Print

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

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[oilcan]

Wapo has a good piece on the trolls of saint pete, and the popularity they often achieved on the net here.  I like the tweet from one such, who was known as politeMelanie...

“Criticizing Trump in a book is just unfair. It’s like criticizing the Amish on television.”     

  Russian trolls can be surprisingly subtle, and often fun to read  by Darren Linvill and Patrick Warren. (Post, 3-9-2019)


Federalism - 28 words in article 10.  Done.

[josh]

Squirrel!!

Odds and Ends


Hudson Yards,  an expansive real estate development is about to open in Manhattan. Seven floors of retail are occupied by Fendi, Dior, Neiman Marcus and other high-end shops. Major corporations, including WarnerMedia and L’Oreal USA, will have their headquarters there. In the luxury residential buildings, one-bedroom apartments will rent for at least $5,200 a month — or you can buy a two-floor penthouse condo for $32 million.
All thanks to the help of taxpayers to the tune of $ 6 Billion dollars, doubt the amount promised Amazon.
Where is AOC on this one?  Crickets

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was mulling a second complaint against the Cake artist who won a SCOTUS case that his religious beliefs were ignored in refusing to design a cake for a same-sex marriage, one of the last opinions of Anthony Kennedy.
This second case was on his refusal to create a cake for a “transition ceremony” for a lawyer who was changing his gender identity to female. This lawyer had deliberately placed his cake order after the original case was well-known, for the express purpose of bringing further litigation that would have ruined the baker’s business.

Turns out  a transcript from a commission meeting less than three weeks after Kennedy’s ruling shows the Commissioners  still have a clear animus against Phillips and other Christians, whose religion they still find “despicable."

This month the second complaint was dismissed by the Commission.
They are religious bigots but not stupid.

Hudson Yards was originally where a ballpark was going to be built - after that got blocked, this multi-use facility was built instead. It started (and its tax breaks started) 10 years ago. Ocasio Cortez was 19 years old, roughly, and a college student in Boston. Pretty good chance that she had no awareness of those tax breaks at the time. The bulk of them are older, not newer, as I understand it.

LOL  6 Billion Dollars in tax breaks for million dollar condos, fancy apartments and overpriced retail stores.  Imagine the amount of carbon needed to be used in construction.  And AOC gives it a pass.

As for the decision to not accuse the baker, I think it was a good call, given the direction they were given from the bench in the last case.

As I said the bigots are not stupid.

On either side, in this instance.

But more often than not, the bigots are stupid. Bambi, for example.

[josh]

So-called Argument #1: "It is unconstitutional."

  But parts of it  are, without question.

So-called Argument #2: It "is ... a ... campaign tactic."

Absolutely

So-called Argument #3: "It’s isnothing more than the political rape of Federalism, denial of Free Speech, and a power grab allowing the federal government to politicize elections."

Absolutely squared.

Still not arguments. Just posturing. No support for your claims. Which are parts of it unconstitutional, for example, and why?

Something can be a campaign tactic that one still wishes to have passed. It also has a far better chance of passing than, for example, the 60+ times the GOP tried to undo ACA. There is a reason that McConnell is planning on not allowing the Senate version of HR1 to come to a vote.

And, again, "absolutely squared" is no more of an argument than the flat statements you started with.

So, DimBulb, where are these many ("quite a few") arguments you claim to have made. I still see none.

[josh]

Just saying, a fundamental principle of making a persuasive argument is that your listeners have some idea what you're talking about.

Might help if you knew the Definition of Federalism.

Might help if you understood what rape is from other than the practitioner's side.

[REDSTATEWARD]

It's like I'm psychic!  Somehow I knew Red would just post an insult instead of elucidating how federalism is being raped. 

Everyone here knows what federalism* is, fuckhead.  The challenge was to demonstrate how HR 1 would rape it. 

* I'll bet even Bambi knows how to use Google search.

Then you are oblivious to HR 1.
It would usurp the authority of the States to run their elections and determine the eligibility of voters.
(in such matters as felons reacquiring the right to vote-see the 14th amendment)
It further sets up a three judge federal court to carry out redistricting in direct violation of Article III and the Tenth Amendment.
It requires political organizations to reveal the names of donors opening the donors up to intimidation.
It would expand the definition of Lobbyist to include political counseling thereby controlling political speech.
It turns the Federal Election Commission into a partisan body to be controlled by the elected President's party.
It gives Congress the power to set a ' code of conduct" for SCOTUS Justices making a mockery of the Separation of Powers outlined in Article III.
HR 1 is a democrat campaign tactic that insults the country's bedrock principle of Federalism.

[josh]

It's like I'm psychic!  Somehow I knew Red would just post an insult instead of elucidating how federalism is being raped. 

Everyone here knows what federalism* is, fuckhead.  The challenge was to demonstrate how HR 1 would rape it. 

* I'll bet even Bambi knows how to use Google search.

Then you are oblivious to HR 1.
It would usurp the authority of the States to run their elections and determine the eligibility of voters.
(in such matters as felons reacquiring the right to vote-see the 14th amendment)
It further sets up a three judge federal court to carry out redistricting in direct violation of Article III and the Tenth Amendment.
It requires political organizations to reveal the names of donors opening the donors up to intimidation.
It would expand the definition of Lobbyist to include political counseling thereby controlling political speech.
It turns the Federal Election Commission into a partisan body to be controlled by the elected President's party.
It gives Congress the power to set a ' code of conduct" for SCOTUS Justices making a mockery of the Separation of Powers outlined in Article III.
HR 1 is a democrat campaign tactic that insults the country's bedrock principle of Federalism.

Oh, look!

He's finally getting close to making arguments!

Not accurate arguments, but arguments.

My response here is not a counter argument, just some declarations of opinion. Arguments later, perhaps.

[josh]

[josh]

The GOP, hard at work in West Virginia.

[josh]

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Governments-Surveillance-of-Journalists-Reminds-Media-Expert-of-60s-506860451.html

[oilcan]

It's like I'm psychic!  Somehow I knew Red would just post an insult instead of elucidating how federalism is being raped. 

Everyone here knows what federalism* is, fuckhead.  The challenge was to demonstrate how HR 1 would rape it. 

* I'll bet even Bambi knows how to use Google search.

Then you are oblivious to HR 1.
It would usurp the authority of the States to run their elections and determine the eligibility of voters.
(in such matters as felons reacquiring the right to vote-see the 14th amendment)
It further sets up a three judge federal court to carry out redistricting in direct violation of Article III and the Tenth Amendment.
It requires political organizations to reveal the names of donors opening the donors up to intimidation.
It would expand the definition of Lobbyist to include political counseling thereby controlling political speech.
It turns the Federal Election Commission into a partisan body to be controlled by the elected President's party.
It gives Congress the power to set a ' code of conduct" for SCOTUS Justices making a mockery of the Separation of Powers outlined in Article III.
HR 1 is a democrat campaign tactic that insults the country's bedrock principle of Federalism.

"Article III" - ya mean this one??

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

To quote a frequent poster here:  "Huh?"

Nor do you make clear how article X, that 28 word summation of Federalism, would forbid fair districting presided over by the federal government, given that three other amendments all specify that Congress has the right to make laws to secure a fair and equitable voting process.  As you may have noticed (?), House seats are FEDERAL offices. 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And you yourself cite the 14th amendment on the matter of felons having the right to vote.  I think those dots aren't all that hard to connect, right? 

Again, "huh?" 

[bambu-wisdom]

bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person; More

#####

Who, like lots of misguided leftists and lots of misguided feminists in the world today?

[josh]

bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person; More

#####

Who, like lots of misguided leftists and lots of misguided feminists in the world today?

There is no single word for the inability to see clearly enough to accept one's own prejudice and bigotry, Bambi, or your picture and Piggy's would be next to it in the dictionary.

But here's an image that captures one aspect of you perfectly!

[kiidcarter8]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

[josh]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.

[bambu-wisdom]

Mrs bambu attended a Christian church service in America the other day.
Not sure if the church had absolute security to protect the congregation from being massacred, but she survived ok.

She's flying around America from north to south and east to west...seemingly in the same type of jet as the one that just crashed in Ethiopia killing all 149 passengers of many different nationalities.
Boeing 737....new plane, same type as the other one that crashed recently in Asia.
The radio news said that this type of plane is being used in USA.
I looked at her flight schedule, and sure enough it reads "Boeing 737"
New planes, and they're falling out of the sky.
What is going on?
How is this being allowed to happen?

If I were US President I would be grounding all these planes flying in America immediately.
Not being US President, my only option is prayer..... "A wing and a prayer" is not how I prefer my sweetheart to be flying around America.
They're new Boeing planes, not WW2 relics!

American passengers were on that plane in Ethiopa.