Zguy28

42 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

Truth claim? I guess I didnt explain myself clearly enough. I claim no truth. IM not trying to reach group consensus or prove my definition is right. My definitions and thoughts are only right for me. I dont expect anyone to agree with me. i dont care if they do. How I feel or think is not universal, it is only how I personally think and feel. 

 

I went out of my way to explain that my definition is only my definition, and I dont think anyone else's is wrong and i dont expect anyone else to accept my definition. I dont push my definitions or thoughts on others. You want to tell me how I think? Okay. Youre free to do so.  

 

Me personally .... yeah, i probably wouldnt look to the "Oxford English Dictionary" as my first source in gathering info on defining racism or what is a racist. Thats just me though. You do you. 

 

I think we all think for ourselves and no one can say what another person thinks. 

If you don't care, and you don't even think its right, then why even post it?

13 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

I can only speak for me and how I view these issues. White people can and do define "racism" but in my 1 person world - I dont think a member of the oppressor group should be in charge of defining the terms of their oppression upon the oppresse.  

 

I only speak for me. I dont dictate what other people should do or say or think. I dont try to place my own personal rules of thought on others.

 

If a white person wants to define what is racist and what is not racist, 100% their right to do so. I wont and dont judge them. maybe Ill learn something that I can apply to my evolving thoughts. Just not my way of going about that very specific issue. I wouldnt want a stranger defining my parenting style or my lifestyle. They are not in a position to, they dont have enough facts and they never will. Outside maybe my wife or immediate immediate family, no one would know enough to be in a position to do so. They can but I would most likely give it 0% consideration. 

 

So, as a white guy, how can I even come close to defining what is racist and what is not? Thats like some stranger judging my parenting skills based off watching me and my kid for 2 minutes. Itd be like trying to write a movie review when you didnt actually see the movie. Id probably miss a lot of context and details and end up with an objectively inaccurate summary of what the movie was about. 

If you define something as X you are making a truth claim. Then you by necessity believe anybody who doesn't believe it is X is wrong. 

When I internet search racism, here is the first hit from Oxford Dictionary. This appears to be incorrect according to you. Is it?

I wonder if it could be Hardiman? He got a 95-0 confirmation to his current bench.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/one-judge-on-trump-e2-80-99s-short-list-comes-recommended-by-the-president-e2-80-99s-sister/ar-AAzJDa4

21 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

So she can't think critically. 

Good to know. ?

The tweet doesn't say she would adhere to that line of thought, only that if someone did, that is the logical path it would lead down. If anything, at least it shows she's not afraid to say what she thinks. And I think it does show she thinks carefully. You may not agree with her conclusion, but that doesn't mean she's stupid.

I read the first few pages of the paper, and she seems to be making the case that it is harder for an Originist Congress person to support super precedents that may be unconstitutional than it is for a judge. This is because a Congress person is voting based on politics, not law theory or right and wrong. If a judge over turns SS for instance, there will be chaos, not order, so they may rule against their originalist belief to maintain social order. A politician however, they are beholden to the electorate, and their re-election will determine which way they go. Thus legislators may have a harder time maintaining that position.

I don't have time to read it all though, so I could be wrong.

On 7/6/2018 at 11:49 AM, Zguy28 said:

Got my tickets for Ant-Man and the Wasp for tonight. I loved the first one.

I have to say, I thought it was every bit as good as the first movie. Michelle Pfeiffer looks beautiful for her age. It was funny too.

2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

Surprised that number isn't lower. It's hard to think of better days when a white supremacists is running the country. It feels like we've peaked.

That's how a lot of conservatives felt under Obama. It ebbs and flows. Western society also believed we were close to utopia in 1900, then WWI hit.

Got my tickets for Ant-Man and the Wasp for tonight. I loved the first one.

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

I know that's just a joke, but it's really what I've been saying for years now.  Trump won because people hated Hillary and the Dems THAT MUCH!  So defending him really is as simple as "Still better than Hillary".

But... SPACE FORCE!!

4 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

 

I know I am responding late to this but honestly I think you are being way too optimistic.  Gerrymandering has been legalized by SCOTUS and the likelihood of the Dems winning anything in the near future is slim to non existant.  The most likely thing to happen in 2020 is a constitutional amendment abolishing term limits for Presidents followed by some other legislation to make the title of Supreme Lead...I mean President hereditary.

There are too many Democrats to let that happen, even in the minority. No way they could get 3/4 majority in favor. That's a Palpatine level feat.
https://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

Quote

How is the Constitution amended?
Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.

The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

 

37 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Because it's not one ( a concern) for the Trump GOP? And I suspect he will nominate someone close to his ideology since that's all he has done (employs his people) for 18+ months.

 

Edit..that said I have no idea if Barrett cares about either. I was just saying that the current head of the Catholic Church is a bleeding heart liberal (compared to American neocons) and is pro science. ?

I think he will nominate someone that will gain him the most personally. That may not be an obvious choice and could backfire. Especially with a lady like her who is associated with a groups whose people believe in a personal form of (non-government based) socialism. The People of Praise may not align personally with progressive dogmas on sexuality and marriage, but it doesn't seem to lack on compassion for others, including the poor and suffering. Now, if I could get a GOP congressman who has those qualities. Alas...

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

No ****. 

 

Too bad she wouldn't be controlled by the Pope. Gays would be safe and the poor and the environment would be of great concern to her.

Besides your prejudiced conservative stereotyping, is there evidence to support your implying its not a concern to her?

Just now, PF Chang said:

Probably referring to "People of Praise." I don't know much about it other than that the women leaders/advisers are called "handmaids." 

Apparently that's just based on Mary's (mother of Jesus) quote in Luke, which originally used handmaid. It just means humble servant and I think in the context of this group it seems to mean servant-leader. Being a servant-leader is not a bad thing. I wish our President was one. As much as I disagreed with the previous two admins, at least Bush and Obama tried to be that according to their belief.

18 minutes ago, visionary said:

I don’t trust Barret at all.  The others are at least qualified and experienced enough for the job, but Trump’s been moving her up so fast that it makes me nervous.  Also not sure about that secretive group she’s in.  

 

But it wouldn’t surpise me too much if Trump pulls a twist and whips out some other judge just to spite the media or to make people talk.

What secretive group? I had not heard this.

EDIT: found the info on "People of Praise." I'm a Reformed Baptist, so not real big on Roman Catholicism, but fearing that is like the people in 1960 fearing the Pope would control Jack Kennedy IMHO.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/07/amy-coney-barrett-family-parents-father/

1 hour ago, LD0506 said:

 

 

Soooo, purgette? Demi-purge? New Purge Lite with half the gluten?

Something like that. "If we can't kill them, let's strip away their citizenship and dump them over the wall. Just as good."

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

It's going to be Barrett.

 

And it's going to create a fantastic **** storm.

"the perfect storm"

Woman, young, Roman Catholic mother of seven, Scalia's former clerk.

Kavanaugh is more moderate it seems. Knowing Trump, he will go with most offensive to Dems, then when it doesn't go well, falls back to Kavanaugh (his real choice?) and blames Dems at a rally and on Twitter. Art of the deal. Hard for him to lose.

And then there were three...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-narrows-supreme-court-short-list-top-3-contenders-emerge-n888981

Quote

Those candidates are appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amy Coney Barrett

5 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

 

Yet

 

The operative word missing here is "yet".

Its a soft purge.

On 7/4/2018 at 8:55 AM, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

That's a really alarming turn. A slippery slope to abuse in order to get rid of undesirables since they can't just purge them.

From 2 days ago, just saw it.

Anybody have experience using Alternate ID and ADFS for Microsoft 365?

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

Folks, 

 

not only has this thread become an abortion thread, but one that's even more ugly and personal that typical.  

 

Perhaps if the thread gets more on topic, it will get less ugly, too?  

 

Thank you Larry for the calming voice of reason. Sorry if my response a few minutes ago was toxic. I try hard to restrain myself from blasting, but sometimes I feel about abortion the way another poster feels about racial injustice and it gets the better of my good sense. Back on topic.

24 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Deep down inside, conservatives like you are ok with Trump because of exactly this. 

 

Legitimize sexual abuse, mocking of the disabled, racism, xenophobia and all sorts of awful things so you can enforce your religious views on others.

 

It only took the most vile person in modern political history of this country to achieve your policy goals. That should tell you something about the moral views you adhere to.

I absolutely despise President Trump and all those things you list. My son is disabled! I only know of one thing he has done that I support and it had to do with naming a park in honor of MLK. You shouldn't be lecturing anybody on morals, when you've supported ripping babies from mother's wombs for 40+ years. #keepfamiliestogether applies to abortion too. At least be consistent.

9 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

But the chipping away that will occur will be tremendous, such that eventually abortion will be legal in name only, but from a practical standpoint will cease to exist in red states. 

Thank God the genocide will stop.

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

It ain’t hyperbole. It’s understatement. Checks and balances is the best idea the founders came up with. We have seen this Congress is a bunch of lap dogs without any backbone whatsoever. SCOTUS was the only check left and even if they have become overly partisan there was still some hope of Constitution-based rulings. If we get another think tank ideologue that’s out the window. 

That cuts both ways.