Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[josh]

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/

In December of 2021, for the first time, in the US whites had the highest rate of deaths from COVID. (Graph 7)

It's been second highest, above the Black population, since September. Only the Native/Alaskan population was higher.

[josh]

The GOP has been engaged in partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina, again, according to the state supreme court. Their redistricting map has been rejected.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/politics/north-carolina-redistricting-struck-down/index.html

[Holly Martins]

Must read for the Stalinists here:

https://theweek.com/articles/445434/how-liberalism-became-intolerant-dogma

The enlightened here can skip it.

Both of us.

I agree with much of his commentary about a return to pluralism and to rejecting dogmatism.  Your "both of us" coda suggests you don't read many posts here.  I have written here on intellectual freedom, the need to acknowledge nuanced gray area positions on issues framed as B/W, and why I'm an independent who cannot embrace partisan politics or swallow party lines whole. 

As for hot buttons like gay marriage, I think the traditional liberal axiom is sound: if you don't believe God wants gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex.   You do your values, let other folks do theirs.  Not rocket science when trying to have a pluralistic society.

[josh]

Book burning in Nazi-led Germany:


Book burning recently in Tennessee:

[Hamilton Samuels]

LEGITIMATE POLITICAL DISCOURSE


https://exjournalistsunite.wordpress.com/2020/02/03/were-living-in-the-republican-partys-altered-states/

Zealotry disguised as "journalism".

Your politics is your religion.

That said, your self promotion does not belong in this forum, Larry.

Your "news" is bunk.

Did you read it, Ham?

If so, what specifically are you claiming is bunk?

Did you know all of it already? Do you think everybody here knew it?

You claim that it's zealotry - what makes what Larry wrote zealous or untrue?

Do you read TASS?

[LarryBnDC]

The GOP has been engaged in partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina, again, according to the state supreme court. Their redistricting map has been rejected.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/politics/north-carolina-redistricting-struck-down/index.html

That was a big damn deal!

[Hamilton Samuels]

Must read for the Stalinists here:

https://theweek.com/articles/445434/how-liberalism-became-intolerant-dogma

The enlightened here can skip it.

Both of us.

I agree with much of his commentary about a return to pluralism and to rejecting dogmatism.  Your "both of us" coda suggests you don't read many posts here.  I have written here on intellectual freedom, the need to acknowledge nuanced gray area positions on issues framed as B/W, and why I'm an independent who cannot embrace partisan politics or swallow party lines whole. 

As for hot buttons like gay marriage, I think the traditional liberal axiom is sound: if you don't believe God wants gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex.   You do your values, let other folks do theirs.  Not rocket science when trying to have a pluralistic society.

I told you that you could skip it.

Work on your self-confidence, man.

[Holly Martins]

I always like such dismissive evasions.

Indisputable that from 1789 to 1980 only white males were considered for SCOTUS.

Then in 1980 Reagan promised to pick a (white) female, and did in 1981.
Then back to the GOP picking white males only, until Thurgood Marhshall died, and another black male was purposely chosen.   So from 1789 to 1991, all nominees were selected on the basis of race and gender.

Since then the GOP mostly selects white males and the DEMs females of various ethnicity.

The cautionary tale is Clarence Thomas.  Offered as a replacement to Marshall, but then became a silent lapdog for Scalia with very obvious RW attitudes.  And his wife's loyalty purge activities for Trumpists and other shenanigans cast a shadow on his judicial impartiality.  Picking on the basis of visible markers only makes sense when the marker correlates with bringing a perspective the Court is lacking. 

The current candidate who went to a state U and grew up in a SPF more embodies the fresh perspective. 

[Hamilton Samuels]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/politics/ginni-clarence-thomas-supreme-court-recusal/index.html

Recent revelations about the political activism Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, have renewed scrutiny about how the Supreme Court approaches questions of potential conflicts of interest with the cases that the justices are reviewing.

Supreme Court justices make their own determination as to whether they have a personal or financial conflict that would require them to recuse from a case before them.
Thomas' refusal to recuse in various cases linked to causes for which his wife has advocated has prompted criticism from court ethical experts and his critics on the left. His defenders, however, argue that Ginni Thomas, who runs a political consulting firm, has a right to political speech and that none of her conduct amounts to the types of ethical issues that would require recusal. Ginni Thomas' views about the House January 6 committee -- and her connections to some of the figures being examined by that probe and by the Justice Department -- has kicked up another round of consternation, as has a scathing look at her work's connection to the cases before the Supreme Court published by The New Yorker last month.

So, would it be "legitimate public discourse" to attack and destroy the Thomas house?

[LarryBnDC]

LEGITIMATE POLITICAL DISCOURSE


https://exjournalistsunite.wordpress.com/2020/02/03/were-living-in-the-republican-partys-altered-states/

Zealotry disguised as "journalism".

Your politics is your religion.

That said, your self promotion does not belong in this forum, Larry.

Your "news" is bunk.

It is an opinion piece published two years ago this week.

I think it is pretty prescient.

[LarryBnDC]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/politics/ginni-clarence-thomas-supreme-court-recusal/index.html

Recent revelations about the political activism Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, have renewed scrutiny about how the Supreme Court approaches questions of potential conflicts of interest with the cases that the justices are reviewing.

Supreme Court justices make their own determination as to whether they have a personal or financial conflict that would require them to recuse from a case before them.
Thomas' refusal to recuse in various cases linked to causes for which his wife has advocated has prompted criticism from court ethical experts and his critics on the left. His defenders, however, argue that Ginni Thomas, who runs a political consulting firm, has a right to political speech and that none of her conduct amounts to the types of ethical issues that would require recusal. Ginni Thomas' views about the House January 6 committee -- and her connections to some of the figures being examined by that probe and by the Justice Department -- has kicked up another round of consternation, as has a scathing look at her work's connection to the cases before the Supreme Court published by The New Yorker last month.

So, would it be "legitimate public discourse" to attack and destroy the Thomas house?

No

[Holly Martins]

So, would it be "legitimate public discourse" to attack and destroy the Thomas house?

No.  What sane person thinks it would?  Interesting I had just exampled Thomas in my previous post a minute before yours. 

[REDSTATEWARD]

I always like such dismissive evasions.

Indisputable that from 1789 to 1980 only white males were considered for SCOTUS.

Then in 1980 Reagan promised to pick a (white) female, and did in 1981.
Then back to the GOP picking white males only, until Thurgood Marhshall died, and another black male was purposely chosen.   So from 1789 to 1991, all nominees were selected on the basis of race and gender.

Since then the GOP mostly selects white males and the DEMs females of various ethnicity.

The cautionary tale is Clarence Thomas.  Offered as a replacement to Marshall, but then became a silent lapdog for Scalia with very obvious RW attitudes.  And his wife's loyalty purge activities for Trumpists and other shenanigans cast a shadow on his judicial impartiality.  Picking on the basis of visible markers only makes sense when the marker correlates with bringing a perspective the Court is lacking. 

The current candidate who went to a state U and grew up in a SPF more embodies the fresh perspective.

What perspective is that?  Certainly Judge Childs has a  public university education  and private practice history that would be a counterbalance to the current Ivy Leaguers on the Court.  Ah, but progressive democrats beg to differ.

Union interests complain she is anti worker
Their complaints can be found in the Washington Post claimingJudge Childs is anti union  because she has represented management, implying an aversion to worker rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/02/02/supreme-court-labor-biden/

The Association of Flight Attendants contend for far too long, the Supreme Court has been dominated by pro-corporate justices.
The progressives come down on the side of nominating only those who have spent their career in government, academia, or promoting left-wing causes.

Criticizing SCOTUS Nominees is a specialty of the left with  iinsane libels thrown at Clarence Thomas, Bret Cavanaugh  and Amy Coney Barrett. Further back dems, led by Biden, ruined the Appeals Court chances of a Black Woman just to keep her off SCOTUS.

Amazing that Biden has bipartisan support to fill the vacancy but his own party appears to want a fight.
Wonder what Joe Manchin must be thinking.

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/05/politics/trump-pardon-us-capitol/index.html

Trump continues his witness tampering, while equally failing to come through with real aid for the Jan 6 convicted and accused individuals.

[josh]

Speaking of Trumpian insanity, have you seen the Melania Trump $1 bills?!

https://1776society.proudpatriots.com/squeeze-page1643657806640

The sellers insist that it is legal tender. I cannot speak to that, but I can tell you it is beyond absurd that people will pay for such a thing.