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]

I posted this in 2016.



It's only 6-3 because Breyer stayed on until Biden got elected (and a while longer). It should have been 5-4.

[josh]

And with Alito's ill-informed and ill-advised endorsement of Hale's ideology and the bogus "if it wasn't traditional throughout our history, the Constitution cannot include it in unenumerated rights," this, from 2014, is at risk:

[FlyingVProd]

Nevada is one of the top states for Italians...

https://www.niaf.org/news/italian-american-statistics/

And one third of the people in Nevada were born outside of the USA.

Nevada would support making our immigrants legal, as Reagan did when he was President, so that they can join labor unions, and so that they can call the police in the case of an emergency, etc. We need to make our people legal, and we need to fix our immigration law so that we have a Good Neighbor policy.

California would also benefit from making our immigrants legal and having a Good Neighbor policy.

And we need to build lots of housing in cheap places such as Battle Mountain, we can do praiseworthy custom high density apartments like in Santorini, Greece, in Battle Mountain, with swimming pools and tennis courts, etc.

And the Italian-Americans in Vegas might still have connections with the financial people in New York, and they can build housing like crazy.

Also of note is that HUD and the SBA are both trying to get minorities to get into the industry of building housing. And we have Habitat for Humanity, etc.

Salute,

Tony V.

[Hairy Lime]

There is now a third leak on the same opinion, this one to the NYT from a described conservative source.

I asked about your assertion of a leak to the WSJ. How was it reported?

"I guess you do not keep up on the news."

Aha.
It was not.
Unless you are referring to the April 26th essay on the Editorial Page.
That was not a leak.

LOL. You will swallow anything your right wing faux outrage machine feed you. The essay was clearly based on a leak. That the RWFOM prefers not to acknowledge the obvious fact does not change facts.

Congratulations on your successful Google.

[Hairy Lime]

And with Alito's ill-informed and ill-advised endorsement of Hale's ideology and the bogus "if it wasn't traditional throughout our history, the Constitution cannot include it in unenumerated rights," this, from 2014, is at risk:

Right. Not just Oberkfell but Loving is at risk under the leaked draft. And Lawrence v. Texas. All protecting rights not traditional in society.

[Espnthree]

There is now a third leak on the same opinion, this one to the NYT from a described conservative source.

I asked about your assertion of a leak to the WSJ. How was it reported?

"I guess you do not keep up on the news."

Aha.
It was not.
Unless you are referring to the April 26th essay on the Editorial Page.
That was not a leak.

LOL. You will swallow anything your right wing faux outrage machine feed you. The essay was clearly based on a leak. That the RWFOM prefers not to acknowledge the obvious fact does not change facts.

Congratulations on your successful Google.

I subscribe to the WSJ
The article is in my archives
It was not a leak anywhere close to the leaked opinion.
If it was it would have been published by the News Department, not confined to the Editirial Page.
The leaked opinion came the following week directly to Politico.
Those are the facts.

[Espnthree]

And with Alito's ill-informed and ill-advised endorsement of Hale's ideology and the bogus "if it wasn't traditional throughout our history, the Constitution cannot include it in unenumerated rights," this, from 2014, is at risk:

Right. Not just Oberkfell but Loving is at risk under the leaked draft. And Lawrence v. Texas. All protecting rights not traditional in society.

Baloney.
Contraception, same sex and interracial marriage will never be taken away. Even if SCOTUS is taken over by aliens the states will never act.  Millions of lives have adapted to those decisions as a prescient Judge Piazza reminded us while overruling a ban on gay marriage.
The difference with abortion is the country, in 50 years, has never reached a consensus.

[LarryBnDC]

And with Alito's ill-informed and ill-advised endorsement of Hale's ideology and the bogus "if it wasn't traditional throughout our history, the Constitution cannot include it in unenumerated rights," this, from 2014, is at risk:

Right. Not just Oberkfell but Loving is at risk under the leaked draft. And Lawrence v. Texas. All protecting rights not traditional in society.

We have been screaming about this since Shelby County.

Majority of White Women are gonna have to decide if more important to be under white patriarchy or to be a part of a multiethnic, multicultural, multi gender society where they are gonna have a whole lot OF say.

[Hairy Lime]

There is now a third leak on the same opinion, this one to the NYT from a described conservative source.

I asked about your assertion of a leak to the WSJ. How was it reported?

"I guess you do not keep up on the news."

Aha.
It was not.
Unless you are referring to the April 26th essay on the Editorial Page.
That was not a leak.

LOL. You will swallow anything your right wing faux outrage machine feed you. The essay was clearly based on a leak. That the RWFOM prefers not to acknowledge the obvious fact does not change facts.

Congratulations on your successful Google.

I subscribe to the WSJ
The article is in my archives
It was not a leak anywhere close to the leaked opinion.
If it was it would have been published by the News Department, not confined to the Editirial Page.
The leaked opinion came the following week directly to Politico.
Those are the facts.

LOL. The essay was based on a leak. Or do you think the WSJ made up information that was, per the draft opinion, accurate regarding the internal debates? Just lucky?

Your inability to think outside the parameters dictated by you RWFOM masters is, as always, noted.

[Hairy Lime]

And with Alito's ill-informed and ill-advised endorsement of Hale's ideology and the bogus "if it wasn't traditional throughout our history, the Constitution cannot include it in unenumerated rights," this, from 2014, is at risk:

Right. Not just Oberkfell but Loving is at risk under the leaked draft. And Lawrence v. Texas. All protecting rights not traditional in society.

Baloney.
Contraception, same sex and interracial marriage will never be taken away. Even if SCOTUS is taken over by aliens the states will never act.  Millions of lives have adapted to those decisions as a prescient Judge Piazza reminded us while overruling a ban on gay marriage.
The difference with abortion is the country, in 50 years, has never reached a consensus.

I guess you do not keep up on the news.

And yes, by any definition of consensus, there has been one on Roe for years. Just because the right has spent decades being unable to "live with outcomes [they] do not agree with" does not mean society has not reached a consensus on the issue.

[FlyingVProd]

Kirk Douglas and John Wayne had totally different political views, but they were able to work together, and they were friends, and they both loved America.

There is only one thing that we ALL need to agree on, and that is that ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL and we all have the same rights. And you cannot force your beliefs on other people. We have a right to our own beliefs.

Salute,

Tony V.

[Espnthree]

And with Alito's ill-informed and ill-advised endorsement of Hale's ideology and the bogus "if it wasn't traditional throughout our history, the Constitution cannot include it in unenumerated rights," this, from 2014, is at risk:

Right. Not just Oberkfell but Loving is at risk under the leaked draft. And Lawrence v. Texas. All protecting rights not traditional in society.

Baloney.
Contraception, same sex and interracial marriage will never be taken away. Even if SCOTUS is taken over by aliens the states will never act.  Millions of lives have adapted to those decisions as a prescient Judge Piazza reminded us while overruling a ban on gay marriage.
The difference with abortion is the country, in 50 years, has never reached a consensus.

I guess you do not keep up on the news.

And yes, by any definition of consensus, there has been one on Roe for years. Just because the right has spent decades being unable to "live with outcomes [they] do not agree with" does not mean society has not reached a consensus on the issue.

LOL
ROFL!
There are 50 different state laws on abortion.
There would be more if we had more states.

But no matter what state you and your wife ( or significant other) are in there are no restrictions to contraceptives nor denial of same sex or interracial marriage.
If SCOTUS nixes Roe it is only saying that abortion is not a Constitutionally protected right unless voters say it is, state-by-state.

[Espnthree]

There is now a third leak on the same opinion, this one to the NYT from a described conservative source.

I asked about your assertion of a leak to the WSJ. How was it reported?

"I guess you do not keep up on the news."

Aha.
It was not.
Unless you are referring to the April 26th essay on the Editorial Page.
That was not a leak.

LOL. You will swallow anything your right wing faux outrage machine feed you. The essay was clearly based on a leak. That the RWFOM prefers not to acknowledge the obvious fact does not change facts.

Congratulations on your successful Google.

I subscribe to the WSJ
The article is in my archives
It was not a leak anywhere close to the leaked opinion.
If it was it would have been published by the News Department, not confined to the Editirial Page.
The leaked opinion came the following week directly to Politico.
Those are the facts.

LOL. The essay was based on a leak. Or do you think the WSJ made up information that was, per the draft opinion, accurate regarding the internal debates? Just lucky?

Your inability to think outside the parameters dictated by you RWFOM masters is, as always, noted.

The WSJ had absolutely no information taken from the draft opinion leaked a week later.
Obviously.
Their essay was speculative.
You must not have read it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/abortion-and-the-supreme-court-dobbs-v-jackson-mississippi-john-roberts-11651009292

[Hairy Lime]

And with Alito's ill-informed and ill-advised endorsement of Hale's ideology and the bogus "if it wasn't traditional throughout our history, the Constitution cannot include it in unenumerated rights," this, from 2014, is at risk:

Right. Not just Oberkfell but Loving is at risk under the leaked draft. And Lawrence v. Texas. All protecting rights not traditional in society.

Baloney.
Contraception, same sex and interracial marriage will never be taken away. Even if SCOTUS is taken over by aliens the states will never act.  Millions of lives have adapted to those decisions as a prescient Judge Piazza reminded us while overruling a ban on gay marriage.
The difference with abortion is the country, in 50 years, has never reached a consensus.

I guess you do not keep up on the news.

And yes, by any definition of consensus, there has been one on Roe for years. Just because the right has spent decades being unable to "live with outcomes [they] do not agree with" does not mean society has not reached a consensus on the issue.

LOL
ROFL!
There are 50 different state laws on abortion.
There would be more if we had more states.

But no matter what state you and your wife ( or significant other) are in there are no restrictions to contraceptives nor denial of same sex or interracial marriage.
If SCOTUS nixes Roe it is only saying that abortion is not a Constitutionally protected right unless voters say it is, state-by-state.

For a self proclaimed expert on the Constitution you are blindingly ignorant on what a Constitutionally protected right is. Even a 10th grader should recognize the inherent contradiction and idiocy a statement like "abortion is not a Constitutionally protected right unless voters say it is, state-by-state" is.

There were 50 state laws on contraception... until Griswold. There were 50 state laws on interracial marriage... until Loving. There were 50 state laws on sodomy... until Lawrence.  There were 50 state laws on marriage equality... until Oberkfell.  If you do not reckognize that all of those rights, especially the last two, will be under attack in the wake of overturning Roe, you are not paying attention.

[Hairy Lime]

There is now a third leak on the same opinion, this one to the NYT from a described conservative source.

I asked about your assertion of a leak to the WSJ. How was it reported?

"I guess you do not keep up on the news."

Aha.
It was not.
Unless you are referring to the April 26th essay on the Editorial Page.
That was not a leak.

LOL. You will swallow anything your right wing faux outrage machine feed you. The essay was clearly based on a leak. That the RWFOM prefers not to acknowledge the obvious fact does not change facts.

Congratulations on your successful Google.

I subscribe to the WSJ
The article is in my archives
It was not a leak anywhere close to the leaked opinion.
If it was it would have been published by the News Department, not confined to the Editirial Page.
The leaked opinion came the following week directly to Politico.
Those are the facts.

LOL. The essay was based on a leak. Or do you think the WSJ made up information that was, per the draft opinion, accurate regarding the internal debates? Just lucky?

Your inability to think outside the parameters dictated by you RWFOM masters is, as always, noted.

The WSJ had absolutely no information taken from the draft opinion leaked a week later.
Obviously.
Their essay was speculative.
You must not have read it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/abortion-and-the-supreme-court-dobbs-v-jackson-mississippi-john-roberts-11651009292

You must not be able to reason, or interpret what you read.