Supposedly Eric Swalwell called Kevin McCarthy a pussy. McCarthy threatened to kick his ass, but when Swalwell called him on it, McCarthy backed down.
Nobody is confirming that it’s true, but nobody is denying it, either.
My uncle is a jail guard. My aunt (his wife) spent her entire career as a teacher at schools in the ‘bad’ parts of town (ie, she’s been punched more than once). On a few occasions, inmates have seen my uncle’s last name and told him that his wife was their teacher in grade school.
I now give you Matt Walsh, swastika diaper wrestling referee.
You really should have spoilered that
I will concur with the above post - I was eating lasagna.
Added spoilers to the eldritch horror two posts above.
My hero!
Thank you. In retrospect that was a bit much to take in unexpectedly.
Orders to amazon for brain/eye bleach spiked during the time that post was out in the open. 
But did I pay attention? No-o-o-o. Where’s that brain-bleach?
Too late! What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Found the guy who never drinks to excess!
Republicans support fetuses, not babies. Once those babies are born, they’re on their own!
A year ago, when the Supreme Court struck down the federal right to abortion access, Republican politicians pledged to support women facing unplanned pregnancies.
Today? Republican lawmakers are literally trying to take food away from disadvantaged new moms and their children.
They’re doing so via the annual House appropriations agricultural bill, specifically the GOP-written House version that was slated for a vote this week. This legislation covers a lot of ground, including rural development grants and loans for farmers. But among its most critical, least appreciated, highest return-on-investment programs is one known as WIC (officially, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children).
WIC was created in the early 1970s to serve low-income pregnant women, new moms, babies and young children at nutritional risk.
…The GOP-controlled House’s fiscal 2024 agricultural bill would either eliminate or reduce benefits for 5.3 million kids and pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding adults, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.
Of that total, roughly 4.6 million participants would have their benefits cut… Another 650,000 to 750,000 eligible people would likely be turned away from the program entirely because of funding shortfalls.
The House’s plan to turn away or waitlist these vulnerable families, for the first time in a quarter-century, would be an astonishing break in precedent.
…Republicans portray their spending cuts as fiscally responsible. In reality, they’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Of course. Once they’re born, they’re worthless unless they get a job to support their freeloading mother. /s
I ran across this a few days ago and, as best as I can tell, it’s real.
Republicans support anything that will increase the birthrate, because that creates more children to brutalize, abuse, starve, bully and traumatize in any vindictive way they can imagine.
The cruelty is the point.
Genesis 3:16, pretty much sums up the whole thought process and justifies their actions.
I’m highly skeptical. It seems to be too much on the nose to be real. I don’t think she would mention her health unless trying to draw obvious parallels.
This made the rounds on Reddit recently, and the consensus was it’s real (that is, it was a real tweet), but it doesn’t matter. You can put down anyone you want as preferred placement, but it doesn’t mean they have to accept. It also raises the question of how the mother had the contact info of the Twitter poster.
I was kinda skeptical too, but a little googling came up with:
a Facebook post from a bit before what @Joey_P had posted (it’s about three and half years, old, by the way).
Looks like most of this took place on Facebook. One Upworthy post about the kerfluffle:
which includes some follow up from the exchange shown above (the pro-life poster worked some connections and found a foster placement for the baby).
And there was a fairly understanding and evenhanded post by another person (which also talks about some of the followup from Jamie Jeffries):
Jamie Jeffries is still active (ETA: in pro-life advocacy), apparently: