Lorenzo Valla

We'll look for you on the field. You'll be shown no quarter.

Stick to commenting on those subjects that you either know about, or are directed to you. In this case, neither situation applies.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between a law passed by Congress and signed by President, and a judicial opinion is fairly startling. Yes, it was correct that a previous SCOTUS opinion supported the right to an abortion. Judicial opinions are not laws and they can, and often are, overturned. As this one, unfortunately was. If in the last 50 years a Congress passed a law protecting a woman's ability to get an abortion, it would take precedence over all over states' restrictions and no one would be trying to place 9 judges' opinions over the will of the people.

All speech is free, but apparently some speech is more free.

Acknowledge that.

As free and sentient beings we are all entitled to our own opinions, thoughts and for that matter, identities. Others having the same basis, as free and sentient beings, do NOT have to accept, 'celebrate', approve or agree with you, as they may have a different opinion, thought or identity. If you're a degenerate or a hoarder or an angry old man or a sanctimonious virtue signaler....you're free to be what you want to be. I don't have to 'celebrate' your choice.

I am personally 100% in favor of a woman's complete right to their reproductive system, period. That said, there is no 'right' to abortion in the US. There are state laws that permit it and for nearly 50 years there was a judicial opinion allowing it. The latest Supreme Court opinion pushed it back to the states. If the Democratic Party was such a staunch supporter of women's right to an abortion, why didn't they manage to pass a national law legalizing it for 50 years? FYI, that's all that's needed...then and now.

Demonstrably false. According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, there are 4,021 Republican legislators and 3,273 Democratic. 46% of US states have both houses and the governorship controlled by Republicans. Democrats have 29%. The others are divided. https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan-composition For the Woke, democracy is a threat to 'democracy'.

The non-racist here to stereotype black people and claim to speak for them. Is there nothing the savior-guardians can't do?

All speech is free, but some speech is more free than others.

The savior/guardian's stamp of approval! If you say something I agree with....yay, 1st Amendment! If I disagree with something you say...'commercial decision' to cancel you. The same 'commercial decisions' have resulted in Fox News dominating the American media market. (An unfortunate fact that I wish weren't true.)

It's perfectly ok to criticize Mr. Dilbert's nonsense, but it's also ok to not really care what a middling comic says about anything. It's just his OPINION. It's sort of like learning what a nutjob Tom Cruise is...but somehow I still like his movies. It's always a joy to read how much the savior/guardians value their own knowledge and how their judgments indicate a superiority in any and all conclusions. Rasmussen would not be my go-to source for survey information or polls, but your cancellation of them because they're 'right-wing' is just another example of self-proclaimed intellectual superiority. NO ONE is paying you a penny for your opinions about anything. Rasmussen has a quite few people paying for theirs. It's a fascinating insight into your mind that you can correctly see Mao's/CCP's fanatical self-righteousness, but not your own. Hence, the comparison.

If a right-wing nut uses a stereotype to support an argument, they're a racist. If a savior/guardian uses it, no problem ???? Being Jewish refers to the religion you practice, not your race.

An incredibly uninformed attempt at history. White European involvement in slavery was a terrible and unfortunate aspect of our history that continues to reverberate to this day. Nearly EVERY OTHER major society and civilization in HISTORY practiced slavery, some up until the 20th century. (Where's the woke mob to pile on these countries?) It's a terrible chapter of for all of humanity to understand under present day circumstances.

I'm bookmarking this with the flat-earthers that post on here....haha! Take a spin through the Nazi party's treatment of the Jews...did you miss that in your 'school'? Or the intentional starvation of millions of Ukrainians during Stalin's regime?

The usual overreactions from the self-appointed savior/guardians....he's a middling cartoonist for Christ's sake. Who cares what this guys believes, one way or the other? That said, there is never any reason to be drawn into a debate with these people for several reasons. First, they believe they are your intellectual and moral superiors and they're taking time away from virtue signaling the saving of the planet, to try and correct your faulty thinking and speaking. Second, they don't believe you are entitled to any of your own OPINIONS, unless they agree with them. Anything they disagree with is 'hate speech'. Which for the savior/guardians is anything they don't like to hear. "I hate hearing that! It's hate speech! In the name of free speech you must be stopped from saying that!" Third, they're locked into the pseudo-intellectual philosophy that is presentism, along with their Mao-inspired, post-modernist take on facts. By the way, for the savior/guardians, only their 'facts' are actual facts. If they agree with something, then that's a fact. Fourth, they're locked into the revenge narrative of two wrongs make a right, which literally forms the basis of all left-wing extremist governments and political organizations. This is a natural follow-on to presentism, which is merely a 12-year old's method by which to analyze history. The 20th century saw a great deal of terrible violence from political extremists. There were the right-wing extremists like the Nazis who were easily responsible for 10+ million deaths from their abhorrent violence. Many others died at the hands of right-wing extremists in other governments, Italy, Spain, Argentina and too many others. Their SUM total pales in comparison to the left-wing extremists of which just a few include Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia. Just these four have murdered in excess of 50 million of their OWN CITIZENS, all in the name of the collective good. After gaining power right-wing nuts usually turn on an outside enemy. The left-wing nuts usually tear each other apart first while consolidating power, and then set their rage upon their stupid and unworthy fellow citizens who refuse to agree with their 'facts'.

Having a teaching license doesn't grant immunity from any laws. The Florida statute was put in place because some school districts were implementing this kind of curriculum to young children without their parents' consent and the legally elected governor and legislature passed a law to stop it. It's a strawman argument to call that a threat to democracy and free speech. But, I do agree the point is moving away from the subject of Fox News, which I personally find abhorrent and not a credible source of information on almost anything. My original point in the discussion was that at least they're more 'in your face' about their disingenuity, while the other side of the media divide portrays themselves as the savior guardians of society, while also being disingenuous. The Florida law being a case in point.

Details, actually reading the posts you comment on, and common knowledge about recent events are all long poles in your tent, aren't they?

You should put your fringe, extremist beliefs to the test the next time you're in the US. Go to any elementary school in any state and approach a random child and start talking to him or her about whether they're gay or straight or want to be a girl or a boy. Please report back on your experiences with the legal system.

You obviously don't understand how my nation's Constitution functions, or basic laws regarding speech that are almost universally applied throughout the country. The amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing free speech was approved through a democratic process involving the states' legislatures. Those same state legislatures could theoretically vote to repeal that amendment, through the representative, democratic process that's contained in our Constitution. Basic restrictions on speech (short list there are many others): - You may not threaten someone - You may not incite a riot...cry fire in a crowded theater - You may not libel or defame someone And common sense should tell you, you can't talk to someone else's 9-year old kid about whether they're gay or straight. You don't have a 'right' to talk to anyone's dependent child.

The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic. There is no absolute right to free speech and there are plenty of restrictions placed upon it. The democratically elected government of Florida in well within its rights to place restrictions on what its employees do and say while at work.

Fox News is little more than infotainment and a lot of its most popular shows are simply talking heads spouting their opinions, backed up by the usual junior varsity, B team 'experts'. The fact that so many people find them to be credible is simply confirmation of how gullible most people are, especially when they're told something they want to believe. It's how conmen have operated and profited throughout human history. Equally dangerous are the virtue-signaling, self-appointed 'guardians' of democracy that inhabit almost all of what is referred to as the mainstream media. They knowingly and intentionally push information that has been stripped of context in order to reach a predetermined conclusion. Here's just one of a hundred examples: The 'don't say gay' law in Florida. This is how most of the media refers to this issue. It's been repeatedly reported that this law is a threat to democracy, as is the governor of Florida, and the new law is a threat to free speech. Unfortunately, they chose to leave out the context. Florida had a free and fair election where the governor was elected by a huge margin. The Florida legislature was also elected freely and fairly. The law they passed simply says a public school teacher can't talk to children 9 years and younger (Grade 3) about gender identity and sexual orientation. How is a law passed by democratically elected legislature, signed by a democratically elected governor a threat to democracy? What's more dangerous? The obvious lies spouted by editorial opinions in a biased TV network, or those spouted by the 'guardians' of democracy who start most of their article with "What you need to know about..."?

Given the number of comments, it seems clear that CIA, MI6, SAS, SOF, SBS and Seals must've synchronized their vacation schedules to allow all of the ASEAN Now investigators to take some well-deserved time off and chime in with their pithy investigative results ???? The screen grab clearly shows that at least one of the tires on the right side main landing gear on fire below the right side engine. Details are always the long pole in the 'investigators' tent. Love the conspiracy tie-in, too...good stuff! ????

Yes that's true, but once again you've not taken the time to look at all the information presented. The pandemic has gone on for nearly 3 years and all of the trend lines are extremely positive. Comparing Jan 23's hospitalizations to Jan 21 and Jan 22, there's nothing but good news.

You have to actually scroll down and read. Details are tough and your statement concerns the registration of hospitals to the HHS, not the date of the reported information.