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

[josh]

https://wjla.com/news/local/supreme-court-rules-bladensburg-peace-cross-stand-public-land

The Cross can stand, 7-2.

Atheists not faring well this SCOTUS term.

Constitutionalists not faring well on that issue with this SCOTUS ever. The argument that it's an old monument, so we no longer care if it promotes a religion, is pretty specious, IMO, but the ruling was not a surprise.

A better argument would be that its primary purpose was to commemorate valor, rather than establish one religion as favored.   In this case, I can see both sides, but have a hard time really seeing this particular monument as an affront to the Establishment Clause.   If you put it up NOW, of course, it would be an affront to the EC.   The really specious argument in all this is that rejecting a cross is an attack on Christianity - I know Alito believes that, but I have to wonder if he's going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol.  That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy.

Nobody is arguing about primary purpose. "In God We Trust" is not intended primarily to establish religion. The Chaplains in Congress are not intended primarily to establish religion, even as the majority resists tooth and nail having a non-Christian chaplain or even a visiting person running a convocation, at times.

I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort.

[josh]

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1141768741203718146?s=21

“President” Trump said in the most recent Time interview that he thinks he doesn’t need to appeal outside of his base, the 40% that support his reelect, to win in 2020.  Outside of that being I think an extremely problematic position for a sitting President to take (“I don’t need to concern myself with 60% of the country I govern”) I’m also pretty sure this is false, born of his living in a bubble of his own internal polling.

Trump’s base almost surely no longer consists of the rust belt working class people who are blue on social spending but red on social issues, as after promising not to cut spending on social welfare programs and raise taxes on the wealthy, as “President” he has done the opposite.  Even if you voted for him because Immigration is your top concern, what has he done to actually address this signature issue of his outside of shutting down the government so that he can fail to build a wall?

In 2016 he got to 46% by tricking some Americans into thinking he wasn’t a typical Republican. Aside from proving that yes he is completely unqualified and ill-suited for the job, he’s also shown that particular part of his sales pitch to be a lie.  And without that broadening of his base of support, depending on rabid Trumpist turnout to get elected won’t (I think) do it for him.

Even if we know kiidcarter8 will be there for him, with bells on.

You need to stop
[/quote

Yeah!

Kiiid hates being accurately described in these posts.

[josh]

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://wjla.com/news/local/supreme-court-rules-bladensburg-peace-cross-stand-public-land

The Cross can stand, 7-2.

Atheists not faring well this SCOTUS term.

Constitutionalists not faring well on that issue with this SCOTUS ever. The argument that it's an old monument, so we no longer care if it promotes a religion, is pretty specious, IMO, but the ruling was not a surprise.

A better argument would be that its primary purpose was to commemorate valor, rather than establish one religion as favored.   In this case, I can see both sides, but have a hard time really seeing this particular monument as an affront to the Establishment Clause.   If you put it up NOW, of course, it would be an affront to the EC.   The really specious argument in all this is that rejecting a cross is an attack on Christianity - I know Alito believes that, but I have to wonder if he's going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol.  That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy.

Nobody is arguing about primary purpose. "In God We Trust" is not intended primarily to establish religion. The Chaplains in Congress are not intended primarily to establish religion, even as the majority resists tooth and nail having a non-Christian chaplain or even a visiting person running a convocation, at times.

I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort.

What’s the “ sort”you want.?

[josh]

https://news.avclub.com/groundbreaking-climate-change-discovery-made-by-sigh-1835625168?rev=1560888698894&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=Main&fbclid=IwAR2DIpCtO0XtZBPwBzUhRrla6qqjuUQLmQ6IOaDD6xIjtSDGzPKH_2G8bMk

The poor author is just so over the name of this submersible.

But... Boaty McBoatface clearly has won this round!

[josh]

https://wjla.com/news/local/supreme-court-rules-bladensburg-peace-cross-stand-public-land

The Cross can stand, 7-2.

Atheists not faring well this SCOTUS term.

Constitutionalists not faring well on that issue with this SCOTUS ever. The argument that it's an old monument, so we no longer care if it promotes a religion, is pretty specious, IMO, but the ruling was not a surprise.

A better argument would be that its primary purpose was to commemorate valor, rather than establish one religion as favored.   In this case, I can see both sides, but have a hard time really seeing this particular monument as an affront to the Establishment Clause.   If you put it up NOW, of course, it would be an affront to the EC.   The really specious argument in all this is that rejecting a cross is an attack on Christianity - I know Alito believes that, but I have to wonder if he's going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol.  That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy.

Nobody is arguing about primary purpose. "In God We Trust" is not intended primarily to establish religion. The Chaplains in Congress are not intended primarily to establish religion, even as the majority resists tooth and nail having a non-Christian chaplain or even a visiting person running a convocation, at times.

I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort.

What’s the “ sort”you want.?

Your density knows no bounds.

Barton wrote: "I have to wonder if (Alito's) going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol.  That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy."

I wrote: "I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort."

You wrote: "What’s the “ sort”you want.?" (sic)

The sort I want is the sort that Barton described, which I said I would love.

Caught up, yet?

[Yankguy1]

 Just because Red fancies himself an educator well-versed in the Socratic method, doesn't mean he's good at it.

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://wjla.com/news/local/supreme-court-rules-bladensburg-peace-cross-stand-public-land

The Cross can stand, 7-2.

Atheists not faring well this SCOTUS term.

Constitutionalists not faring well on that issue with this SCOTUS ever. The argument that it's an old monument, so we no longer care if it promotes a religion, is pretty specious, IMO, but the ruling was not a surprise.

A better argument would be that its primary purpose was to commemorate valor, rather than establish one religion as favored.   In this case, I can see both sides, but have a hard time really seeing this particular monument as an affront to the Establishment Clause.   If you put it up NOW, of course, it would be an affront to the EC.   The really specious argument in all this is that rejecting a cross is an attack on Christianity - I know Alito believes that, but I have to wonder if he's going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol.  That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy.

Nobody is arguing about primary purpose. "In God We Trust" is not intended primarily to establish religion. The Chaplains in Congress are not intended primarily to establish religion, even as the majority resists tooth and nail having a non-Christian chaplain or even a visiting person running a convocation, at times.

I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort.

What’s the “ sort”you want.?

Your density knows no bounds.

Barton wrote: "I have to wonder if (Alito's) going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol.  That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy."

I wrote: "I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort."

You wrote: "What’s the “ sort”you want.?" (sic)

The sort I want is the sort that Barton described, which I said I would love.

Caught up, yet?

No. Since you( nor Barton) have posed any Constitutional  question.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Just because Red fancies himself an educator well-versed in the Socratic method, doesn't mean he's good at it.

I don’t think you understand the Socratic method.

[LarryBnDC]

Just because Red fancies himself an educator well-versed in the Socratic method, doesn't mean he's good at it.

I don’t think you understand the Socratic method.

Hell, I know you don’t!

[josh]

https://wjla.com/news/local/supreme-court-rules-bladensburg-peace-cross-stand-public-land

The Cross can stand, 7-2.

Atheists not faring well this SCOTUS term.

Constitutionalists not faring well on that issue with this SCOTUS ever. The argument that it's an old monument, so we no longer care if it promotes a religion, is pretty specious, IMO, but the ruling was not a surprise.

A better argument would be that its primary purpose was to commemorate valor, rather than establish one religion as favored.   In this case, I can see both sides, but have a hard time really seeing this particular monument as an affront to the Establishment Clause.   If you put it up NOW, of course, it would be an affront to the EC.   The really specious argument in all this is that rejecting a cross is an attack on Christianity - I know Alito believes that, but I have to wonder if he's going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol.  That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy.

Nobody is arguing about primary purpose. "In God We Trust" is not intended primarily to establish religion. The Chaplains in Congress are not intended primarily to establish religion, even as the majority resists tooth and nail having a non-Christian chaplain or even a visiting person running a convocation, at times.

I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort.

What’s the “ sort”you want.?

Your density knows no bounds.

Barton wrote: "I have to wonder if (Alito's) going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol.  That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy."

I wrote: "I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort."

You wrote: "What’s the “ sort”you want.?" (sic)

The sort I want is the sort that Barton described, which I said I would love.

Caught up, yet?

No. Since you( nor Barton) have posed any Constitutional  question.

Dolt.

You haven't used an English language sentence. We didn't pose a question, per se, but we did pose a situation. You just don't seem to be able to grasp what it was.

[josh]

Your compassionate, humanitarian US government at work, just the way Kiiid and Ward think they should be. Not as harsh as Bambi-ignorance thinks they should be.

https://www.newsweek.com/migrant-children-border-trump-administration-1445090

The Trump administration went to court this week to argue that migrant children detained at the United States-Mexico border do not require basic hygiene products like soap and toothbrushes in order to be in held in "safe and sanitary" conditions. Trump's team also argued that requiring minors to sleep on cold concrete floors in crowded cells with low temperatures similarly fulfilled that requirement.

Arguing in a 9th district San Francisco court about the conditions that they must hold migrant children in, the administration said that they did not violate a precedent set by a landmark 1985 class action lawsuit which established guidelines for the way minors held in federal immigration detention must be treated. The case, Jenny Lisette Flores v. Edwin Meese, created rules around the timely release of migrant minors to their parents, and said that those not released must be kept in facilities that are "safe and sanitary."

But on Tuesday, the Justice Department's Sarah Fabian claimed that the ruling did not list specific requirements like "toothbrushes" or "towels," to establish a sanitary condition.

Safe and sanitary.

[Yankguy1]

Just because Red fancies himself an educator well-versed in the Socratic method, doesn't mean he's good at it.

I don’t think you understand the Socratic method.

I don't think you're an educator.

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://wjla.com/news/local/supreme-court-rules-bladensburg-peace-cross-stand-public-land

The Cross can stand, 7-2.

Atheists not faring well this SCOTUS term.

Constitutionalists not faring well on that issue with this SCOTUS ever. The argument that it's an old monument, so we no longer care if it promotes a religion, is pretty specious, IMO, but the ruling was not a surprise.

A better argument would be that its primary purpose was to commemorate valor, rather than establish one religion as favored.   In this case, I can see both sides, but have a hard time really seeing this particular monument as an affront to the Establishment Clause.   If you put it up NOW, of course, it would be an affront to the EC.   The really specious argument in all this is that rejecting a cross is an attack on Christianity - I know Alito believes that, but I have to wonder if he's going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol.  That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy.

Nobody is arguing about primary purpose. "In God We Trust" is not intended primarily to establish religion. The Chaplains in Congress are not intended primarily to establish religion, even as the majority resists tooth and nail having a non-Christian chaplain or even a visiting person running a convocation, at times.

I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort.

What’s the “ sort”you want.?

Your density knows no bounds.

Barton wrote: "I have to wonder if (Alito's) going to have a problem with taking down a memorial that has, say, a Muslim symbol.  That would be the test for lurking hypocrisy."

I wrote: "I would love the test, but I don't know that we will get one of quite that sort."

You wrote: "What’s the “ sort”you want.?" (sic)

The sort I want is the sort that Barton described, which I said I would love.

Caught up, yet?

No. Since you( nor Barton) have posed any Constitutional  question.

Dolt.

You haven't used an English language sentence. We didn't pose a question, per se, but we did pose a situation. You just don't seem to be able to grasp what it was.

That’s because you have yet  to pose one. 
You can run, but you cannot hide.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Just because Red fancies himself an educator well-versed in the Socratic method, doesn't mean he's good at it.

I don’t think you understand the Socratic method.

I don't think you're an educator.

Whatever that means.