Thinky Crow

I have a name for this, and it’s “hypocrisy hypocrisy”. We all know perfectly well Rebekuh here does not want ID requirements to be uniform between voting and guns. She wants ID for guns, but NOT for voting. Earth to moron: YOU ARE JUST AS BIG A HYPOCRITE AS THOSE YOU ACCUSE.

@deltaozzimo Man, I just bought 5 Bic lighters for a friend for $7…

Amazon is selling 50 classic lighters for $7.50 😳 a.co/d/0i1AKTuC

@WallStreetApes Then there’s the 89 midgrade, which bizarrely is just regular and premium mixed together.

You could be driving in America and come across a gas station like this This pump is very confusing and people have to call the customer support number to ask what gas they should put in their car The pumps have two options for 87 octane blend - The first 87 blend is ethanol-free - The other is standard regular 87 with ~10% ethanol Always use the ‘87 with ethanol,’ this is our normal gas for everyday driving The non-ethanol option is if have a classic old car with carburetor or rubber parts sensitive to ethanol. Or if you store your vehicle for long periods of time

@_RoadToSuccess_ FYI this room exists, but the money challenge does NOT. You could stay in there a week, nobody will pay you.

The quietest room in the world🤯‼️

@WallStreetApes If you’re going to hold up the package for people to read: TURN OFF MIRROR MODE.

Little Debbie is scamming Americans, you can’t convince me this isn’t fraud Little Debbie came out with new sticky buns Right on the box it says “8 BIG pastries” and calls the box “BIG pack” Wait until you see the size of these sticky buns….. To be extra deceptive they put them in an oversized box to make it look like they were going to be huge Here’s where it gets crazy, according to US law this is actually legal ‘Puffery’ in product descriptions is protected. Meaning words like “BIG,” “Super,” “Jumbo” are considered opinion, not fact. As long as you put the amount and weights on the box you’re protected Shrinkflarion is legal in America If you ask me, the only reason any of this is legal is because we have criminals making our laws

@FinancialPhys TBF, by “not edible apples” she could have meant they were crabapples or such.

We all know chicken only comes in sandwich form at the drive through…

@Beeholistics @Sofia50020Sofia The British didn’t simply end slavery within their borders, they sent their navy all over the world to raid slave ships WHEREVER they found them. Brazil only ended slavery after the Brits burned three slave ships sitting in their harbor.

@Sofia50020Sofia White people never ended slavery, if it was up to them we would still be slaves. Black Rebellion ended slavery and we still fighting the system to this day new form called systematic slavery.

What are your thoughts on this?

@PureFlyShot @lemon_logger3 @WxFanaticCC It’s not positive. You remove something and then pay to replace it. That is not a net gain.

@ThinkyCrow @lemon_logger3 @WxFanaticCC Agreed. I wrote and was referring to positive effect on GDP.

Dublin, TX drivers doing the thing. 4:30pm

@MorosKostas IMHO: I think the 2ndA community should reject the term “assault weapon” entirely, as in stop using it in a sentence. The average person hears it and thinks “machine gun”, even though that is wrong. I find in gun debates when you use terms like “modern rifles” the mood changes.

This is definitely an interesting discussion. I am a frequent critic of euphemistic names like "modern sporting rifle," because I think it implies we are ashamed of what these firearms are, which is the prevailing combat arms of the time. They are absolutely great for sport, sure, but there is nothing wrong with conceding they are designed for combat, because that is what the Second Amendment historically protects most of all. But I think my friend Zach may be going a bit too far in the other direction. Yes, Gun Digest did some publications decades ago that used the term "assault weapon," but that doesn't mean they were going with some accepted term in doing so. I suspect it's just a cool-sounding term to use for cool-looking guns, so they went with it. There is no real technical definition presented (I know because I have a copy of one of these same books, it is a fun time capsule). My understanding has always been that while "assault rifle" has a technical definition (select-fire capability) separate from what antigun states define it as, "assault weapon" does not, especially in the way gun-banning states use it. They define it as any semiauto firearm with particular features, which can vary state to state. Others define it by particular models of firearm. Others do a combination of both. I don't really object to Zach's more simplistic definition of "these are firearms used for assault, so they are assault weapons." But that doesn't really square with how the term is used today. You can use typically unbanned pistols for assault, or pump shotguns, or semiauto rifles without the banned evil features (e.g. mini 14 ranch style rifle). I think it's still correct to say the term is more political than real, unlike the term "assault rifle."

@Uzonna7 FYI: this would not work. Both “murders” are still two separate crimes. But being able to prove the person you supposedly murdered is actually still ALIVE? Yes, that will get you out of prison.

Margaret explaining double jeopardy like it’s the most normal prison kitchen conversation ever. Ashley Judd’s face = every woman realizing the system has a glitch. This scene lives rent-free. 🎬🎥 Double Jeopardy 🔥❤️

@URaSmartAssCarl Honestly that makes WAY more sense than transgenderism.

The human race is not going to make it

@pauldobbie2 @Kicksbuttson There was no way either side would start the war again. Definitely not the South, after Sherman.

@ThinkyCrow @Kicksbuttson Then we would have had another civil war in a very short time.

John Brown was a failed and disgraced businessman drowning in debt who fled to Kansas to avoid debtors. In a vain attempt to retain relevancy and purpose in his miserable life, he decided to murder some random white Christian settlers in retaliation for a previous attack by "pro-slavery forces" (something he made up) that didn't involve his victims at all. None of his victims even owned slaves as at the height of slavery in the US only approximately 2% of the wealthiest land owners had slaves. Later at the raid of Harper's Ferry the crew running with John Brown botched the operation and ended up killing a free black man by shooting him in the back as he was going to notify the sheriff, because John Brown and his crew were literally criminals. The majority of the black population of Harper's Ferry were free and didn't require any saving by Brown and his goons. They even murdered the mayor who was known by the town's black population for being kind and treating them as equals. Brown and his goons were overtaken and captured, and in his trial Brown testified he had not been attempting a slave uprising or liberation. He claimed it was merely a peaceful protest march against slavery, but the bodies of those killed by Brown and his compatriots proved otherwise. Other Nothern abolitionists would hear about Brown and exaggerate his accomplishments. Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee, who were the leaders of the US Army detachment who took Brown captive, knew it was all a lie to push a political agenda. It's part of the reason they agreed to rebel against the United States, as they saw the propaganda firsthand and didn't intend to end up victim to revisionist history narratives. If Brown were alive today he'd be an ANTIFA militant on the sex offender registry who believed committing a mass sh**ting at a Christian preschool would allow him to die a hero of the Communist Left movement, rather than be a pariah his entire life.

@DarkDeviDani @stevenson408 @MagaNorth @omgsidewalks Except nobody will rent to you if your income isn’t even twice the rent.

@ThinkyCrow @stevenson408 @MagaNorth @omgsidewalks Average Rent back then was 27 dollars a month. At 25 cents an hour, 40 hours a week, and 4 weeks a month, minimum wage would bring in 40 dollars a month. Rent was 67.5% of wages. Average rent today is 1750. For that to be 65% of minimum wage, minimum wage would be 16.30/hr

The minimum wage is actually meant to be the lowest wage you can live on and afford housing. So, for everyone saying "it's not meant to be that," yes, it is. That's why it's called the minimum wage.

@RealRyanLantz @omgsidewalks

@ThinkyCrow @omgsidewalks

@stevenson408 @MagaNorth @omgsidewalks And yet the minimum he actually created was 25¢ an hour, only about five bucks and change in today’s money.

@MagaNorth @omgsidewalks

@DvBrk @MagaNorth @omgsidewalks Then he was a liar, because the minimum wage he created was $0.25 an hour, less than six bucks in today’s money. You call that a “living wage”?

@MagaNorth @omgsidewalks FDR; you know, the one who signed the minimum wage into law; LITERALLY said that is what it was meant for.

@TopG563 @ThrillaRilla369 You can cut any limb that overhangs your property. But absolutely do NOT trespass on their property to cut the trees down

I have the same issue except from neighbor cutting the dead tree’s perspective. My trashy literally definition of white trash neighbor who lives next door to me has a group of dead trees that have huge branches that hover above my house and my garage. They have so much old junk in their front yard too. Even a methed up looking trailer next to their shed. They rarely cut their grass. They have their little toddler out side playing in all that mess all day long and he’s loud AF. Honestly IDGAF what they do personally my only concern is those dead tree limbs hovering over my house and garage

If your neighbor cut down a large dead maple tree that was located on your property (in your yard) because its branches were hanging over into their yard, without consulting you or getting your permission first, what would you do?

@ThrillaRilla369 Call an arborist and a lawyer. “Tree law” is no joke. I’m going to be rich.

I'm a board certified OBGYN. I've practiced for 20+ years. Here's what's actually happening with mifepristone, because the coverage of it has been a mess. On May 1, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FDA overstepped its authority in 2023 when it eliminated the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone and allowed the drug to be mailed. On May 4, the Supreme Court issued a temporary administrative stay restoring mail-order access while it reviews the emergency appeals from Danco and GenBioPro. That stay expired May 11. We're waiting on the Court. Let me say this clearly: I don't want mifepristone banned. Almost no OBGYN I know does. It has a legitimate place in our practice. What's being argued in Louisiana v. FDA is not whether the drug exists. It's whether the FDA's safety protocol "the REMS" should include the in-person dispensing safeguard the FDA itself required for the first 23 years this drug was on the market. Here's what an in-person visit does that a telehealth call cannot: 1. It confirms gestational age by ultrasound. Patients are not always accurate about their dates. They are sometimes weeks off. Without imaging, no one knows. 2. It rules out ectopic pregnancy. Mifepristone does not treat an ectopic. If you take it and your pregnancy is in your fallopian tube, the tube will still rupture. Women die from this. 3. It creates a local physician who is accountable when something goes wrong — hemorrhage, sepsis, incomplete abortion requiring surgery. A doctor in another state on a video call cannot manage a bleeding patient at 2 a.m. The 2023 REMS change removed all three. And here is the part the mainstream media will not tell you: it is entirely predictable that a partner, a parent, or a boyfriend will substitute themselves on the telehealth visit to spare the patient an awkward conversation. That means the person actually taking the drug may never be seen, never be examined, and never have her dates verified. If she is further along than she said, the outcome can be a severely preterm infant. This is a child who may live decades with profound disability, at a public cost in the tens of millions of dollars over a lifetime. This is why the FDA itself opened a safety review in September 2025. Real-world claims data is suggesting complication rates well above what is on the drug label. Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner Makary launched that review for a reason. Until it's finished, returning to in-person dispensing is the conservative clinical position. And by "conservative" I mean cautious. Careful. The standard of care. The Fifth Circuit didn't ban anything. It restored the same safeguard the FDA enforced under Clinton, Bush, Obama, and the first Trump administration. That's not extremism. That's medicine.

@yhwach010 @RachelsHero @lauren_w67 He does, which is why Tucci loses it. He welches on the deal they just made, and loudly (and publicly) yells and curses Hanks out. Even people who work for him watch in shock. As I said, it's one of the pivotal scenes of the film.

@RachelsHero @ThinkyCrow @lauren_w67 What happens next? Does bro get his drugs?

so theyre okay to save a goat not man?