Glenn Pittman

It's incredibly normal to feel uncomfortable being near people who are different from you. And your job as a human being is to feel a little ashamed of that, grow the fuck up, and get over it.

What are the implications of this, legally speaking?

(The unwillingness, I mean)

The flew the entire military leadership in so they could see for themselves that the Secretary of Defense is a mouthbreathing dipshit and the Commander in Chief is a senile, weak old man who might keel over at any moment.

all these guys are like "i will invent a machine that reads books for you!" what about a machine that unloads the dishwasher so *i* can read a book?

hahahaha this sucks so much! *why* in the world would you want the experience of cooking to be exactly like shouting at the automated phone system at your insurance company to try to get it to recognize your issue? who watches this and thinks "make everything into this?"

I'm against political violence of all sorts. And let's be really clear who commits the vast majority of the political violence in this country.

You shall reap what you sow. As you make your bed, so you must lie in it. He who digs a pit for others falls in himself. Etc, etc...

More of this.

a question we all ask ourselves too much these days

About this Florida vaccine story:

When they were little - 1 yr and 3 1/2 - my two older boys, who’d had all their shots, got whooping cough.

We asked their pediatrician what would’ve happened if they hadn’t been vaccinated.

“Oh, they’d have died.”

RFK Jr in charge of DHHS is basically like the fire chief giving a press conference saying we’re no longer enforcing fire codes and have laid off 80% of firefighters, but it’s cool because we’ve hired a dozen fire mages to do Spells of Protection throughout the city.

bsky.app/profile/josh...

I recall hearing a saying in the part of Germany where my mom is from: “I’m Franconian first, Bavarian second, German third”

“The ground should not be ceded,” is I think such a key part of what you said. No ground should ever be ceded to these assholes. Make them fight for every single inch. Even if they’re highly likely to prevail in taking that ground. You make them fight for it.

I don't know why this lad is building a subterranean city for cats, but I'm all for it.

[writing the constitution]

Benjamin Franklin: Write down "no dumb fucks as president"

Alexander Hamilton: Stop saying that

Benjamin Franklin: I'm tellin' you. You're gonna regret not writing that down

A review by @frickyuu on twitter reads: FantasticFour Is a masterpiece. the visual effects and the score are a HUGE stand out. Galactus Is huge In IMAX. It’s emotional and gives you hope. It beats you off and doesn’t stop. STAY Until the END CREDITS.

It does what now

The possibility of our Glorious AI Future not coming to pass because it causes mental breakdowns in those building it is kind of darkly hilarious

Future defendants for crimes against humanity?

The thing to understand is that district court judges have to follow the law and Supreme Court Justices get to just make up the law.

A lot of this country’s problems boil down to straight white men who see themselves as some sort of default “normal” but any variation on that as “an identity” that is “political”

The left better start figuring out how to weaponize today's decision rather than just (rightfully) criticizing it.

- Go back into Judge Kaczmaryk's court to dissolve all of his nationwide orders.

- Pass gun bans and insist any order applies only to plaintiffs.

if constitutional rights only apply to individuals or states that have sued for relief, you don't actually have constitutional _rights_, you have _privileges_ that can sometimes (but not always) be secured for you by your lawyer

Screenshot from ChatGPT answering the question of why a statute's retroactivity did not apply: "The key lies in how the 1986 amendment was enacted: • Although § 12 of Pub. L. 99-653 (1986) amended the statute to reduce the parental physical presence requirement from 10 years (with 5 after age 14) to 5 years (with 2 after age 14), Congress specified in the text of the amendment itself (and in related statutory notes) that these changes only apply prospectively to children born on or after the amendment’s effective date (November 14, 1986). • The “retroactivity” sentence you cited — “This proviso shall be applicable…” — came from a 1952-era provision, but the 1986 legislation did not include language updating or reaffirming that sentence. Courts interpreting the amended statute have consistently read the 1986 changes as not retroactive, because Congress set a clear prospective effective date."

ChatGPT actually did a nice job of answering my question. tl;dr is that the amendment contained language making it applicable to people born on or after the date it went into effect, so would not have applied to him. What a horribly unjust situation.

Screenshot of statute 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), which reads, "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date"

The statute cited in his citizenship case clearly states that it's retroactive to December 24, 1952, which would mean the reduced parental residency requirements should've applied to him. I don't understand why the courts get to simply ignore that part of the law. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...

“Alligator Alcatraz”

Or “Dachau” if you wanna use the original German

“Ask your Supreme Court Justice which medical procedure is right for you.”

the nytimes doesn't get LA and never will

The code they used to federalize the NG in this case *requires* orders to go thru the Gov. It’s not optional. They didn’t, ergo they’re not lawful, ergo the Adjutant General is required to refuse. Obviously this would cause a shitstorm, but here we are