Bad summary. That's not a criticism at all. Though the summary comes from the website, not the OP.
Also, linking to Fox News, gross.
Also, context for people who I know are not going to click on that:
The former Arkansas governor told the Florida Freedom Summit in Kissimmee, Florida, that such an outcome will make it harder for Republicans down the ticket to win their races if Trump, who is leading in the polls, wins the 2024 Republican nomination.
"There is a significant likelihood that Donald Trump will be found guilty by a jury on a felony offense next year. That may or may not happen. Before you vote in March, and it might not make any difference to you, but it will make a difference for our chances to attract independent voters in November. It will make a difference for those down-ticket races for Congress and Senate, and it will weaken the GOP for decades to come. As a party, we must support the rule of law," he said.
He's trying to rally Republican voters to make sure they don't get too complacent with Trump being a sure bet during the next election, not criticizing him.
"Let’s be clear: we haven’t eliminated assessments for Oregon students. What’s changed is the insistence on a specific test score for graduation. Our students still need to meet essential skill requirements as indicated in their coursework, "
And they followed students who skipped the test in the last few years and they weren’t less successful than previous years.
Why are we angry that the government is reducing useless duplicate testing? Isn’t reducing government waste a good thing?
We defederated with them for a reason. Us regular left leaning folk believe that all humans are equal and that the government has a responsibility to take care of all of its citizens. The tankie communists on Lemmygrad are acting violent to get attention.
Yeah, compare a tiny corner of the internet on the extreme fringe with the Fox News bullshit you posted. One has hundreds of members and the other is the largest news-media empire in the world. Totally comparable.
When humans went to a six day work week, the wealthy said it would end civilization.
When we went to a five day work week, they said the same.
Same as when we said overtime needs more pay, women should be paid more, 9 year olds can’t work in coal mines, and basically every other labor law from the past 10,000 years.
And we are more productive than ever due to automation. I bet 2 days would be enough to keep society running. Nothing fancy though. 3 would be enough for economic growth.
Assuming this article is even true, which is dubious, it’s a complete nothingburger, lol
It’s just more pathetic culture war bullshit because conservatives keep racking up Ls and have little to show the American people. It’s so much easier to screech about “wokes and immigrants are destroying this nation” than to actually attempt to fix the problems that matter, like climate change, the economy, and our aging infrastructure (of course, this is also due to he Republicans being bought and paid for by business interests that want to undermine fixing these issues).
Any time I see some nutjob republican make some big sweeping “anti-woke” legislation, I stop and ask myself: “How does this help the average American in ways that actually matter to them?” Usually, the answer is,“it doesn’t.”
Your “right” to own a gun barely exists. You know that, don’t you? Do some reading into current Supreme Court precedent on the 2A. The most laughable thing about the “Muh Gun Rights” perspective is how little even conservative jurists seem to care about the “rights” you all claim to have. At best you have the right to own a firearm for self-defense. The law says little about how many and of what type. Instead of making a blanket assertion that gun control laws impinge upon your “rights,” why don’t you tell us what those are? Why don’t you explain to us in detail why your “right” to own a weapon supersedes the “right” of other people to collectively determine that firearms are too superfluous and dangerous in our country to remain as accessible as they currently are? That’s the story—not an infringement of your “rights.” This whole discussion is so tainted because people like you refuse to consider any ideas other than your own, and any future for our country other than the gun-violence-ridden current regime. It is backward and sad to see. I wish you well.
The right is defined by the Constitution and the courts. Miller defines the type as a weapon that serves a military purpose. As such my Ar-15 should be fully protected under the Miller ruling.
The other people don’t have the right to determine my firearm. That isn’t a power granted by the Constitution and is a liberal mistake in assuming we are a democracy instead of a constitutional republic. If people wanted to change the 2nd amendment, they would have to change the Constitution. They just can’t infringe on a right by mere willpower.
That is why the recent law change in Oregon is getting slaughtered by the courts.
Trying to remove my right is an infringement of my right to bear arms. It is something I have little wiggle room on since the Democrats have proven to be violent as the summer of love riots proved.
You are partially correct. It is the province of the Court to determine what the law is—and that includes interpreting the constitution. (This shouldn’t surprise me. Your “constitutional republic” comment says to me you’re uninformed and more interested in technicalities than the way our government actually works, but whatever.) To amend the 2A, yes, a constitutional amendment would be required. However the courts and congress are 100 percent free to (a) interpret the constitution more stringently or more loosely and (b) to legislate in such a way that results in a new constraining of “gun rights.” Both are fundamental facets of our democracy. And what is notable to me is that you still have not provided one iota of a justification for your “right” to own deadly weapons. You can claim whatever justification you’d like. The fact is that other people, the courts, legislatures and congress are all free to act to constrain the 2A. They can do so permissibly, in an arguably constitutional manner. So why shouldn’t we? Why does your need to own a firearm outweigh the clear and present danger posed to our communities and our country by gun violence and by the proliferation of firearms? Why do conservatives routinely fail to provide good solutions, instead falling back on the sword of “individual liberties” with regard to this issue? I think the answer is that you don’t have good arguments. Your stance is based in fear, and based in needing a little AR-15 in your house to feel safe. Fucking cowards. Your “right” to own a firearm is a house of straw. I’ll spend my life fighting against short-minded people like you, just to take that “right” away.
If you look at recent court cases, the courts are taking any restrictions as unreasonable.
The argument is solid, the Second Amendment states very clearly I have the right to bear arms. The courts have said that is an individual right with Heller. You can’t get more solid than that.
My stance is not based on fear. It is based on logic. Democrats are violent. They don’t respect the rule of law and as such, I need a weapon to protect myself from their violent mobs.
I don’t need an Ar-15 to feel safe. I need an AR-15 to defend myself from a violent crowd of Democrats.
You are free to vote how you please, but the courts have been clear in allowing more rights when it comes to the 2nd amendment and not removing them. The Assault weapon ban from the 90’s was a failure, according to the DOJ.
Your argument is based on fear. You fear firearms and thus want to remove my right to own one.
Removing firearms or the right to own them isn’t a solution. It just disarms people from the violent democrats. That isn’t a solution to me.
Heller is a court decision not a law, And it will stand until there is another court decision that further refines what the law means. I’m more interested in the word regulated which indicates that the government has a duty to regulate in some way firearms and militia.
Given the politicization of the supreme Court and their willingness to attempt to legislate from the bench, the right wing has set a dangerous precedent here in allowing judicial activism to go free range.
My interpretation of the second amendment without bizarre political baggage would indicate that it requires every state to either maintain or at the very least enable a civilian militia of anyone who volunteers and would have to either arm them or allow them to arm themselves with just about any fucking thing the military can pick up and use on an individual basis.
So I don’t think it entitles YOU to have a tank but I do think it kind of leaves open the possibility of an RPG or almost anything else you could physically carry around as a single person.
It’s reasonably debatable whether or not the well regulated militia part establishes some sort of obligation for the state to support or enable your militia, but given the context of what they were dealing with I think of it as much more than the civilian militia of European countries and instead something more modern even in its original inception, kind of like a precursor to a SWAT team and something that should exist instead of them.
Historically I would agree with you. The 2nd amendment was designed to allow states to arm citizens for militia service. It has nothing to do with hunting.
Heller changed that to an individual right which I don’t fully agree with but that is how it is being interpreted currently.
The 2nd doesn’t allow you to own a tank but merely arms which is really a rifle. That was the intent and some states even made ownership mandatory.
I do think training should be a requirement for firearm ownership. I do not think that is overly burdensome, and I think if you own a firearm, you should know how to use it. I am not a fan of constitutional carry but that is how states are trending now. I personally was fine with the shall issue CCW requirements that were in place more recently in most states. Typically that was an 8 hour course and a basic shooting test. I felt that was fair.
Forget “good faith.” You people are actually fucking retarded. No wonder you’re feeling the need to arm yourself, and no wonder half of the “GOP” is chomping at the bit for Civil War II. You’re all too fucking stupid to conversate and your political positions are at best paranoid fantasies. You genuinely need help
No, my stance is not based on fear. Unless you are psychic, you can’t know what I am thinking.
The current push for gun control is fear based. Chicago had some of the strictest gun laws and also had some of the highest murder rates. It’s the same with DC.
Your fear should not impact my right. That is why we call it a right and not a privilege.
I am sorry you hate the right to bear arms but it is a right I strongly believe in. Before the summer of love I was more open to negotiating about gun rights but that showed why we need arms since the democrats violently attacked the government.
I am willing to have a conversation but you are only compelled to say I should give up my right to one a firearm. That is your only stance and isn’t a discussion.
Your stance is based on fear. You are afraid that angry mobs of democrats are going to come and hurt you or damage your property or something to that tune, and you need a weapon. Am I wrong? If I’m wrong, tell me exactly down to the last detail what you think the mob is going to do, and why you need the weapon. You’re afraid, and you’re paranoid, and it is disturbing. Obviously I can’t change your mind but I genuinely wish you well and I hope you get help.
Lmfao. This is my favorite fucking type of comment because it immediately outs you as someone who has no idea what the constitution means or how it is interpreted and implemented.
Keep typing “shall not be infringed,” bud. Your rudimentary understanding of the 2A and the ability to read its text has no bearing on current Supreme Court precedent on the 2A, nor does it have any bearing on my right to argue that your 2A rights should be limited. It’s a constitutional amendment subject to limitation and further amendment, despite the “shall not be infringed” language. You’re just retarded.
I agree. Not sure what this has to do with conservatives at this point. It’s a guy who shot three guys. They don’t know the motive. This wasn’t at a protest.
It appears to be a run of the mill shooting that isn’t really interesting to a conservative by itself
An article denigrating Palestian supporters for interrupting a frivoulous event is legitimate ‘Right Wing News’ and certainly not borderline, whereas the shooting of Palestinians on American soil is not.
For real tho, you need to be more even handed in your moderation, you seem to have an obvious preference for one side of every argument.
Now that is fine, we all have biases. Unless, of course, you are a moderator, and you allow that to affect your ability to moderate adequately.
Wait, you’re upset that the military is instilling fear in the service members by telling them that associating with fascist dictators and their cronies will jeopardize their military career?
I mean, that’s just common fucking sense, that’s not fear mongering. It’s a simple reminder of their Oath Of Enlistment, which every service member takes.
If you aren’t working to uphold the constitution, you can be dishonorably discharged. Full stop.
Did you forget about the failed auto coup attempt or something?
They managed to get quite a lot of bias squeezed into that title. Apparently it doesn’t actually matter that much which state is doing this, as long as you know that you’re supposed to be mad at the Democrats.
I couldn’t imagine just leaving my dog there because I didn’t have a crate. If my dogs are with me, and they can’t fly, then I can’t fly. Pisses me off how some people treat animals. My dogs are my whole world. If you do something like this you should be blacklisted from every owning a dog again.
Yes, I’m in 100% agreement, I wish we could treat people how they treat animals.
That aside, the article says it’s a license French bulldog. Those fuckers are EXPENSIVE. I can’t imagine just ditching thousand of dollars like that (morality of it aside).
Oh no, I missed that part. Jeez, someone has more money than they know what to do with. Money makes some people so shitty. Not that they weren’t before, but seems like it really brings it out of some people.
eh, dairy cows are slaughtered at 4-6, and they're the oldest animals to be slaughtered. Most animals are MONTHS or WEEKS old. not years.
Also, male chicks are macerated (mashed up alive) at just one to two hours old, because they're "useless". THey won't ever lay eggs, and they won't grow big enough to be worth it for meat chickens, so they're mashed up alive at a few hours. This is what you support when you support animal ag.
Yeup. IIRC, cattle are generally killed for their flesh from 1-2 years old, or about 5-10% of their natural lifespan. I was just saying 4-8 years for humans to be a more relatable comparison.
I live in a college town. Several of our dogs came from the shelter, one of them was found in an empty apartment. Her owner moved and just left her, probably assumed someone would take her to the shelter.
It’s apparently pretty common around here. Luckily someone found her, but some of these apartments don’t immediately have a new tenant and the dog dies.
I just can’t imagine doing this. Our dogs are part of the family.
one of them was found in an empty apartment. Her owner moved and just left her,
So a warrant for animal abuse was issued for her arrest, yes? If she was a college student she may be gone for years, but it would be great if she were to be arrested when she returns for her 10 year reunion.
I can’t comment since I didn’t find her, only got her from the shelter, but I sure hope so. She’s an amazingly sweet dog too so that just breaks my heart even more for her. At least she’s in good hands now.
Don’t know what the standards are for this science page, but unless there’s no rules here, this doesn’t fit the bill. Not science. It’s an anecdote, and one posted on fox news nonetheless. I expect a sub like this for the most part to discuss peer reviewed works.
It's also basically a laundry list of every talking point transphobes use. I feel very bad for the adult (not a child, as they try to paint him) here, but this is an anecdote being spun into a dishonest propaganda piece.
foxnews.com
Hot