Skip to main content

@irwin posted:

The President went to the border wall (paid for by Mexico...NOT) yesterday in Yuma, Arizona, which is around 1.5 hours south of Phoenix by car, IIRC.  It was 111 degrees in Phoenix yesterday.  The President and the other males in his entourage, other than a military guy dressed in fatigues, all wore suits and ties, or at least a sports coat and tie. Almost none of them wore a hat. Almost none had sunglasses.

Not sure how long they were out in the heat. I'd be outside in a jacket and tie for about 5 seconds in that kind of heat and sun and would collapse.

I've always thought that the state motto of Arizona should be "It's a dry heat."

 

Who cares about them? How about no masks and jamming people into one his "daddy needs some love" rallies?

@wine+art posted:

He is such a pig, but I feel poorly putting pigs into this deplorable mindset. 

If you do not standup and disapprove of any racist, you are a racist, period. 

Agree.  Pig is not the best comparison.  I like pigs, actually.  They are smart, curious and very tasty. <some guilt here, fwiw...>

Let's call a spade a spade shall we?  He's a Nazi, just like his daddy.  If tRump was around in the 30s, is there ANY doubt about who he would support?  He babbles platitudes about Israel, but inherently dislikes Jews.  Flush the turd on November 3rd.  Enough is enough.

PH

To no one’s surprise that lives with their own head not up their own ass, ( see the empty suit) collaborative informative starting to pour in from multiple sources that the orange dump did indeed receive intel on exactly what Russia was doing and their bounties. 

Not to defend the obese orange POS, but he does have the attention span of a two year old on his best day.

Putin and his poodle... 

Last edited by wine+art

Today the S. Ct. reversed an appellate opinion. The S. Ct. held a Louisiana law which had severe restrictions on the practice of gynecology and the performance of abortions unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence, joining the liberals. Roberts noted that in 2016 the S. Ct. held a similar law unconstitutional. That law was enacted in Texas. He noted that he was in the minority in that case, but, based on the doctrine of Stare Decisis, he joined the majority here, saying that the law does not permit going back and forth as to what is constitutional based on who appointed the justices. Stare Decisis, he said, has meaning.

 Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, who said during their hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee that they believed in stare decisis, voted to overturn the 2016 S. Ct. case. 

 So, one must conclude either:

 1) Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or

2) Despite their Catholic school and law school educations, they don’t understand Latin.

 

@irwin posted:

Today the S. Ct. reversed an appellate opinion. The S. Ct. held a Louisiana law which had severe restrictions on the practice of gynecology and the performance of abortions unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence, joining the liberals. Roberts noted that in 2016 the S. Ct. held a similar law unconstitutional. That law was enacted in Texas. He noted that he was in the minority in that case, but, based on the doctrine of Stare Decisis, he joined the majority here, saying that the law does not permit going back and forth as to what is constitutional based on who appointed the justices. Stare Decisis, he said, has meaning.

 Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, who said during their hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee that they believed in stare decisis, voted to overturn the 2016 S. Ct. case. 

 So, one must conclude either:

 1) Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or

2) Despite their Catholic school and law school educations, they don’t understand Latin.

 

The obvious answer is, #1, but we knew that prior to today. 🤔

@irwin posted:

Today the S. Ct. reversed an appellate opinion. The S. Ct. held a Louisiana law which had severe restrictions on the practice of gynecology and the performance of abortions unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence, joining the liberals. Roberts noted that in 2016 the S. Ct. held a similar law unconstitutional. That law was enacted in Texas. He noted that he was in the minority in that case, but, based on the doctrine of Stare Decisis, he joined the majority here, saying that the law does not permit going back and forth as to what is constitutional based on who appointed the justices. Stare Decisis, he said, has meaning.

 Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, who said during their hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee that they believed in stare decisis, voted to overturn the 2016 S. Ct. case. 

 So, one must conclude either:

 1) Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or

2) Despite their Catholic school and law school educations, they don’t understand Latin.

 

W’s finest achievement in office might have been getting Roberts on the court. Brilliant jurist, almost entirely dispassionate. Thank god he is young.  Will be influencing the court’s rulings for many years to come. 

I had some hope for Kavannagh.  That is pretty much gone. 

Last edited by csm
@irwin posted:

Today the S. Ct. reversed an appellate opinion. The S. Ct. held a Louisiana law which had severe restrictions on the practice of gynecology and the performance of abortions unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurrence, joining the liberals. Roberts noted that in 2016 the S. Ct. held a similar law unconstitutional. That law was enacted in Texas. He noted that he was in the minority in that case, but, based on the doctrine of Stare Decisis, he joined the majority here, saying that the law does not permit going back and forth as to what is constitutional based on who appointed the justices. Stare Decisis, he said, has meaning.

 Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, who said during their hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee that they believed in stare decisis, voted to overturn the 2016 S. Ct. case. 

 So, one must conclude either:

 1) Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or

2) Despite their Catholic school and law school educations, they don’t understand Latin.

 

3)  how can stare decisis apply if the precedent ruling was incorrect in the first place? =)

imagine if Korematsu v. United States was still deemed valid.

Of course, cases can be overturned.   When an issue is decided it can be changed but only if the change is warranted due to changes circumstances and upon great consideration.  

The classic example is that Plessy v Ferguson (1896) said that “separate but equal” was permissible while “Brown v Board of Education (1954) said it was not.  A complete reversal. But many years occurred between the cases and Brown was a unanimous decision. 

For the court to flip the law after only 4 years, and go from a 5-4 decision to a 5-4 decision the other way would be political, not because of a true change in external circumstances. 

Korematsu (1944) was as odious a decision as the Court has issued in the last 100 years, and Chief Justice Roberts said in an opinion a few years ago that it has been explicitly repudiated.  The dissent in Korematsu said that the treatment of Japanese citizens "falls into the ugly abyss of racism" and resembled "the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy."  

Last edited by irwin
@csm posted:

 

No, based on his judicial record and several of the decisions I've read.  I don't have the first clue what you're talking about. 

"What goes around comes around"

Sure sounds like a loosely veiled threat. But you still also don't accept that Trump has difficulty calling out white nationalists and racists in general (actually anyone who likes him no matter how despicable they are okey dokey with him.) As a few of us have said--if at this point you don't know the president is a racist and a bigot it must be because you're one yourself. You do know that he's a racist and a bigot don't you?

Last edited by The Old Man

I don’t know why I bother with you. You are the king of the logically fallacy.

I’m not talking about Trump.  Never said a word about him here. I never said that Trump has an issue calling out racists and white nationalists. Never once in this context or in any context. 

As usual you play fast and lose with people actually said, both Kavannagh and me.  What Kavannagh said is that the concerted, intense and politically-motivated campaign to deny him the confirmation to the Supreme Court, would come back to harm the Dems politically and would come bite them.  Especially in light of the political climate of the 2000s.  He was not making a threat, thinly veiled or otherwise, to exact retribution on his enemies from the bench.  

And if you think I’m a racist, say it. And prove it.  Don’t pussyfoot around the issue. Get a spine and say it.  The passive aggressive implications are weak.  

Last edited by csm
@csm posted:

I don’t know why I bother with you. You are the king of the logically fallacy.

I’m not talking about Trump.  Never said a word about him here. I never said that Trump has an issue calling out racists and white nationalists. Never once in this context or in any context. 

As usual you play fast and lose with people actually said, both Kavannagh and me.  What Kavannagh said is that the concerted, intense and politically-motivated campaign to deny him the confirmation to the Supreme Court, would come back to harm the Dems politically and would come bite them.  Especially in light of the political climate of the 2000s.  He was not making a threat, thinly veiled or otherwise, to exact retribution on his enemies from the bench.  

And if you think I’m a racist, say it. And prove it.  Don’t pussyfoot around the issue. Get a spine and say it.  The passive aggressive implications are weak.  

Re: Kavanaugh, since he clearly lied when asked in his confirmation hearing about abortion and respecting current law, I don't think there will be any political backlash for those that opposed his confirmation.   Let's not forget the clown show he himself put on, with his whining, BS excuses, and fake indignation. 

@csm posted:

I’m not talking about Trump.  Never said a word about him here. I never said that Trump has an issue calling out racists and white nationalists. Never once in this context or in any context. 

--"He never once said the Nazi pigs there were fine people. There is nothing to excuse." We already went around on this. If you're marching with Nazis you're not a good person.--

As usual you play fast and lose with people actually said, both Kavannagh and me.  What Kavannagh said is that the concerted, intense and politically-motivated campaign to deny him the confirmation to the Supreme Court, would come back to harm the Dems politically and would come bite them.  Especially in light of the political climate of the 2000s.  He was not making a threat, thinly veiled or otherwise, to exact retribution on his enemies from the bench.

--He bizarrely talked about it being, "Revenge on behalf of the Clintons." Talk about being unhinged, and then made a clear threat as I quoted and you can watch. I'm quoting, you're prevaricating.--

And if you think I’m a racist, say it. And prove it.  Don’t pussyfoot around the issue. Get a spine and say it.  The passive aggressive implications are weak.  

I do not know you and I do not know if you are a racist so therefore I wouldn't call you one. However I absolutely believe if a person does not see the president for what he is, a racist and a bigot, then they must be a racist and a bigot themselves. Only you can answer that.

Last edited by The Old Man
@billhike posted:

Does the same go for admiring the work of directors who force themselves on 13 year old girls?

Alright Grover. I've addressed that issue before. However I'm sure you don't believe that a movie director is as powerful, or as important, as the President of the United States. I'm sure you don't believe that my enjoying the movie "Chinatown" is more harmful than the damage the supporters of our racist, sexist and bigoted president is doing to our country. In addition I acknowledge the wrongs that Roman Polanski did, while you know the defenders and enablers of the demagogue in the White House would never do anything close to that.

Last edited by The Old Man
@billhike posted:

I’m just curious if you held yourself to the same standards as others on the forum you pose questions to. 

I hope I answered your question even if it was a classic example of false equivalence. ie, I do see, and do not deny, that he raped a minor ( I do not sugarcoat it as "forced himself.") I do not admire him as a person nor defend his transgressions. You see the difference, right?

Last edited by The Old Man
@patespo1 posted:

Re: Kavanaugh, since he clearly lied when asked in his confirmation hearing about abortion and respecting current law, I don't think there will be any political backlash for those that opposed his confirmation.   Let's not forget the clown show he himself put on, with his whining, BS excuses, and fake indignation. 

Nor do I. I was merely explaining the point he was making.  It wasn’t a threat to exact revenge. 

And may I point out again that I had hope for Kavannagh that he was cut at least somewhat from Roberts’ cloth and could render decisions based solely on the law.  That hope now is gone. 

@The Old Man posted:

I do not know you and I do not know if you are a racist so therefore I wouldn't call you one. However I absolutely believe if a person does not see the president for what he is, a racist and a bigot, then they must be a racist and a bigot themselves. Only you can answer that.

You’re quoting one sentence of a 4+ paragraph commentary from Kavannagh because it suits your preconceived notions. And no you didn’t call me racist. You just passive aggressively imply it.   Facts and logical thinking are not your strong suit are they?

All I said about Trump’s comments regarding Charlottesville was that after listening to the whole speech and reading his exact comments I didn’t think that he actually called the neo Nazis that were there fine people.  That’s it; however, you again engaged in logical fallacies though to attribute to me a comment I didn’t actually make to suit your reality. Stick to the facts. And the truth. If you’re able.  I’m honestly not sure that you are. 

Last edited by csm
@csm posted:

You’re quoting one sentence of a 4+ paragraph commentary from Kavannagh because it suits your preconceived notions.

--Egads, I guess you got me. I only quoted the part which proved my point (and which you didn't refute.) I didn't quote the parts about him drinking beer or anything else because it wasn't on point. Facts just aren't your strong point are they?--

And no you didn’t call me racist. You just passive aggressively imply it.

--BS, perhaps you could stop playing junior psychiatrist and just answer a simple yes or no question and perhaps I'll know what to call you: Is Trump a racist and a bigot? Hint: Kong Flu (I've got about 100 other examples if you have trouble thinking logically on this question.)--

All I said about Trump’s comments regarding Charlottesville was that after listening to the whole speech and reading his exact comments I didn’t think that he actually called the neo Nazis that were there fine people. 

--Oy vey, as I said, we've already discussed this. He said there were "fine people on both sides." One side was neo-Nazis flying swastikas and wearing Nazi regalia. Those certainly are not fine people However, If you were a person with a good cause and you went to a parade and found that you were marching with White Supremacists chanting, "Jews will not replace us" and you continued to march, no, I don't think you're a fine person either.--

 ...you again engaged in logical fallacies...

I don't think you know what the phrase "logical fallacies" means. Perhaps you can give me an actual example of one I used as opposed to just claiming I did. Be specific, is it a "strawman" or "argument from authority" or "Tu quoque" or what? Hey, even a good old non sequitur.

Last edited by The Old Man

TOM your quote proved nothing.   Other than you lack the intellectual capacity to focus for 4-5 paragraphs and reach your own conclusions. You simply parrot back the conclusions of some people that have a shorter attention span than you.  

I’m not going to parse the Charlottesville speech.  Anyone that wants to can look at it and reach their own conclusions and I suspect they will reach the same ones I did. The one sentence needs context to be considered properly. You lack the attention span to spend 3 minutesreaching your own conclusions. I never said the neo-nazis POSs that were there were fine people.  Nor did the president.  My entire extended family is Jewish.  I know you are intellectually limited, but do you honestly think a man that chooses to marry into a Jewish family would have anything positive to say about a neo-Nazi?  Or someone that supported neo-Nazis?  Honestly?  

As for Trump, now that you have grown the stones to ask, I don’t know the man, but I think there is overwhelming evidence thar he is bigoted, prejudiced and racist.  If I was allowed to vote in the coming election, I wouldn’t.   Because Trump is a POS and because Biden is an old fool, well past his prime. Assuming he had one. I would hold my nose and hope for better candidates to emerge in 2024. 

I know full well what logical fallacies means. You have engaged in ad popularum, ad hominem, red herring and straw man in “debating” me.  Entirely unsuccessfully. 

You are not worth my time. You’re too stupid and too prejudiced.  

 

Last edited by csm

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×