Baby. Baby yeah
Are you listening?
Wondering where you’ve been all my life
I just started living
Oh, Baby, are you listening?
When you say you love me
No, I love you more
And when you say you need me
No, I need you more
Boy, I adore you
I adore you
Boy, I adore you
I adore you
/1
Baby can you hear me
When I'm crying out for you
I'm scared oh
So scared
But when you're near me
I feel like I'm standing with an army of men
Armed with weapon
When you say you love me
No I love you more
And when you say you need me
No, I need you more
Boy I adore you
I adore you
I love lying next to you
I could do this for eternity
You and me were meant to be in holy matrimony
God knew exactly what he was doing when He led you to me.
When you say you love me
No, I love you more
And when you say you need me
No, I need you more
Boy, I adore you
I adore you
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whenever I'm weary
From the battles that raged in my head
You made sense of madness
When my sanity hangs by a thread
I lose my way, but still you
Seem to understand
Now & Forever,
I will be your man
/1
Sometimes I just hold you
Too caught up in me to see
I'm holding a fortune
That Heaven has given to me
I'll try to show you
Each and every way I can
Now & Forever,
I will be your man
/2
So Gina Carano’s Instagram post was not “abhorrent & unacceptable.” See for yourself - she’s saying normalizing the vilification of others is a totalitarian tactic. She’s right about that.
It seems she may have originally been targeted by libs for poking fun at pronouns.👇🏻& she voiced some views (in Nov) about election integrity that are far from crazy. None of this justifies Disney+ cancelling her. This is instead - free speech. In America we tolerate free speech.
So, if we’re serious about free speech & we’re serious about liberty & we’re serious about “we need to do something,” here’s what you do: you stop buying & consuming anything Disney until they repudiate this. And you tell them so. Civilly write & tweet them that you’re doing so.
An idea: You know what would be good? If the govt would be honest with people for a damn change. In my experience most people will accept restrictions & sacrifices for the greater good if they’re necessary & effective. But you have to explain them in order to get buy in. /1
The govt is not doing this about the covid vaccine. People think that once you’re vaccinated, how can you spread the disease? Isn’t that the point of vaccination- so you’re immune? So how does it make any sense to wear a mask after being vaccinated? /2
The thing is the govt isn’t explaining the situation so it makes sense. They aren’t explaining that some vaccines completely clear you of the disease - & therefore you can’t pass it on, which is called sterilizing immunity. The smallpox vaccine does this so we’ve eradicated it./3
This opening argument has several problems. The first is that it’s what lawyers call an ipso facto argument. “My point is proved by me saying it is.” “He’s guilty because he’s guilty.” The speaker assumes you already agree. That’s not persuasive & it’s logically flawed. /1
A second problem is that it’s claiming neutral facts are nefarious. Pointing out that Trump invited & encouraged people to come to DC on Jan 6 doesn’t move the needle on whether he incited them to insurrection. He’s arguing that fact like it’s damning; it isn’t. /2
When you argue every single fact as if it’s totally damning & the worst thing ever, you loose persuasive force. All facts don’t have equal weight. Certainly they don’t all carry the most weight. An unbalanced, non-nuanced presentation doesn’t persuade. /3
What happened is you lost because you are intolerant, arrogant & petty. You are the cause of the very problem you’re complaining about. My God, try to be a better person than this.
It’s not alleged he incited a plan. It’s alleged he incited an insurrection *by* his Jan 6 speech. Defending the charge as written is not “dumb.” That’s how defending works. The burden is in the accuser to specify the charge. /1
The article says the Jan 6 speech is “consistent” w/prior efforts by DJT to upend the election & points -only- to his call w/the GA Secretary of State, but it doesn’t actually allege that call incited violence (it clearly did not call for violence based on the recording). /2
Maybe if the House had not thrown the one article of impeachment together in a bum’s rush & had included moderates or even a few Republicans in the drafting, it wouldn’t be vulnerable to such defenses. But they didn’t, so this article is what you’ve got./3