The Deep State

[MICHHAWK]

Would love to hear the explanation for this thought?

"over stimulated internet drama queen" would be the explanation.

[KUTradition]

yup, that’s randy to a tee

[defixione]

And Mich tosses a bomb of vacuousness into the fray.

[Overlander]

And Mich tosses a bomb of vacuousness into the fray.

I have to admit, I had to Google this one.
Tip 'o the hat sir......

[Sparko]

Mich as sock, stinks today.

[randylahey]

Wouldn't this be nice

Devastating to who?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxyNiOfu ... FlYzFmZQ==

[randylahey]

Mike Johnson finally gives the people a voice again. He's the last guy the deep state wanted for speaker of the house

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/sta ... SZAyQ&s=19

[jfish26]

At least Republicans finally have a party platform. Force women to give birth to save Social Security. Christian nationalism personified.

https://x.com/ronfilipkowski/status/171 ... q_-8Yt1KMA

[KUTradition]

it’s supposed to be the Speaker of the HOUSE…not just of the house pubs

[twocoach]

Mike Johnson finally gives the people a voice again. He's the last guy the deep state wanted for speaker of the house

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/sta ... SZAyQ&s=19

AKA he doesn't fit your model of "the Deep State is in charge of everything". If the Deep State was in charge of everything as you claim and they didn't want him to be speaker then he wouldn't be speaker.

[randylahey]

it’s supposed to be the Speaker of the HOUSE…not just of the house pubs

Then explain pelosi?

[TDub]

Randy's back

[twocoach]

Mike Johnson finally gives the people a voice again. He's the last guy the deep state wanted for speaker of the house

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/sta ... SZAyQ&s=19

Mike Johnson hasn't done anything here but pat antisemite Elon Musk on the back for censoring different people than used to be censored by Twitter.

[jfish26]

Mike Johnson finally gives the people a voice again. He's the last guy the deep state wanted for speaker of the house

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/sta ... SZAyQ&s=19

Mike Johnson hasn't done anything here but pat antisemite Elon Musk on the back for censoring different people than used to be censored by Twitter.

Because Mike and Elon have, fundamentally, the same concept of “free speech”. And, spoiler alert, it has hilariously little to do with the First Amendment.

[KUTradition]

sad, funny or scary?

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... ues/tnamp/

[jfish26]

sad, funny or scary?

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... ues/tnamp/

Yes?

I’ll just repurpose my last post:

Mike and Hamas have, fundamentally, the same concept of “freedom of religion”. And, spoiler alert, it has hilariously little to do with the First Amendment.

[KUTradition]

sad, funny or scary?

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... ues/tnamp/

Yes?

I’ll just repurpose my last post:

Mike and Hamas have, fundamentally, the same concept of “freedom of religion”. And, spoiler alert, it has hilariously little to do with the First Amendment.

i don’t disagree

[jfish26]

sad, funny or scary?

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... ues/tnamp/

Yes?

I’ll just repurpose my last post:

Mike and Hamas have, fundamentally, the same concept of “freedom of religion”. And, spoiler alert, it has hilariously little to do with the First Amendment.

i don’t disagree

I went back and reread the article you posted.

I was struck by the lack of historical support for the notion that the Constitution could be read to prohibit abortion…and also even the notion that the Bible prohibits abortion.

The Bible gets fairly granular on things that are prohibited, and abortion isn’t one of them. In fact, I would disagree with the adverb in the article’s sentence: “(Interestingly, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible either.)”

Maybe it’s really not very interesting at all.

[KUTradition]

Yes?

I’ll just repurpose my last post:

Mike and Hamas have, fundamentally, the same concept of “freedom of religion”. And, spoiler alert, it has hilariously little to do with the First Amendment.

i don’t disagree

I went back and reread the article you posted.

I was struck by the lack of historical support for the notion that the Constitution could be read to prohibit abortion…and also even the notion that the Bible prohibits abortion.

The Bible gets fairly granular on things that are prohibited, and abortion isn’t one of them. In fact, I would disagree with the adverb in the article’s sentence: “(Interestingly, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible either.)”

Maybe it’s really not very interesting at all.

i wonder how many know that abortion was perfectly legal and generally accepted for roughly the first half of this country's history

[jfish26]

i don’t disagree

I went back and reread the article you posted.

I was struck by the lack of historical support for the notion that the Constitution could be read to prohibit abortion…and also even the notion that the Bible prohibits abortion.

The Bible gets fairly granular on things that are prohibited, and abortion isn’t one of them. In fact, I would disagree with the adverb in the article’s sentence: “(Interestingly, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible either.)”

Maybe it’s really not very interesting at all.

i wonder how many know that abortion was perfectly legal and generally accepted for roughly the first half of this country's history

It’s on the Culture Wars Mt. Rushmore for sure. Along with…what?

Vaccines, guns and climate change?