Love ya bro, but no, you can’t call someone else a nihilist unless it’s to give them a high-5.

Amphibians like it wet. I'm on to ya, Burt.

Of all the Johns, Jons, Johnnys, Jonnys, Johnnies, and Jonnies … the worst is Jonn. WTF is that?

The dog caught the car. I firmly believe this won’t work out for republicans in the long run.

Oh to be so young and full of hope

It won't work in the short term, but if anything is clear right now, the GOP will make it work in the long term.

Perfect example of what I was talking about with the previous tweet post. Look at that tweet and the one posted immediately before it from the same account just a few hours earlier. What do you see?





Outrage as currency, actually helping in this horrific situation is a losers play. This is why we can't win.

What would you like the Ohio politician with 10k followers to do?

It's not about what an individual does, it's about how we collectively as society react and reward.

Do you think Twitter is a fair reflection of society?

Bammer likes this post and hates twitter

Fair question, and I'll answer this but I need to go do real life stuff for a few hours. Would be cool if others don't invent nonsense answers for me, mock and tear down those made up answers, and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done in the meantime.

Okay so you don't want this to be like Twitter.

I'm not getting your argument. Someone helped that girl, so we shouldn't be mad that she was put in position to need that help?

He's upset that the tweet that went viral (114k likes) was the one Spike linked with references to Iran and Gilead, and not the previous one (1100 likes) which explains that the girl actually was able to get an abortion by crossing over into Indiana.

The known safe-haven state of Indiana.

Didn’t the Supreme Court say when they overturned RvW that states couldn’t prevent people from going to other states to get one?

"Outrage as currency" = empty rhetoric. Is that all this Bi_3 is good for?

No. Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion that he doesn't personally think this would be constitutional since it would violate the right to interstate travel, but a concurring opinion doesn't carry any real legal weight and the specific case (Dobbs) didn't involve a ban on travel, so nothing has been decided. I believe the argument from the far-right (in broad strokes) is that, if a fetus is a person, it's no different from a state criminalizing human trafficking.

We'll find out how SCOTUS feels within the next year or so, I imagine. I think the Texas law is already in appeals, though that one also has the strange private citizen enforcement mechanism.