No idea. Anytime I think I have a handle on what's going on, the world turns upside down. I'm so tired of jumping from one crisis to another with nothing being resolved.

Frankly, I've gotten tired of trying to figure out what the future holds, and since I'm mostly wrong about it, I'm on the verge of just not giving a shit.

Of course. I'm not saying that you're not allowed to share your opinion.

But that doesn't mean that I can't ask the OP questions about their post.

I just wanted to acknowledge that I saw your post and gave you the reason I wasn't following up on your post with any further comments.

Ok, good to know. No reason for me to worry about it since they won't succeed.

Ok. My question was more for the OP, though.

Did you read this article before you posted it? All it does is refute what President Trump said.

And I'm not sure what the point is of the documents you put in your post above. First of all, it's about Canadians, not Americans.

They just say that cattlemen are cutting back herd sizes due to drought. That's not a secret or anything. It happens whenever we have droughts.

I find all of this very bizarre.

Edited to add: I just realized that the article you linked on this is three years old.

That's why it seems so bizarre.

President Trump was criticizing the "Green New Deal" that was proposed. I'm not sure where he got the idea that it said we would get rid of cows. It didn't.

You can see, three years later, cows are still here and so are we.

Ok. Do you think Jewish people shouldn't be able to work in government jobs?

What is your intent in posting this?

I'm seriously doubting that the draft will be reinstated.

A spokesman for the military, Nicole Schwegman, has said there is no plan or even any discussion about the draft being reinstated.

So, if we're working on the theories that the CIC is Trump or that the Military is headed by WHs, or that WHs are in control, I can't see them letting Biden and Congress reinstate the draft.

I hesitate to even bring it up because I'm tired of being called a shill when I do, but doesn't anyone else get tired of telling people something big is going to happen and it rarely (or maybe never) does? And then those people just either make fun of you or call you Chicken Little or ignore you because what you say will happen never does? Am I the only one that happens to or who is just tired of it happening?

Yeah, that bothers me, too. That's a really clumsy mistake. The Census Bureau would certainly know when Biden took office. I really would like to find the original source for it.

Could you share the source of your graph, please? I know it says US Census Bureau on it, but I can't find any graph on their website that matches it.

I ask because that graph puts 2020 in Biden's term when Biden didn't take office until 2021. That's a very obvious and clumsy mistake. Which makes me hesitant to believe it came directly from the Census Bureau.

Since anyone can make a graph and slap whatever source they want on it, I think it would be a good idea to get a source on this before sharing it with others.

Thanks.

Edited to add: I see that you got it from President Trump's Truth Social page. Do you know if there is a source he's using linked in the comment section there? I don't have an account there so I can't see the comment page.

Before anyone gets upset, I'm not calling President Trump a liar or anything. I'm not saying he fabricated it or anything of that nature.

But it is possible he got this graph from someone who got it from someone else who got it from yet another and on and on and on.

I would just like to know where it originated if there is a link to it's source in the comment section there.

Thanks again.

And it provides some immunity from viruses that the mother has been exposed to and built up a natural immunity to.

I'm not sure at which age that immunity "wears off" for lack of a better phrase. But newborns and very young infants have some immunity to viruses because of it.

That's pretty much my point here.

Good points.

The Boomer generation has also been retiring from the workforce and then dying out. Many of them retired early due to the pandemic simply because they didn't want to put up with the mask and vaccine nonsense required at their jobs.

It's the largest generation. They took up a large portion of the workforce. And younger generations just aren't large enough to compensate the loss.

I think the biggest difference between what happened on 9/11 and what's going on today is that the attacks are not happening on US soil. It's going on halfway around the world.

I'm not equating it. I'm saying that some people have used the First Amendment to try to argue that child pornography should be legal.

I really can't explain this concept any simpler.

If you don't understand it this time around, there's no use in asking me to explain it again.

I don't understand what you don't understand about it.

Do you not understand how the word "speech" works in the phrase "free speech" when referring to the First Amendment?

What exactly are you thinking about when I use the word "speech" in the phrase "free speech" in this conversation?

I'm pretty sure the judge is real.

Which post are you referring to where I distinguished between opinion and facts?

I've taken facts like the First Amendment having limitations, and what those limitations are from lawyers. But I'm sure I've listed some opinions as well. Everything isn't either/or. All posts aren't 100% facts or 100% opinions.

Edited to add: you never asked me if I had facts as a lawyer. You just asked me if I was one. I said I wasn't, but that I formed my opinions based on facts I got from lawyers. That's not the same as me saying my posts were all "just my opinion".

As I pointed out above, all posts aren't 100% opinion or 100% facts. Just because my posts are largely my opinion doesn't mean my posts or opinions aren't based on facts or don't include facts.

Why are you misrepresenting what we both said here?

Look around. I'm not the only one saying what they're saying with "such authority".

Sure. But isn't that what it always comes down to with the Constitution?

It's just a question of which side you land on, and what the current Supreme Court thinks of those laws. Because they're the ones who determine if a law is constitutional or not.

Sometimes you're happy with them. Sometimes you're not.

10 years ago, were you happy with what the law was saying about the constitutional rights to abortion? How about now?

I never said it did.

What I said was that freedom of speech is not absolute and there are limitations on what can be considered free speech. These are limitations set by the government. Not me.

Child pornography is but one of those limitations. Yes, I understand that this is an illegal activity.

That hasn't stopped people from trying to use freedom of speech (or rather, the thought that freedom of speech should be absolute, with no limitations) to defend their possession or making of child pornography or to try to argue that it should be made legal.

Here's a news flash many people seem to be missing. Not everything that is illegal today was always illegal. Not everything that is illegal today will be illegal tomorrow.

Even child pornography has not always been illegal. When it was first made illegal, guess what one of the main defenses child pornographers used in court? That's right, freedom of speech!

Guess what happened after there were a shit ton of child pornographers using free speech in court as a defense? Well, I've been trying to tell you. Child pornography was put on that list of limitations on free speech.

What does this limitation on free speech mean, practically speaking? For one, it means that no one can use the First Amendment to try to get laws against child pornography changed.

Laws are not permanent nor absolute. Not even laws like child pornography. Right now there is a big argument being made that AI-generated child pornography doesn't count as "real" child pornography because "real children" isn't used in the making. So they're arguing that AI generated child pornography should be legal.

I'm not advocating that AI child pornography be made legal before any idiot jumps to that conclusion. I'm pointing out that laws, even laws about things that are as universally abhorrent like child pornography aren't absolute.

Over 50 years ago, abortion was illegal in most states. Then Roe vs. Wade was passed and it became legal in all states. And then Roe vs Wade was revoked and now it's illegal in many states where it was previously legal.

I'm not arguing in favor (or against) abortion here, before anyone jumps up my ass about that as well. I'm pointing out that what is illegal and what is legal can and does change.

So, take everything I've said above, and I hope you can see why the fact that child ponography is illegal means jack shit when we're talking about it being a recognized limit on what is considered free speech.

But it does remind me of something else.

Remember how Trump wanted to sue people who criticized him while he was President? Or when he wanted to get the FCC to get SNL off the air because they made fun of him?

Could you explain to me how that wouldn't have violated their Freedom of Speech rights?

I suppose we just need to see how this case goes, as to whether the gag order violates his freedom of speech.

If his lawyers even try the route or the Supreme Court rules against the judge, I guess you can claim bragging rights over being right.

If not, I will.

Later.

Nope. Is everyone else here giving their opinions lawyers?

But I am forming my opinions based on what lawyers have said.

I'm not sure what you mean that they're not applicable to government entities.

And yes, it's open to interpretation, but why does it need to only be subject to gag orders?

I think that the conversation has gone sideways here somewhere along the line.

What I am saying is that the First Amendment is not absolute. There are limitations on what is and is not considered protected free speech. Examples of some of these limitations are libel, slander, and inciting violence. There are others. These are just a few.

Court gag orders themselves have not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court has found that some gag orders are unconstitutional. It is determined on a case by case basis.

I am not saying that the gag order on President Trump is unconstitutional or not. I'm saying that it takes more than just saying "freedom of speech" to make it unconstitutional. I'm also pointing out that if his lawyers believe the gag order to be unconstitutional, then they can surely follow that route.

I am not whoever you think I am because I've never been a mod on any Reddit forum and rarely even read anything on Reddit, much less post there. I am sure you won't believe me, but thems the facts.

No, that's not "period". Because there are limitations placed on free speech. Such as libel, slander, and inciting violence.

Gag orders themselves have not been shown to violate the first amendment. As I have said before, it's determined by the case itself.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order#:~:text=However%2C%20a%20court%20will%20scrutinize,as%20with%20any%20prior%20restraint.

So if there is no valid reason for the judge in the case to have imposed that gag rule, then he can take it up legally in court if he wishes.

No, I really don't. I was under the impression that the SC had upheld gun control laws.

If they haven't, then I was wrong.

I suppose because it's left up to the state and not federal? I don't know.

Even so, it doesn't void the fact that there are limitations on free speech.

Edited to add: here is a link with the SC upholding some gun control laws.

https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/gun-rights-under-the-constitution/#:~:text=It%20found%20that%20the%20government,mental%20illnesses%20and%20convicted%20felons.