clearly erroneous" reading of the evidentiary record by the District Court. She listed numerous examples in which Doughty had misframed routine communications as supposed "censorship requests".[33] Other legal analysts noted the remarkable number of factual errors and fabricated quotations that had passed through the district court and Fifth Circuit and made it to the Supreme Court, some of which were raised and clarified in oral argument.[34]"
As for people trying to obstruct law enforcement operations,
That's a subjective claim to motives.
surveilling targets is very different than political dissent, isn’t it?
No, no it's not. But targets is a very tainted word. The "targets" are constitutional rights violating agents and observing and recording and reporting them in the course of their supposed duties is protected 1st Amendment activities. Public employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. SCOTUS has already ruled on this.
They are following them to try to stop them from accomplishing their duties.
They are following to document unlawful conduct under the color of law as a right of redress under the 1st Amendment. Just because you work for the government doesn't mean you have immunity for violating the Constitution.
That is, depending on how far they go, NOT protected speech.
There's a lot of wiggle room in that weasel wording.
You disingenuous partisan pissant.
Another accusation-confession. You are partisan. Others just oppose constitutional violations regardless of who is committing them.
I'm referring to the people who use the phrase as a masthead for their decisions, and specifically people who have the power to do something about it, like Jeff bezos or Barry Weiss. Similar to the way that Elon musk proclaims to be a free speech absolutist.
Maybe the entire concept of corporate media has never been leftist by its very nature and larger outlets systemically can't resist corruption from capitalist pressures. A healthy media diet has to be piecemeal and diverse because singular sources will always have unseen biases and missing elements. It's harder to be intellectually honest, but that doesn't mean it's not worth the effort.
My tax deferred annuity is decent despite Trump's economy fumbling, but the US Trade and Development Agency and the Texas Department of Agriculture are probably terrible places to work these days. I wonder if Tren de Aragua members watch The Disney Afternoon when they're not performing topological data analysis.
Otherwise, have you recently considered a Dvorak keyboard by any chance?
You realize that THe Washington Post is losing money hand over fist, right? Bezos bought it as a charity project, and he’s the only reason it still exists. It would just simply be GONE without him.
Except someone else could buy it and not compromise journalistic integrity for the sake of appeasing the egos of people for whom billions of dollars will never be enough to make everyone like them or think they're cool.
But also, if a news outfit has to compromise its values to exist, it doesn't deserve to exist.
Yeah, if he didn’t want that, he could just let it go. Stop keeping it afloat with literally hundreds of millions of dollars of his personal money each year.
It seems like maybe he thinks it's valuable and its not a charity but rather a platform for his personal agenda...
Also, you missed the point that you responded to. It is not currently a functional press because he currently controls it, even while it still exists.
She was fired for being racist and incredibly hateful.
That isn't even the excuse the Post gave, so you're just making up bullshit here. She was fired because the Post was afraid of the perceived backlash against people and associated organizations who didn't genuflect over the corpse of a murdered hateful bigot. That you would purport that to be racist and hateful is just another accusation-confession.
You realize you’re kind of a commie who does not realize how anything works, right?
Somebody get grandpa his meds. You've been watching too much Dr. Strangelove on the old tube there, buddy. Take a nap. Get your prostate checked. Call your grandkids and apologize if they haven't already gone no contact.
All the people purporting to want restored trust in the media are either billionaires or their sycophants wanting to restore the trust that billionaires have that the media will defer to their interests above all else.
Though, to be fair, I've been told that all these billionaire capitalist corporations are actually radical commie leftist organizations.
Some of your citations appear to be 8+ year old citations from random academics with vague discussions about legal theories during the 1st Trump administration, not politicians or practicing legislators or billionaires who donate large sums to actively influence elections and the politicians who benefit from such contributions. It seems like you're comparing powerful and influential people with actual power to regulate speech like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump in various mediums and platforms to random academics who have no influence beyond the students in their programs and random podcast listeners who number in the significant minority of the American voter populace. The Pew Research reference seems like a dead end. I can't find the actual survey questions to see how they were phrased. The links referencing the survey either go to another filtered report about global results or to a 404 page where they're no longer hosting the raw survey data, so it can't be reliably audited or reviewed. You also don't provide any justification as to why the 40% of millennials referenced in the survey were all progressives or representative of progressives. I'd also want to see a current survey of the same individuals to see how they feel currently rather than 10+ years ago. This seems like a cherry picked both sides argument. There indeed might be some self-identified progressives with regressive perspectives on free speech, but it's disingenuous to pretend that random discussions on the topic or expressions of opinion are equal to the actual violations of free speech principles by conservatives who proudly proclaim themselves to be "free speech absolutists."
BestNetTech writers include citations in the articles, which you would know if you read them instead of skipping to the comments section to pants-shit your dementia all over the text box based on a hasty skimming of the headline.
And I'm saying I haven't heard that from progressives. Can you provide examples?
Every news story about this administration just runs like a cycle of "Troops are being housed in American homes. This is blatantly illegal!" "Actually this is completely legal and it's always been the most patriotic thing to let soldiers sleep with your daughter!" They have no lines they haven't already crossed in their own minds. Everything is permissable as long you hate the outgroups enough.
"Trust me, bro!"
Nah, you don't speak for the rest of us. I prefer individuals retain their own thoughts rather than adopt the boss' chosen slant. That's exactly what's wrong with Bezos owning the Washington Post. It's not journalism, just Bezos' slant on stuff happening. You should fucking applaud Mike for not trying to force BestNetTech writers to assimilate a single perspective on a nuanced topic. Imagine wanting less free thought and intellectual honesty and sincerity in the world...
Leaving classified info in your bathroom after you've left office however is perfectly legal!
They speculated and then you speculated and then you criticized them as if they were drawing conclusions hastily despite their final sentence stating, "Those are the only two items that come to mind that check all the boxes for me, but as said, there’s obviously other possibilities with this administration." What I can guarantee is that whatever it is, the administration is minimizing damage to Trump or other Republicans and/or weaponizing something against perceived outgroups and enemies. They've been pushing unitary executive puppet master theories in which Trump's personal agenda is the federal government's agenda and all power shall be brought to bare to appease his wrath and lash out on his behalf. So a run against the 2020 election which is one of the biggest glowing red vulnerable spots on his ego seems perfectly possible if we're considering that the CIA might be operating domestically. The conspiracy theory that Maduro supposedly interfered seems like an angle a disingenuous administration lackey might decide it's "foreign" since it involves Maduro to investigate internal election integrity in sovereign states with sole authority to administer those elections.
We addressed this bullshit during the pandemic. And, again, fucking again, this is just one more stupid fucking instance of conservatives not understanding the things that they criticize and demonstrating that ignorance when they attempt to weaponize it. A woman's body and the fetus growing inside it is her business. It is literally her life and property, which are enumerated rights under the Constitution. Contagious diseases are not isolated to your own body, hence the contagious part, dumbass. Note how your "joke" wasn't funny and just a means of dismissing the plight of vulnerable people. You're punching down and not even being clever about it.
This exact bullshit literally got called out in the first paragraph and again later. You're not reading the articles before you jump to the laziest trolling. Have you no pride in your slop?
Except the SCOTUS decision for no standing was found based on the lack of evidence. You are lying by omission, pretending that lack of standing is mutually exclusive with a lack of verified evidence, when in fact the former was due to the latter. "The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 26, 2024. The 6–3 majority determined that neither the states nor other respondents had standing under Article III, reversing the Fifth Circuit decision. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, stating: "To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction."[31] Barrett cited a "dearth of facts" to support the claim that any action taken by the social media companies was a result of executive branch action for each of the plaintiffs, writing that in some cases there was no evidence that any government defendant had mentioned them at all.[32] Barrett also wrote that the Fifth Circuit's decision relied on a "clearly erroneous" reading of the evidentiary record by the District Court. She listed numerous examples in which Doughty had misframed routine communications as supposed "censorship requests".[33] Other legal analysts noted the remarkable number of factual errors and fabricated quotations that had passed through the district court and Fifth Circuit and made it to the Supreme Court, some of which were raised and clarified in oral argument.[34]"
That's a subjective claim to motives. No, no it's not. But targets is a very tainted word. The "targets" are constitutional rights violating agents and observing and recording and reporting them in the course of their supposed duties is protected 1st Amendment activities. Public employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. SCOTUS has already ruled on this. They are following to document unlawful conduct under the color of law as a right of redress under the 1st Amendment. Just because you work for the government doesn't mean you have immunity for violating the Constitution. There's a lot of wiggle room in that weasel wording. Another accusation-confession. You are partisan. Others just oppose constitutional violations regardless of who is committing them.I'm referring to the people who use the phrase as a masthead for their decisions, and specifically people who have the power to do something about it, like Jeff bezos or Barry Weiss. Similar to the way that Elon musk proclaims to be a free speech absolutist.
Maybe the entire concept of corporate media has never been leftist by its very nature and larger outlets systemically can't resist corruption from capitalist pressures. A healthy media diet has to be piecemeal and diverse because singular sources will always have unseen biases and missing elements. It's harder to be intellectually honest, but that doesn't mean it's not worth the effort.
My tax deferred annuity is decent despite Trump's economy fumbling, but the US Trade and Development Agency and the Texas Department of Agriculture are probably terrible places to work these days. I wonder if Tren de Aragua members watch The Disney Afternoon when they're not performing topological data analysis. Otherwise, have you recently considered a Dvorak keyboard by any chance?
All the people purporting to want restored trust in the media are either billionaires or their sycophants wanting to restore the trust that billionaires have that the media will defer to their interests above all else. Though, to be fair, I've been told that all these billionaire capitalist corporations are actually radical commie leftist organizations.