Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech

[eagle2]

Once again you are deliberately misunderstanding me presumably to try and show off and score points.

No, you continue to evade my question. You cannot tell me how this leaked decision has harmed the Supreme Court. I will take your continued evasions as acknowledging that this leak did not harm the Supreme Court, but you are too stubborn to admit it.

Other government officials, including the President, cannot block government employees from making any private conversations or documents public, unless they're classified. Why should the Supreme Court be any different?

I am taking your word that the "victims" of Alex Jones were harassed and subject to death threats. I honestly don't recall that and haven't done a search. I clearly posted that he is a disgusting and reprehensible individual and afaic nothing is too good for him. If Twitter wants to ban him or delete his posts that is fine with me. I never said otherwise . Jones and a few other nuts are extreme examples of what we are talking about and you know it.

So then you agree with me that people who post lies and misinformation, like Alex Jones does, should be banned from social media platforms. That's the point I've been trying to make. Nobody, including the President or former President should be allowed to use social media platforms to spread lies and incite violence.

On death threats and harassment:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...d-anniversary/

It was not enough for these families to lose their babies. They were then subjected to harassment and death threats from the deranged acolytes of this talk-radio barbarian. The parents of one Sandy Hook victim were forced to move seven (7) times and cannot visit their son's grave. Each time they move, their new address is published online so the harassment can continue.

Nobody should be subject to this, especially someone who lost a child. This is why I'm in favor of social media platforms enforcing their terms of service.

I prefer free speech and free expression. If there are going to be rules for a private platform like Twitter or Facebook I prefer those rules to be clear and applied evenhandedly. Not politically filtered first. I again wish you Good Luck in your crusade to eliminate lies and misinformation from all sites and platforms. There is a LOT of it out there. I suggest you bring a LOT of help.

You've already showed that you don't, in the case of the SC decision being leaked, and Alex Jones' lies about the Sandy Hook shooting. Again, I never said we could eliminate all lies and misinformation. That doesn't mean social media platforms should allow it.

[Classy_Katy]

The timing of the Roe v Wade decision leak was interesting...right when the latest Pfizer document release was made (the documents they tried to keep secret for another 75yrs)...and those documents show why they may want another explanation for reduced abortion rates, such as making it more difficult/illegal.

[Eric Stoner]

No, you continue to evade my question. You cannot tell me how this leaked decision has harmed the Supreme Court. I will take your continued evasions as acknowledging that this leak did not harm the Supreme Court, but you are too stubborn to admit it.

Other government officials, including the President, cannot block government employees from making any private conversations or documents public, unless they're classified. Why should the Supreme Court be any different?



So then you agree with me that people who post lies and misinformation, like Alex Jones does, should be banned from social media platforms. That's the point I've been trying to make. Nobody, including the President or former President should be allowed to use social media platforms to spread lies and incite violence.

On death threats and harassment:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...d-anniversary/



Nobody should be subject to this, especially someone who lost a child. This is why I'm in favor of social media platforms enforcing their terms of service.



You've already showed that you don't, in the case of the SC decision being leaked, and Alex Jones' lies about the Sandy Hook shooting. Again, I never said we could eliminate all lies and misinformation. That doesn't mean social media platforms should allow it.

According to the Justices themselves , who are starting to speak out about the leak , some publicly and most off the record, the Court has been permanently damaged. I have posted how and why and I am not going to repeat myself. Those most directly affected by the leak have said so.

Government employees might escape legal liability for leaking non-Classified material. If found out as leaking anything their boss considered to be confidential or privileged they would be fired in a heartbeat and marked as someone who cannot be trusted.

Incitement of violence if it meets the Brandenberg test is not protected by the First Amendment. While I certainly value truth I also like our strong and robust First Amendment. If forced to choose between the two I prefer free speech over truthiness. I would rather err on the side of freedom.

Mr. Jones got his well deserved comeuppance didn't he ? His victims didn't need the assistance of Biden's Ministry of Truth to hold him to account , did they ? They had recourse against him without any government help did they not ?

[eagle2]

According to the Justices themselves , who are starting to speak out about the leak , some publicly and most off the record, the Court has been permanently damaged. I have posted how and why and I am not going to repeat myself. Those most directly affected by the leak have said so.

No you haven't. You don't understand that just because someone says something, doesn't make it true. You haven't documented a single way in which anyone was harmed by the leak, other than saying someone said so.

Government employees might escape legal liability for leaking non-Classified material. If found out as leaking anything their boss considered to be confidential or privileged they would be fired in a heartbeat and marked as someone who cannot be trusted.

You don't know that, and even if they were, there's a very big difference between firing someone and throwing him in jail, which is what you want to do.

Incitement of violence if it meets the Brandenberg test is not protected by the First Amendment. While I certainly value truth I also like our strong and robust First Amendment. If forced to choose between the two I prefer free speech over truthiness. I would rather err on the side of freedom.

No, you're not interested in freedom. You just want to be the one who can dictate what can and cannot be posted online, rather than the owner of the platform.

Mr. Jones got his well deserved comeuppance didn't he ? His victims didn't need the assistance of Biden's Ministry of Truth to hold him to account , did they ? They had recourse against him without any government help did they not ?

The families went through years of harassment because of his lies, and close to ten years after the shooting, nobody has received a penny from Alex Jones.

[Eric Stoner]

No you haven't. You don't understand that just because someone says something, doesn't make it true. You haven't documented a single way in which anyone was harmed by the leak, other than saying someone said so.



You don't know that, and even if they were, there's a very big difference between firing someone and throwing him in jail, which is what you want to do.



No, you're not interested in freedom. You just want to be the one who can dictate what can and cannot be posted online, rather than the owner of the platform.



The families went through years of harassment because of his lies, and close to ten years after the shooting, nobody has received a penny from Alex Jones.

Justices have spoken off the record and Thomas has gone on record saying the Court has been damaged. There has been a loss of trust. Do a search and READ for yourself. "We have seen protests at the homes of several Justices. Where their spouses sleep and their children play with their toys. That is a Federal Felony. So far the Justice Dept. has sat on its hands. Yet another reason why it was so good that Merrick Garland was kept off the SCOTUS.

Wait a minute. Someone working for you leaks something you consider to be confidential. You find out who it was and that they divulged it without your knowledge or authorization and you would not fire him or her ? Are you serious ? As I have posted, I think the leaker broke the law and committed a felony . At the least they should be fired, fined and disbarred.

Whoa. You are so far off base that I had to reread what you posted twice just to make sure what you wrote. You have it totally bassackwards . I am the one arguing for freedom and the First Amendment. It is you , You , YOU who is arguing for censorship and control . NOT me. I am not dictating anything to anybody. You are one of those people having conniptions about Musk allowing greater latitude and freedom on Twitter.

The Supreme Court has permitted that hideous group ( I forget their name but they are a bunch of anti-gay Christers ) to demonstrate at military funerals saying same is protected by the First Amendment. That is what it is for. To protect the speech we dislike, fear and even hate. I am sorry for the families of Sandy Hook. Afaic Jones is disgusting and despicable. He has been called to account in a Civil case. We do not have criminal libel laws in this country. Thank God ! If you really feel that the families have been denied justice than start a Go Fund Me for them. I'm serious and don't mean to belittle them or your empathy for them in any way , shape or form . As far as preventing future similar type incidents , just how do you propose to do that without running afoul of the First Amendment ?

[eagle2]

Justices have spoken off the record and Thomas has gone on record saying the Court has been damaged. There has been a loss of trust. Do a search and READ for yourself. "We have seen protests at the homes of several Justices. Where their spouses sleep and their children play with their toys. That is a Federal Felony. So far the Justice Dept. has sat on its hands. Yet another reason why it was so good that Merrick Garland was kept off the SCOTUS.

You still haven't been able to answer my question, "what harm was caused by making this decision public?" Instead you keep evading and giving non-answers. The 1st Amendment gives Americans the right to protest. Again, you're showing your double standard on free speech. The SC's decision will result in cases, where if a couple's daughter is raped, she could be forced to carry the rapist's baby for nine months and give birth to him or her. Despite this, your biggest concern is that children of SC justices might have to hear protesters. If Merrick Garland was on the SC, Roe vs Wade would not be overturned, yet you think it's a good think he was kept off the court. If this ruling goes through, women and teenage girls will no longer have control of their bodies. Rape victims will be forced to carry their rapist's baby. Republican governors have already stated that they will not be making exceptions for victims of rape or incest. You think this is a good thing. What is wrong with you?! How can you come to a women's forum, and support such a horrible decision that will harm so many women, teenagers, and even young girls? How can you possibly find it acceptable that rape victims will be prohibited from getting an abortion? You actually stated that it's good that Merrick Garland, who would have voted against Roe vs Wade, was kept off the SC.

The Supreme Court has permitted that hideous group ( I forget their name but they are a bunch of anti-gay Christers ) to demonstrate at military funerals saying same is protected by the First Amendment. That is what it is for. To protect the speech we dislike, fear and even hate. I am sorry for the families of Sandy Hook. Afaic Jones is disgusting and despicable. He has been called to account in a Civil case. We do not have criminal libel laws in this country. Thank God ! If you really feel that the families have been denied justice than start a Go Fund Me for them. I'm serious and don't mean to belittle them or your empathy for them in any way , shape or form . As far as preventing future similar type incidents , just how do you propose to do that without running afoul of the First Amendment ?

Again you show your complete inability to understand simple concepts, such as the difference between the govt and privately owned platforms. If social media platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and FB banned Alex Jones right when he began spreading lies and hate, instead of waiting years to do it, perhaps these people wouldn't have had to go through years of harassment, which as far as I know, is still going on, close to 10 years after the shooting.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I find it hilarious how the court ruled that it was legal to protest abortion doctors homes but not their homes oh no.

At the end of the day they have to know they are playing with their jobs "rules for thee but not for me" might as well be the GOP slogan.

Thomas has gone on record saying the Court has been damaged.

See only Thomas can damage the court, not anybody else.

[eagle2]

Eric,

Do you find it acceptable that some Republican states are going to force women and teenagers who were raped, to carry the rapist's baby for 9 months, should they get pregnant? This is what is going to happen if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

[Eric Stoner]

Eric,

Do you find it acceptable that some Republican states are going to force women and teenagers who were raped, to carry the rapist's baby for 9 months, should they get pregnant? This is what is going to happen if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

In a word - NO ! I do not find it acceptable. In some states that may very well happen. Sadly.

[Eric Stoner]

You still haven't been able to answer my question, "what harm was caused by making this decision public?" Instead you keep evading and giving non-answers. The 1st Amendment gives Americans the right to protest. Again, you're showing your double standard on free speech. The SC's decision will result in cases, where if a couple's daughter is raped, she could be forced to carry the rapist's baby for nine months and give birth to him or her. Despite this, your biggest concern is that children of SC justices might have to hear protesters. If Merrick Garland was on the SC, Roe vs Wade would not be overturned, yet you think it's a good think he was kept off the court. If this ruling goes through, women and teenage girls will no longer have control of their bodies. Rape victims will be forced to carry their rapist's baby. Republican governors have already stated that they will not be making exceptions for victims of rape or incest. You think this is a good thing. What is wrong with you?! How can you come to a women's forum, and support such a horrible decision that will harm so many women, teenagers, and even young girls? How can you possibly find it acceptable that rape victims will be prohibited from getting an abortion? You actually stated that it's good that Merrick Garland, who would have voted against Roe vs Wade, was kept off the SC.



Again you show your complete inability to understand simple concepts, such as the difference between the govt and privately owned platforms. If social media platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and FB banned Alex Jones right when he began spreading lies and hate, instead of waiting years to do it, perhaps these people wouldn't have had to go through years of harassment, which as far as I know, is still going on, close to 10 years after the shooting.

I have answered your question. You just don't like my response. How many different ways do you want me to say that there has been a loss of trust within the court and among the Justices ? Quite understandably afaic. I have to assume that you have no idea how the Court works. Otherwise it would not be so difficult for you to understand and appreciate how important trust and confidentiality are to the workings of the Court.

Americans have a right to protest but there is a specific Federal statute prohibiting protests at the home of a judge or Justice before whom there is a current case or controversy.

The Dobbs decision has nothing to do with free speech. Please re-read my posts. Again you are conflating explanation with advocacy. I OPPOSE overturning Roe v. Wade for several reasons and on several levels and have posted to that effect. Read Eagle READ ! I clearly posted that the Mississippi law ( which conforms to the overwhelming majority of European and other democratic countries ) could have easily been upheld without reversing Roe. Sadly, you are correct that some states want to pass , already have passed or have laws in place ( that were never repealed post-Roe ) that forbid all abortions. Imho such laws are cruel, callous and extremist. I also clearly posted that overturning Roe would be a dumb idea that would open a Pandora's Box of problems. My critique of the structure and overreach of Roe was based on Blackmun's overinvolvement in the science and medicine of child bearing. As I posted : There is clearly a Right To Privacy. That right encompasses a woman's health care including the decision whether or not to bear a child. Thus states may not ban abortion. Period. As I posted, Blackmun went much too far with his use of Trimesters in creating a gradation of the rights of women from abortion on demand in the 1st Trimester to regulation in the 2d and banning only in the 3rd. The court could have and should have stopped at saying states could not ban the procedure and left it up to them as to where exactly to draw the necessary lines consistent with the decision. If a particular law in a particular state did not go far enough or placed an "undue burden" on a woman's right it could be overturned . Such an approach would have created legislative buy in and settled the matter , more or less . As it has been settled for DECADES in most of the rest of the democratic world that solved the problem legislatively rather than by judicial fiat. Overturning Roe will reopen wounds and engender political fights in at least 26 states. The issue will be reopened , re-legislated and re-litigated just so sticklers for constitutional ecology will be satisfied ? 8 States never repealed their bans on abortion ( Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas , Michigan, Mississippi , Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin ). 13 others have "trigger" laws that will ban abortion of Roe is overturned. 5 others will have severe restrictions. Aside from the battles within those and possibly other states , Congress can get involved and use its power of the purse to punish states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Just as the Hyde Amendment bans Federal funding for abortion services , Congress could withhold Federal criminal justice and law enforcement assistance to states that prosecute women and doctors for abortion. Better yet Congress can ban Medicaid reimbursement to any hospital or health care facility that does not provide RU 486 , the "morning after" pill or Plan B to rape and incest victims. Loss of Medicaid funding will bust many a state budget.

Btw, how many S-Webbers ( including you Eagle ) have ever READ Roe v. Wade ? Or Casey v. Planned Parenthood ? How many know what it says ; what it permits and what powers it permits the states to retain on the abortion issue ? If it is overturned some states like N.Y. , N.J. , California and Illinois will continue to permit abortion up to the moment of and even AFTER giving birth. The worst part of overturning Roe is that it will force the country to revisit state by state an issue that has been festering for almost 50 years. As I said, in most of the rest of the democratic world it is settled , over and done with.

A few states want to ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest. What is WRONG with them ? A rape victim wasn't traumatized enough ? They WANT to bring into this world the products of inbreeding ? Are they insane ?

As I posted, Alito's decision contains its own Achilles Heel. He specifically said the decision does NOT affect any other right like contraception or gay marriage. Inter alia Griswold v. Connecticut is still good law. And if states cannot ban contraception including the Pill then how are they able to ban RU 486, Plan B and the "morning after " pill ? The short answer is they can't. And since 90% of American abortions are performed today with a pill and the doctor - patient privilege is still in full vigor then at least 90 % of abortions will still take place and there is nothing states can do about it. Not constitutionally. Not without overturning Griswold. And if the SCOTUS is insane enough to even think about doing that then all bets are off. If you liked the Jan.6 Riot you'll LOVE what will happen if they try overturn Griswold. I SAID overturning Roe was a dumb idea and would open a Pandora's Box and that is a big reason why. The problem comes with the remaining 10 % of abortions. More specifically the remainder currently being done in states that want to ban or severely restrict abortion. I don't have the numbers broken down by state but on a nationwide basis I wonder how many procedures we are talking about ? Except for Texas , which other large population states are trying to completely ban abortion ? Michigan and Wisconsin are likely to permit at least some. Same for Arizona and Nevada. Florida will definitely permit some. Virginia already does. Georgia and both Carolinas will be serious battlegrounds. So will Tennessee and Missouri. The Northeast will retain their permissive and even super permissive laws. So will California, Washington, Oregon and Colorado.

I understand the difference between private and public platforms very well. As I posted, with platforms like Twitter the lines were deliberately blurred on political lines. And if Twitter is totally private then it is none of my business or your business what they do or do not permit to be posted.

[eagle2]

In a word - NO ! I do not find it acceptable. In some states that may very well happen. Sadly.

Then why did you say it's a good thing that Merrick Garland was kept of the SC? If he was on the SC, this wouldn't be happening. Why is it a good thing that a legal, lawfully elected President was blocked from appointing a SC justice?

[eagle2]

I have answered your question. You just don't like my response. How many different ways do you want me to say that there has been a loss of trust within the court and among the Justices ? Quite understandably afaic. I have to assume that you have no idea how the Court works. Otherwise it would not be so difficult for you to understand and appreciate how important trust and confidentiality are to the workings of the Court.

What is your proof of this? There's a simple solution. Make everything public, and then the justices won't have to worry about who's leaking anything.

Do you know what does cause a loss of trust? People lying. At least Three of the SC justices lied about their position on Roe vs Wade during their hearings. One of them lied about sexual assaults. One of them lied about sexual harassment.

Americans have a right to protest but there is a specific Federal statute prohibiting protests at the home of a judge or Justice before whom there is a current case or controversy.

The Constitution takes precedence over any federal statutes.

Btw, how many S-Webbers ( including you Eagle ) have ever READ Roe v. Wade ? Or Casey v. Planned Parenthood ? How many know what it says ; what it permits and what powers it permits the states to retain on the abortion issue ? If it is overturned some states like N.Y. , N.J. , California and Illinois will continue to permit abortion up to the moment of and even AFTER giving birth. The worst part of overturning Roe is that it will force the country to revisit state by state an issue that has been festering for almost 50 years. As I said, in most of the rest of the democratic world it is settled , over and done with.

Please stop repeating lies from the right-wing media. No state allows abortion after birth. Third trimester abortions are very rare, and only take place when there is severe risk to the woman's health or life. Only one percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks.

A few states want to ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest. What is WRONG with them ? A rape victim wasn't traumatized enough ? They WANT to bring into this world the products of inbreeding ? Are they insane ?

And yet you say it's a good thing Merrick Garland was kept off the SC.

As I posted, Alito's decision contains its own Achilles Heel. He specifically said the decision does NOT affect any other right like contraception or gay marriage. Inter alia Griswold v. Connecticut is still good law. And if states cannot ban contraception including the Pill then how are they able to ban RU 486, Plan B and the "morning after " pill ? The short answer is they can't. And since 90% of American abortions are performed today with a pill and the doctor - patient privilege is still in full vigor then at least 90 % of abortions will still take place and there is nothing states can do about it. Not constitutionally.

No, it's 54%.

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2...l-us-abortions

I understand the difference between private and public platforms very well. As I posted, with platforms like Twitter the lines were deliberately blurred on political lines. And if Twitter is totally private then it is none of my business or your business what they do or do not permit to be posted.

Yes, and I support their policies of not allowing their platforms to be used for inciting violence or spreading lies and misinformation.

[Eric Stoner]

Then why did you say it's a good thing that Merrick Garland was kept of the SC? If he was on the SC, this wouldn't be happening. Why is it a good thing that a legal, lawfully elected President was blocked from appointing a SC justice?

Abortion is only ONE issue.

Judging by his statements and actions as A.G. , Garland does jot believe in the rule of law. He thinks judges should legislate. He believes that parents do not have First Amendment rights to speak out at school board meetings and if they do they can be labeled as "domestic terrorists ".

[Eric Stoner]

What is your proof of this? There's a simple solution. Make everything public, and then the justices won't have to worry about who's leaking anything.

Do you know what does cause a loss of trust? People lying. At least Three of the SC justices lied about their position on Roe vs Wade during their hearings. One of them lied about sexual assaults. One of them lied about sexual harassment.



The Constitution takes precedence over any federal statutes.



Please stop repeating lies from the right-wing media. No state allows abortion after birth. Third trimester abortions are very rare, and only take place when there is severe risk to the woman's health or life. Only one percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks.



And yet you say it's a good thing Merrick Garland was kept off the SC.




No, it's 54%.

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2...l-us-abortions



Yes, and I support their policies of not allowing their platforms to be used for inciting violence or spreading lies and misinformation.

Be careful what you wish for as far as making everything about the Court public. Brown v. Bd. of Ed. would not have been 9-0 without private lobbying by Warren. Neither would Gideon v. Wainwright.

I did not tell former Va. Governor Ralph Northam what to say about what would happen to an aborted fetus that was still alive. I did not tell N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James to say she was "proud" to get an abortion . Both of them are on tape saying what they did.

If you think there was any evidence that Brett Kavanagh assaulted anyone you are beyond hope and will believe anything that you find politically helpful of comforting. Likewise for Anita Hill's accusations.

The federal statute prohibiting protests at the homes of Justices has been found to be constitutional. Protest can be limited under some circumstances when there is a competing compelling interest. In this case , the integrity of judicial deliberation and protection of judges and justices. Unfortunately our current A.G. does not have the balls to enforce it without fear or favor.

I am sorry but at least four states ( N.Y. , N.J. , Illinois and California ) have gone well beyond Roe and permit abortion up to the time of birth. Arguably Virginia does too.

You are Correct . I did not fact check a recent piece by George Will. He jumbled his stats. 91% of abortions are performed in the First Trimester. Most using a pill.

We have beaten the Twitter issue into dust. Let's agree to disagree.

[eagle2]

Abortion is only ONE issue.

Judging by his statements and actions as A.G. , Garland does jot believe in the rule of law. He thinks judges should legislate. He believes that parents do not have First Amendment rights to speak out at school board meetings and if they do they can be labeled as "domestic terrorists ".

You're lying. He never said that. He was referring to threats of violence, which is not protected by the First Amendment.

[eagle2]

I did not tell former Va. Governor Ralph Northam what to say what would happen to an aborted fetus that was still alive. I did not tell N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James to say she was "proud" to get an abortion . Both of them are on tape saying what they did.

You're lying again. Governor Northam was referring to non-viable fetuses. What does AG James' statement have to do with anyone getting an abortion at nine months? Nobody does. You're repeating lies from the right-wing media.

If you think there was any evidence that Brett Kavanagh assaulted anyone you are beyond hope and will believe anything that you find politically helpful of comforting. Likewise for Anita Hill's accusations.

Kavanaugh's victim passed a lie detector test. Trump blocked the FBI from investigating the accusations against Kavanaugh. Anita Hill also passed a lie detector test. Clarence Thomas refused to take one.

The federal statute prohibiting protests at the homes of Justices has been found to be constitutional. Protest can be limited under some circumstances when there is a competing compelling interest. In this case , the integrity of judicial deliberation and protection of judges and justices. Unfortunately our current A.G. does not have the balls to enforce it without fear or favor.

It's very sad that you consider peacefully protesting in front of the homes of SC justices to be worse than forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapist's child.

I am sorry but at least four states ( N.Y. , N.J. , Illinois and California ) have gone well beyond Roe and permit abortion up to the time of birth. Arguably Virginia does too.

You're lying.

We have beaten the Twitter issue into dust. Let's agree to disagree.

You proved my point. Fighting lies with the truth doesn't work. You accept every lie being spread by the right-wing media without question. Even ones as absurd as women getting abortions at 9 months.

[Eric Stoner]

You're lying. He never said that. He was referring to threats of violence, which is not protected by the First Amendment.

Stop calling me a liar. It is a matter of public record that Garland let himself be bamboozled by a School Board
Association into labeling parent protesters as domestic terrorists. After a deluge of ridicule and outrage he walked it back.

[Eric Stoner]

You're lying again. Governor Northam was referring to non-viable fetuses. What does AG James' statement have to do with anyone getting an abortion at nine months? Nobody does. You're repeating lies from the right-wing media.



Kavanaugh's victim passed a lie detector test. Trump blocked the FBI from investigating the accusations against Kavanaugh. Anita Hill also passed a lie detector test. Clarence Thomas refused to take one.



It's very sad that you consider peacefully protesting in front of the homes of SC justices to be worse than forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapist's child.



You're lying.



You proved my point. Fighting lies with the truth doesn't work. You accept every lie being spread by the right-wing media without question. Even ones as absurd as women getting abortions at 9 months.

Hopefully he was. He certainly NEVER made that clear. Watch the tape for yourself. You miss the point about Northam and James. Saying what they did in the way that they did does not help the Pro-choice camp. It makes them look like insensitive "baby killers'".

Yes, Eagle , afaik there are sound medical reasons for late term abortions performed by reputable doctors in reputable facilities. Most of the fetuses are not viable. Most being profoundly deformed with no chance of living outside the womb. Which is why Northam was such a horse's ass who should have said that unfortunately late term abortions are sometimes medically necessary and then just shut up.

The credibility of Kavanagh's "victim" was a joke. Swiss cheese has fewer holes than her story. Same for Anita Hill. And even if
Hill was right and Thomas talked about sex with her or in front of her , so what ? They were both adults !

Stop calling me a liar and look up the laws in the states mentioned for yourself. ALL permit late term abortion up to the moment of birth. Well beyond what is permitted by Roe. Why are you having a conniption ?
Aren't you glad that those states have expanded abortion rights ?

I never equated protesting with abortion rights . You did. I support both. Not as rabidly as you do apparently .

[eagle2]

The credibility of Kavanagh's "victim" was a joke. Swiss cheese has fewer holes than her story. Same for Anita Hill. And even if
Hill was right and Thomas talked about sex with her or in front of her , so what ? They were both adults !

No, there weren't holes in either lady's stories. They both passed lie detector tests. Sexual harassment is not acceptable, even if it's just talk, especially for someone who is going to sit on the Supreme Court. Why do you always defend misogynists and sex predators?

Stop calling me a liar and look up the laws in the states mentioned for yourself. ALL permit late term abortion up to the moment of birth. Well beyond what is permitted by Roe. Why are you having a conniption ?
Aren't you glad that those states have expanded abortion rights ?

No state allows 3rd trimester abortions, except in cases where there is severe risk to the life or health of the woman. There is no state where it is legal to kill a baby after birth.

[Eric Stoner]

No, there weren't holes in either lady's stories. They both passed lie detector tests. Sexual harassment is not acceptable, even if it's just talk, especially for someone who is going to sit on the Supreme Court. Why do you always defend misogynists and sex predators?



No state allows 3rd trimester abortions, except in cases where there is severe risk to the life or health of the woman. There is no state where it is legal to kill a baby after birth.

One of Kavanagh's accusers - Christine Blasey Ford- made claims against him that she was physically assaulted by him at a party when they were both teenagers. Nobody, not one person backed up Ford's story. Ford herself gave differing accounts. Her therapist's notes contain a totally different version of events. She won't release the full notes from her therapist or the entire polygraph test result. Deborah 'Ramirez's story had even less corroboration and she herself admitted that she wasn't sure it even happened. Likewise the allegations put forward by that paragon of virtue and integrity, Michael Avenatti and his client , Ms. Swetnick were so fantastic that NOBODY believed them.

While perhaps having a bit of credibility on their face the Ford and Ramirez allegations had zip, zero, nada in the way of corroboration . Not at the time of the alleged occurrences nor thereafter.

Polygraph results are still inadmissible in every court in this country. They are not considered reliable enough to be evidence of anything.

In any event , it is too late now. Both Kavanagh and Thomas are on the court and both have apparently kept their noses clean for DECADES. There are no allegations against either that do not date back at least 30 or 40 years.

I defend ANYONE unjustly accused. The claims against both Thomas and Kavanagh were pure unadulterated bullshit. So are the claims against Dershowitz and the claims made against Biden of a long ago sexual assault. Likewise, Bill Clinton was credibly accused of rape and sexual assault BUT there was NO corroboration. Not at the time the events supposedly occurred and not subsequently.

Did you READ the laws in the states I listed ? Do so FIRST and then opine. Did you watch and listen to what Northam said ? Watch and listen and then opine.