Feinstein said that ginsberg was a tireless advocate for women’s rights.

which, if you’re smart, means that ginsberg was a terrible, terrible judge. it’s not a judges job to champion the underdog, it’s a judges job to decide if something is constitutional.

this is why the statue of lady justice which is at every courthouse, is blindfolded

the court was not designed to be a rubber stamp to approve everything liberals want to happen.

The Constitution was not designed as a document to protect existing conditions.
Here's a few things RBG pushed

1. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on gender or reproductive choices.

2. State-funded schools must admit women.

3. Women have the right to financial independence and equal benefits.

4. Men are entitled to the same caregiving and Social Security rights as women.

5. Juries must include women.

6. Ginsburg's legal advocacy pushed the military to drop its policy on abortion.

At the time, women service members who became pregnant had a choice to make -- abort the pregnancy and remain in the service or leave the service and become a mother.

7. She was against gutting the Voting Rights Act.

The Constitution was not designed as a document to protect existing conditions.
Here's a few things RBG pushed

1. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on gender or reproductive choices.

2. State-funded schools must admit women.

3. Women have the right to financial independence and equal benefits.

4. Men are entitled to the same caregiving and Social Security rights as women.

5. Juries must include women.

6. Ginsburg's legal advocacy pushed the military to drop its policy on abortion.

At the time, women service members who became pregnant had a choice to make -- abort the pregnancy and remain in the service or leave the service and become a mother.

7. She was against gutting the Voting Rights Act.

As a judge, when she has the robe on, she's not supposed to "push for" anything except the law.

As a legal advocate, that's fine. It's a horrible quality in a judge. They aren't supposed to side with who they are personally rooting for.

As a judge, when she has the robe on, she's not supposed to "push for" anything except the law.

As a legal advocate, that's fine. It's a horrible quality in a judge. They aren't supposed to side with who they are personally rooting for.

You are spot on. His "Constitution was not designed as a document to protect existing conditions" ignores that its designed to protect existing conditions from the federal government if they are constitutional. If the conditions exist within communities and states that have the responsibility to oversee and adjudicate their legality, and if the conditions are matters of individual rights vs some notion of fairness, the SCOTUS must protect the local government power and the individual rights over some personal idea of fairness.

What Pete did was to show his Progressive social justice view of the Constitution, and his ignorance that the Constitution is not a social policy document but is a delineation of government power. Of course, Progressives don't want a delineation of government power. They want undelineated, unlimited central government power. Judges deciding by personal morality outside of the scope of the Constitution are a means to unchain government from constitutional limits.

the court was not designed to be a rubber stamp to approve everything liberals want to happen.

no your right Jim but clearly you want it to be a rubber stamp to approve everything you want to happen ...

your hypocrisy has no limits

no your right Jim but clearly you want it to be a rubber stamp to approve everything you want to happen ...

your hypocrisy has no limits

Jim will probably answer this nonsense very well. For me, I want the Court to be faithful to the Constitution. If that is a rubber stamp of everything I want, I plead guilty to wanting it.

Jim will probably answer this nonsense very well. For me, I want the Court to be faithful to the Constitution. If that is a rubber stamp of everything I want, I plead guilty to wanting it.
You'd think you would also want a President faithful to the Constitution.

no your right Jim but clearly you want it to be a rubber stamp to approve everything you want to happen ...

your hypocrisy my stupidity and appetite for embarassing myself, has no limits

Fixed it.

What I want, is to abide by the constitution. I don't like CNN, but I don't want SCOTUS stripping them of their first amendment rights. So no, I don't want a court who sees its job as saying yes to everything conservatives want. If conservatives ask for something that's unconstitutional, I want it struck down.

So where's the hypocrisy? Please be specific.

You'd think you would also want a President faithful to the Constitution.



When has Detbuch rooted for Trump to do something unconstitutional?

The Constitution was not designed as a document to protect existing conditions.
Here's a few things RBG pushed

1. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on gender or reproductive choices.

2. State-funded schools must admit women.

3. Women have the right to financial independence and equal benefits.

4. Men are entitled to the same caregiving and Social Security rights as women.

5. Juries must include women.

6. Ginsburg's legal advocacy pushed the military to drop its policy on abortion.

At the time, women service members who became pregnant had a choice to make -- abort the pregnancy and remain in the service or leave the service and become a mother.

7. She was against gutting the Voting Rights Act.

Which of these 7 things are unconstitutional?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which of these 7 things are unconstitutional?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

none. it’s a very selective list.

when the catholic nuns sued obama for forcing them
to pay for voluntary ( not medically necessary) abortions, the majority of scotus ruled that was blatantly unconstitutional. ginsberg dissented. she voted that catholic nuns can be forced by law to violate their beliefs. if you read the first amendment, it’s oretty obvious that’s an insane position for a judge to have. ginsberg was willing to ignore the constitution when it served her personal agenda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which of these 7 things are unconstitutional?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was also a case where white new haven firefighters scored the highest on a test for promotion to lieutenant. the city denied the promotions based on skin color. it ended up at the supreme court, where ginsberg votes against the firefighters, effectively saying that anti discrimination laws didn’t apply to them. that’s unconstitutional. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps you should read the minority opinion of cases you think were decided incorrectly or are they only bad when you disagree with them then it’s legislating from the bench, not upholding the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps you should read the minority opinion of cases you think were decided incorrectly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you don't...

Which of these 7 things are unconstitutional?


1. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on gender or reproductive choices.

There is nothing in Constitutional text that gives the federal government the power to force private employers to hire people they don't want to hire.

3. Women have the right to financial independence and equal benefits.

They may have those rights, but constitutional text does not deny private employers the right to pay whatever level of recompense they wish to pay to different employees.

4. Men are entitled to the same caregiving and Social Security rights as women.

Constitutional text would leave choice of caregiving to private caregivers so long as they don't break criminal law--which would leave the prosecution up to state and local courts.

5. Juries must include women.

Constitutional text says:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

I doesn't say juries must include women. It has been assumed that a jury must be composed of the defendant's peers. But "peers" doesn't always require the jury to include women.

6. Ginsburg's legal advocacy pushed the military to drop its policy on abortion.

There is nothing in constitutional text that requires any particular policy on abortion. But, I assume that since the US military is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, then the federal government can impose whatever policy on the military it wishes.

Perhaps you should read the minority opinion of cases you think were decided incorrectly or are they only bad when you disagree with them then it’s legislating from the bench, not upholding the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if a bunch of white firefighters study their azzes off for a lieutenant test, and they happen to get the highest scores fair and square...on a test that the city paid facial consultants to ensure it wasn’t biased
in favor of whites...and the honkeys are denied the promotion based solely on their whiteness...how can that possibly be constitutional?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps you should read the minority opinion of cases you think were decided incorrectly or are they only bad when you disagree with them then it’s legislating from the bench, not upholding the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m
fine with scotus making a decision that goes against my personal values, as long as it’s constitutionally based

using “search and seizure” protection to mandate abortion at the federal label, is a stupid argument that no objective person could make with a straight face. i don’t say that just because i happen to hate abortion. i say it because it's an absurd position. search and seizure? anti
abortion laws don’t result in any searches or seizures.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so the democrat argument against barrett comes down to this...shell repeal obamacare, and she shouldn’t do that...not because obamacare is constitutional ( the only question that matters to scotus), but because people will die.

that’s. it a scare tactic. even if it’s true, it’s up to congress to pass a health care plan that’s constitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's fun watching the democrats embarrass and humiliate themselves...:kewl:

As I said a month ago
Congress needs to pass laws and make them non reviewable, preferably sunsetted.
Then SCOTUS would not be legislating from the bench like some think they did in New Haven and some don’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed it.

What I want, is to abide by the constitution. I don't like CNN, but I don't want SCOTUS stripping them of their first amendment rights. So no, I don't want a court who sees its job as saying yes to everything conservatives want. If conservatives ask for something that's unconstitutional, I want it struck down.

So where's the hypocrisy? Please be specific.

You have no issue with the Supreme Court striking down a law passed by congresss or legislation from the bench or reversing roe v wade 40 year precedent or equal protection because let's be honest this is the only reason Republicans are ramming this nomination tru and why they never gave Garland a vote , its has noting to do with their need to abide by the constitution thats BS :btu:

As I said a month ago
Congress needs to pass laws and make them non reviewable, preferably sunsetted.
Then SCOTUS would not be legislating from the bench like some think they did in New Haven and some don’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

youre saying the laws congress passed should
not be subject to judicial review? so how are we protected if they overreach in violation of the constitution?

i like the checks and balances, just wish it was a lot less political.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if a bunch of white firefighters study their azzes off for a lieutenant test, and they happen to get the highest scores fair and square...on a test that the city paid facial consultants to ensure it wasn’t biased
in favor of whites...and the honkeys are denied the promotion based solely on their whiteness...how can that possibly be constitutional?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

White greviences are not in the constitution nor are white fire fighters mentioned so if your an originalist you cant use that argument

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

Maybe you should tell that to sue happy Republicans

Laws get passed and you have elections, but if you’re in favor of unelected lifetime appointments having the power of a king, that’s your choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was the Constitution’s original meaning about telecommunications, air travel, machine guns or nuclear weapons, slavery, or gender equality?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have no issue with the Supreme Court striking down a law passed by congresss or legislation from the bench or reversing roe v wade 40 year precedent or equal protection because let's be honest this is the only reason Republicans are ramming this nomination tru and why they never gave Garland a vote , its has noting to do with their need to abide by the constitution thats BS :btu:

i have no problem with scotus striking down anything that’s unconstitutional, regardless of whether that something happens to be popular with liberals or
conservatives.

if enough people want to do something that’s unconstitutional, we can change the constitution. i don’t want us ignoring the parts of the constitution we don’t happen
to like.

where is the hypocrisy there?

not giving garland a vote was entirely about the constitution. it was about preventing the court from having yet another activist who thinks his job as a judge is to implement policy they happen to like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was the Constitution’s original meaning about telecommunications, air travel, machine guns or nuclear weapons, slavery, or gender equality?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re right, we have to interpret. but it’s quite a leap to assume that when the framers outlawed illegal
search and seizure, they meant abortion. it’s a real stretch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

White greviences are not in the constitution nor are white fire fighters mentioned so if your an originalist you cant use that argument

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/2c/67/ba2c67fcf810ea6aada3c967368440bd.gif
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

White greviences are not in the constitution nor are white fire fighters mentioned so if your an originalist you cant use that argument

But anti discrimination laws are in the constitution. And the equal protection clause, means that everyone is free from discrimination, even white firefighters. This is news to you?.

You're having a rough time on this thread, you can't shred what I'm saying this time, you really can't.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/2c/67/ba2c67fcf810ea6aada3c967368440bd.gif
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No kidding. Take a civics class for gods sake. Or take the time to read the constitution, instead of letting Rachael Maddow tell you what it says.

Laws get passed and you have elections, but if you’re in favor of unelected lifetime appointments having the power of a king, that’s your choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm OK with judges being unelected, I'd be OK with a finite term. As for how much power, if they follow the constitution, they don't have the power of a king. It's liberals who want activist judges in there making policy, which I agree is way too much power for people not elected.

White greviences are not in the constitution nor are white fire fighters mentioned so if your an originalist you cant use that argument

You'd be hard-pressed to find a more constitutionally ignorant post on the entire Internet today.

What was the Constitution’s original meaning about telecommunications, air travel, machine guns or nuclear weapons, slavery, or gender equality?


The original meaning of amendment to the Constitution was allowed in it. Slavery was addressed by the 13th amendment. The other items, for the federal government to be able to control in some manner, would have to fall within some enumerated power in the Constitution. The treaty clause in the Constitution can be used to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution can uphold equality under the law for all individuals. Insofar as there is actual commerce involved in telecommunications or air travel that crosses state lines, the federal government can regulate that through the Commerce Clause. If there are no constitutional enumerations that can include a subject, the power to impose restrictions is left to the states.

Maybe you should tell that to sue happy Republicans

except republicans are generally in favor of tort reform (to reduce frivolous lawsuits), and democrats are generally opposed to tort reform.

My god, you can't get one right on this thread even by accident.

But anti discrimination laws are in the constitution. And the equal protection clause, means that everyone is free from discrimination, even white firefighters. This is news to you?.

You're having a rough time on this thread, you can't shred what I'm saying this time, you really can't.

seems you havent been paying attention


Marriage equality under threat from Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito

except republicans are generally in favor of tort reform (to reduce frivolous lawsuits), and democrats are generally opposed to tort reform.

My god, you can't get one right on this thread even by accident.

ok jim whos filing all the election law suits nation wide your a just a partisan hack you live in an alternative universe

tort has nothing to do with the supreme court but there you go again comparing apples to oranges but every one else has it wrong

seems you havent been paying attention


Marriage equality under threat from Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito

First, I am 100% in favor of gay marriage, and I was so when 96% of democrats still opposed it.

That being said, discrimination is what happens when you treat two things differently, when they are the same. For example, a white firefighter seeking a promotion and a black firefighter seeking a promotion, are similar, there's no logical basis to treat them differently (even though the liberals who run the city of New Haven, as well as the liberals on the SCOTUS, wanted them treated differently).

An argument can be made, that a heterosexual couple is meaningfully different than a homosexual couple, in that one can produce life (which we, you know, need in order to exist) and one cannot. Treating things differently when they are in fact different, could be construed as not being discriminatory.

I don't make that argument, but I see some merit in it.

Donald J. Trump (Covita) earns the position of civil justice hypocrite-in-chief simply because his hypocrisy is one for the record books. Trump has tried to block the courthouse doors to others in his business dealings and during his year and a half as President. But when he believes that he or his companies have been wronged in some way, he has always run straight to court. He has done so thousands of times.
Trump has long used forced arbitration clauses to prevent anyone from bringing legal cases in open court against him. Typical is the case involving Stormy Daniels, a former adult film actress who received “hush money” before the 2016 presidential election as she shopped a story about a sexual liaison with Trump a decade earlier. On May 3, 2018, Trump tweeted (referring to his lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen) :Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.
These agreements are..... ...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair....

https://www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/1/Critical-Mass-nts-6-13-Tort-Reform-Hypocrites-Report.pdf

You'd be hard-pressed to find a more constitutionally ignorant post on the entire Internet today.

your the ignorant one who cant tell sarcasm from being serious

your the ignorant one who cant tell sarcasm from being serious

no one thought you were being sarcastic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Donald J. Trump (Covita) earns the position of civil justice hypocrite-in-chief simply because his hypocrisy is one for the record books. Trump has tried to block the courthouse doors to others in his business dealings and during his year and a half as President. But when he believes that he or his companies have been wronged in some way, he has always run straight to court. He has done so thousands of times.
Trump has long used forced arbitration clauses to prevent anyone from bringing legal cases in open court against him. Typical is the case involving Stormy Daniels, a former adult film actress who received “hush money” before the 2016 presidential election as she shopped a story about a sexual liaison with Trump a decade earlier. On May 3, 2018, Trump tweeted (referring to his lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen) :Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.
These agreements are..... ...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair....

https://www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/1/Critical-Mass-nts-6-13-Tort-Reform-Hypocrites-Report.pdf

hold on...you’re saying they Tump had the audacity to look out for his own interests when running his business? Call Ripleys believe it or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hold on...you’re saying they Tump had the audacity to look out for his own interests when running his business? Call Ripleys believe it or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What’s a “tort reform” hypocrite? It’s someone who complains about people who file lawsuits and says compensation to injured people should be limited.
Yet when they’ve been harmed, they go straight to court and sue for everything they can. No one likes a hypocrite. Yet one would be hard pressed to find more hypocrites than in the “tort reform” movement.

And Covita is Number One, and you claim I don't say he excels at anything...........

No one likes a hypocrite.

....

Biden is a naked, glaring hypocrite. how many times has he changed his tune on filling supreme court vacancies in an election year? yet democrat voters like him.

no one likes hypocrites, unless they are in the same
party. you’ve never, not once, called out a liberal hypocrite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just keep defending the Plaintiff in Chief, he'll be around a little while longer.
Covita has lied to America 25,000 times as POTUS, hid his negotiations with Putin and his taxes and his extramarital affairs and his medical records and his foreign business deals and his creditor list—et cetera—but you won't stop yelling that Biden didn't answer a hypothetical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tZVnbDq9B4&t=5s

Just keep defending the Plaintiff in Chief, he'll be around a little while longer.
Covita has lied to America 25,000 times as POTUS, hid his negotiations with Putin and his taxes and his extramarital affairs and his medical records and his foreign business deals and his creditor list—et cetera—but you won't stop yelling that Biden didn't answer a hypothetical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tZVnbDq9B4&t=5s

Pete, which one of us, has a history of praising and criticizing both sides, and which one never, ever goes against his own side?

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.

Most of us would agree with Jefferson that the Constitution is not a religious document. But he also believed that until a Constitution is replaced, it is the law of the land or it is worthless.

They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.

Jefferson is being a bit hyperbolic here. I don't know of anyone with an acceptable amount of intelligence who ascribes anything to previous generations as being more than human. And if he is implying that the wisdom of a previous generation is not relevant to the next, then how much credence should be placed on what he says here by the generations following him? And the Constitution does have a provision for amendment.

I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

Hence, the amendment clause in the Constitution and the provision for a constitutional convention to change it.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

Institutions do change. And more and more rapidly with advancing technology and "the progress of the human mind." So fast now, indeed, that new constitutions would have to be drawn every decade and soon after in single digit years if they had to be discarded because of Jefferson's noted changes. But basic human nature changes far more slowly than surface societal changes. The history and experience Jefferson admires tells us it takes thousands of years for it to change (if it ever has), so the principles founded on that nature will still apply. And they should be applicable and even in small ways adaptable to institutional and circumstantial changes. The Constitution as written still applies to human liberty.

Of course, if liberty, individual freedom itself, has become defunct, as some would have it, then a benevolent dictatorship might be better. But then, if human beings have any integrity of self, the nature of the dictators had well better be evolved into some immutable and selfless honesty, honor, and patriarchal/matriarchal protector and nurturer of the people or there will be more revolutions. Or we might somehow evolve into fully libertarian societies with no government structures at all
.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

The style and function of the coat may change, but it still will be a coat. We have not yet evolved to the point where we no longer need or wear coats.

Jefferson also said: The instability of our laws is really an immense evil. Which seems to contradict the surface context (and your silently implied interpretation) of the Jefferson quote.

He also said these very interesting things about government which, after the over two centuries since he said them, they, contrary to how some would interpret your Jefferson quote, still apply and to which our Constitution has answers:

When all government ...in little as in great things... shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power; it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.

Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.

The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

You ought to tell Covita about the debt stuff
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You ought to tell Covita about the debt stuff


Congress is supposed to take care of that. (You knew I would say that, but you just couldn't resist.)

And, BTW, even if Congress did get serious and try to reduce the debt, it would take a combination of the kind of economy that was blooming in 2017-2019 ("Trump's") and a much stricter adherence by the federal government to its limitations in the Constitution. The greatest contributor to the debt has been federal spending on things that the Constitution doesn't give them the power to meddle in.

But we may have to wait till Hell freezes over for that to happen. More likely, what will happen is that we will reach such a financial crisis that the federal government will impose some unconstitutional total regulation and control of society in order to concoct some scheme that will assure its total unimpeded power to "fix" the mess it has created, and from which will evolve the final destruction of the constitutional order and its "outdated" focus on the pesky and selfish notion of individual freedom. And thus usher us into the much desired Progressive/socialistic era of an all powerful and benevolent governmental administration of experts who will ensure, in whatever way they deem effective and efficient, that the people's greed will no longer be allowed to throw society into financial chaos, but rather we will be nourished by government largesse and a people trained into altruism and equal outcomes for all.

Amazing dodging of simple law questions today, questions any judge worth the price of their robes could answer, I certainly hope the voters make the GOP pay for their hypocrisy.

Congress is supposed to take care of that. (You knew I would say that, but you just couldn't resist.)

And, BTW, even if Congress did get serious and try to reduce the debt, it would take a combination of the kind of economy that was blooming in 2017-2019 ("Trump's") and a much stricter adherence by the federal government to its limitations in the Constitution. The greatest contributor to the debt has been federal spending on things that the Constitution doesn't give them the power to meddle in.

But we may have to wait till Hell freezes over for that to happen. More likely, what will happen is that we will reach such a financial crisis that the federal government will impose some unconstitutional total regulation and control of society in order to concoct some scheme that will assure its total unimpeded power to "fix" the mess it has created, and from which will evolve the final destruction of the constitutional order and its "outdated" focus on the pesky and selfish notion of individual freedom. And thus usher us into the much desired Progressive/socialistic era of an all powerful and benevolent governmental administration of experts who will ensure, in whatever way they deem effective and efficient, that the people's greed will no longer be allowed to throw society into financial chaos, but rather we will be nourished by government largesse and a people trained into altruism and equal outcomes for all.

Come on now
Covita wants to send everyone a check so they’ll vote for him
Even His Senators are shying away but the Turtle will round them up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on now
Covita wants to send everyone a check so they’ll vote for him
Even His Senators are shying away but the Turtle will round them up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, Mr. Pete F'd up, the Dems are more generous with their stimulus package than the Repubs, so I guess they want folks to vote for Trump too.

Covita wants his name on it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amazing dodging of simple law questions today, questions any judge worth the price of their robes could answer, I certainly hope the voters make the GOP pay for their hypocrisy.

Ginsberg made famous the "not a forecast, not a peek" response to a nominee saying how they'd rule n hypotheticals. There are actually ethical rules precluding judges from doing that. But that doesn't matter?

Covita wants his name on it


The Dems are making a prolonged big deal about it and getting her media allies to make sure she gets credit for her fighting for the little guys and the Repubs are stingy. And if someone named Covita signed the check, folks would probably think it was some clerk in the Treasury Dept.

it's fun when these loathsome fools are casting aspersions and weighing judgment on someone as wonderful as ACB.... I hope America was watching....is Sheldon the dumbest rock in congress?

Ginsberg made famous the "not a forecast, not a peek" response to a nominee saying how they'd rule n hypotheticals. There are actually ethical rules precluding judges from doing that. But that doesn't matter?

he doesn't know...he's just yelling at the wall:grins:...what do you think a judge robe costs anyway?...might be a good halloween costume this year :rotf2:

You'd think you would also want a President faithful to the Constitution.

Yes, I would also want a President faithful to the Constitution. That's why in the primaries I voted for Ted Cruz. He didn't win. So now my choice, knowing that only a Republican or a Democrat will win, my choice is between Trump or Biden. Between the two, Trump has shown his governing politics to be far more faithful to the Constitution than Biden's long history of becoming more and more Progressive and whose present position will be dictated by the Democrat Party which has actually become the Progressive Party trending heavily toward socialism and is being supported by the Communist Party and leftist organizations and movements.

I have no doubt, absolutely none, that the Progressive party, given enough power and a little more time, will gut the Constitution with novel interpretations making it absolutely moot, totally irrelevant, and finish replacing it with it's dream of some form of an unhampered Administrative State--or maybe with a whole new Constitution, or none at all.

If you don't know what the American version of the "administrative state" is, and what is the Progressive project of making it our functioning form of government while rejecting the Constitution, the following two articles give a clear picture.

The first, https://ballotpedia.org/Administrative_state is a concise neutral explanation of what it is.

The second and more interesting one details the Progressive project of rejecting the Constitution and basically replacing its functional powers with a centralized administrative government: https://federalistforum.com/the-administrative-state-its-origin-and-what-it-means-for-limited-government/

I think Pete F and Spence, if they read the articles, will agree with the notion of an administrative state, and prefer it over the Constitution and its separation of powers doctrine.

Feinstein said that ginsberg was a tireless advocate for women’s rights.

which, if you’re smart, means that ginsberg was a terrible, terrible judge. it’s not a judges job to champion the underdog, it’s a judges job to decide if something is constitutional.

this is why the statue of lady justice which is at every courthouse, is blindfolded

the court was not designed to be a rubber stamp to approve everything liberals want to happen.

All I hear is “Waaaaaa” right now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, I would also want a President faithful to the Constitution. That's why in the primaries I voted for Ted Cruz. He didn't win. So now my choice, knowing that only a Republican or a Democrat will win, my choice is between Trump or Biden. Between the two, Trump has shown his governing politics to be far more faithful to the Constitution than Biden's long history of becoming more and more Progressive and whose present position will be dictated by the Democrat Party which has actually become the Progressive Party trending heavily toward socialism and is being supported by the Communist Party and leftist organizations and movements.

I have no doubt, absolutely none, that the Progressive party, given enough power and a little more time, will gut the Constitution with novel interpretations making it absolutely moot, totally irrelevant, and finish replacing it with it's dream of some form of an unhampered Administrative State--or maybe with a whole new Constitution, or none at all.

If you don't know what the American version of the "administrative state" is, and what is the Progressive project of making it our functioning form of government while rejecting the Constitution, the following two articles give a clear picture.

The first, https://ballotpedia.org/Administrative_state is a concise neutral explanation of what it is.

The second and more interesting one details the Progressive project of rejecting the Constitution and basically replacing its functional powers with a centralized administrative government: https://federalistforum.com/the-administrative-state-its-origin-and-what-it-means-for-limited-government/

I think Pete F and Spence, if they read the articles, will agree with the notion of an administrative state, and prefer it over the Constitution and its separation of powers doctrine.

Oh Butchie,
I could put footnotes and hyperlinks around any of my kooky theories...it don’t make them any less tin-foil-hatless.

Hell, there might be hope for all of us..look at where Scott Atlas is now. Some people actually put a “Dr.” in front of his name.

Don’t stop believing, Murica.

We are a nation in the middle of a moron sandwich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh Butchie,
I could put footnotes and hyperlinks around any of my kooky theories...it don’t make them any less tin-foil-hatless.

Hell, there might be hope for all of us..look at where Scott Atlas is now. Some people actually put a “Dr.” in front of his name.

Don’t stop believing, Murica.

We are a nation in the middle of a moron sandwich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is a Dr., of radiology. That is almost the same as infectious diseases....

Oh Butchie,
I could put footnotes and hyperlinks around any of my kooky theories...


Go ahead. And I will have the integrity to discuss them. That you or Pete F or Got Stripers or wdmso or Paul S refuse to discuss mine or my repeated request to discuss the ideological battle underlying this election says a ton about yall's integrity.

Good triumphs over evil

The Biden Town Hall on ABC drew 2.3 million more viewers than the Trump town hall on NBC. There is nothing Covita cares about more than ratings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good triumphs over evil

The Biden Town Hall on ABC drew 2.3 million more viewers than the Trump town hall on NBC. There is nothing Covita cares about more than ratings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this an example of what you call critical thinking?

Meanwhile in court where people are looking for all the documents on the Russia investigation that Covita declassified in a tweet during his roid rage DOJ attorneys have a dilemma, you cannot treat Trump's tweets and utterances as valid and lawful orders on Monday, then claim he's Mad King George on Tuesday.

The man is either sane or he's not. Government attorneys cannot have it both ways.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meanwhile in court where people are looking for all the documents on the Russia investigation that Covita declassified in a tweet during his roid rage DOJ attorneys have a dilemma, you cannot treat Trump's tweets and utterances as valid and lawful orders on Monday, then claim he's Mad King George on Tuesday.

The man is either sane or he's not. Government attorneys cannot have it both ways.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is sane. You are not.

He is sane. You are not.

Here’s what our crazy uncle in the White House tweeted October 6th

I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!

Waiting to see😷
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here’s what our crazy uncle in the White House tweeted October 6th

I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!

Waiting to see😷
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds good.

The DOJ is currently in court trying to block it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go ahead. And I will have the integrity to discuss them. That you or Pete F or Got Stripers or wdmso or Paul S refuse to discuss mine or my repeated request to discuss the ideological battle underlying this election says a ton about yall's integrity.


Pretty funny metaphor right there, Butchie.

I bet me, Pete, Wayne, Bob, and Paul sat at the lunch table that caught #^&#^&#^&#^& from all the IROC driving success stories from your high school. Now we’re some kind of elitist mob. I love it. Come roll some D&D dice with us some time...you’ll like it.

#DeplorablesDelusionDisorder
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty funny metaphor right there, Butchie.

I bet me, Pete, Wayne, Bob, and Paul sat at the lunch table that caught #^&#^&#^&#^& from all the IROC driving success stories from your high school. Now we’re some kind of elitist mob. I love it. Come roll some D&D dice with us some time...you’ll like it.

#DeplorablesDelusionDisorder
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this an attempt at rational discussion? Oh, wait, I apologize. That was a foolish question. The answer is self evident.

Is this an attempt at rational discussion? Oh, wait, I apologize. That was a foolish question. The answer is self evident.

Nope,
That was just a straight-up diss to all the guys who acted like #^&#^&#^&#^&s in high school, and now think they can get back on the #^&#^&#^&#^&-wagon with Caveman Politics.

If you weren’t one of those guys in high school, then I’m sure you understand.

If you don’t get it, then I understand.

Savvy, chum?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope,
That was just a straight-up diss to all the guys who acted like #^&#^&#^&#^&s in high school, and now think they can get back on the #^&#^&#^&#^&-wagon with Caveman Politics.

If you weren’t one of those guys in high school, then I’m sure you understand.

If you don’t get it, then I understand.

Savvy, chum?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't act like a #^&#^&#^&#^& in high school. My action was solely to get through it and get the hell out of there. I mostly hated school.

Oh Butchie,
I could put footnotes and hyperlinks around any of my kooky theories...it don’t make them any less tin-foil-hatless.

Hell, there might be hope for all of us..look at where Scott Atlas is now. Some people actually put a “Dr.” in front of his name.

Don’t stop believing, Murica.

We are a nation in the middle of a moron sandwich.


My links were not a support of a kooky theory. They were links to what actually exists and how it came to be and why. They are fact and history. Saying they are about kooky theories is like saying that describing the Constitution is describing a kooky theory. The Constitution is not a kooky theory. The administrative state is not a theory. They both actually exist. And one opposes the other.

Remaining ignorant of that, not willing to discuss it, misses the essential political battle, and reduces us to bitching about personalities and concocting enough lies about them to make what insufficient truths that are available seem like the really important catastrophic differences that should decide the election. That leads to the totally hyped, kooky, conspiratorial BS that we've been fed.

The Constitution protects rights that we take for granted. The administrative state nullifies whatever right that stands in the way of implementing what a few deemed "experts" think is good for us. In effect, regulatory agencies within the administrative state have the power to tell us what we have a right to do within their sphere of supposed expertise. And there are well over a hundred such agencies within the American administrative state. Some say as many as 400. Apparently, the total number is not definitively known. The number has blossomed into enough, and wide enough scope, to regulate nearly every aspect of our lives.

But not to worry. They are peopled with politically neutral, honest, experts who don't impose any self-interest and are not susceptible to special interests and always are only trying to administer to the well being of the American people. The only problem with that assessment is that "people," "experts," are human, with all the self-serving flaws that humans are prone to. Even the heads of many agencies are "peopled" by those who came from the businesses they regulate. What could go wrong there?

Well, if degrading the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers is not enough, there is this thing called regulatory capture wherein those large corporations that the are supposed to be the object of regulation actually use the agencies for their own benefit--leading to the dreaded crony capitalist destruction of the middle class and the widening of the dreaded income inequality. Think that's my kooky theory? Here's a large list of quotes on that by "experts" on the subject of something that is not just a theory, but actually exists:

Woodrow Wilson: “If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don’t you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don’t you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it? ”


Ronald Coase: “When rights, worth millions of dollars, are awarded to one businessman and denied to others, it is no wonder if some applicants [to a regulatory agency] become overanxious and attempt to use whatever influence they have (political and otherwise), particularly as they can never be sure what pressure the other applicants may be exerting.”

Milton Friedman: “the pressure on the legislature to license an occupation rarely comes from the members of the public . . . On the contrary, the pressure invariably comes from the occupation itself.”

Harold Demsetz: “…in utility industries, regulation has often been sought because of the inconvenience of competition.”

Richard Posner: “Because regulatory commissions are of necessity intimately involved in the affairs of a particular industry, the regulators and their staffs are exposed to strong interest group pressures. Their susceptibility to pressures that may distort economically sound judgments is enhanced by the tradition of regarding regulatory commissions as ‘arms of the legislature,’ where interest-group pressures naturally play a vitally important role.”

George Stigler: “…as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefits.” And “Regulation and competition are rhetorical friends and deadly enemies: over the doorway of every regulatory agency save two should be carved: ‘Competition Not Admitted.’ The Federal Trade Commission’s doorway should announce , “Competition Admitted in Rear,” and that of the Antitrust Division, ‘Monopoly Only by Appointment.’”

Theodore J. Lowi, in The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States: “a considerable proportion of federal regulation, regardless of its own claim to consumer protection, has the systematic effect of constituting and maintaining a sector of the economy or the society. These are the policies of receivership by regulation.”

Alfred Kahn: “When a commission is responsible for the performance of an industry, it is under never completely escapable pressure to protect the health of the companies it regulates, to assure a desirable performance by relying on those monopolistic chosen instruments and its own controls rather than on the unplanned and unplannable forces of competition.” “Responsible for the continued provision and improvement of service, [the regulatory commission] comes increasingly and understandably to identify the interest of the public with that of the existing companies on whom it must rely to deliver goods.”

Mark Green and Ralph Nader: “a kind of regular personnel interchange between agency and industry blurs what should be a sharp line between regulator and regulatee, and can compromise independent regulatory judgment. In short, the regulated industries are often in clear control of the regulatory process.”

Richard B. McKenzie and Gordon Tullock: “although regulation is begun with the good intentions of those who promote and pass the laws, somewhere along the line regulators may become pawns of the regulated firms.”

Milton and Rose Friedman: “Every act of intervention establishes positions of power. How that power will be used and for what purposes depends far more on the people who are in the best position to get control of that power and what their purposes are than on the aims and objectives of the initial sponsors of the intervention.”

Barry M. Mitnick: “Much relatively recent research has argued that regulation was often sought by industries for their own protection, rather than being imposed in some ‘public interest.’ Although the distinction is not always made clear in this recent literature, we may add that regulation which is not directly sought at the outset is generally ‘captured’ later on so it behaves with consistency to the industry’s major interests”

Barry Weingast: “Often . . . Agency heads and commission members, anxious to further their careers and goals (including large budgets) as well as completing their own of power and prestige pet projects and policy initiatives, depend upon service to interest their success groups and key committee members for their success.”

George Gilder: “One reason for government resistance to change is that the process of creative destruction can attack not only an existing industry, but also the regulatory apparatus that subsists on it; and it is much more difficult to retrench a bureaucracy than it is to bankrupt a company. A regulatory apparatus is a parasite that can grow larger than its host industry and become in turn a host itself, with the industry reduced to parasitism, dependent on the subsidies and protections of the very government body that initially sapped its strength.”

Bruce Yandle:“what do industry and labor want from the regulators? They want protection from competition, from technological change, and from losses that threaten profits and jobs. A carefully constructed regulation can accomplish all kinds of anticompetitive goals of this sort, while giving the citizenry the impression that the only goal is to serve the public interest.”

Thomas K. McCraw: “Clearly, in passing the Civil Aeronautics Act [of 1938], Congress intended to bring stability to airlines. What is not clear is whether the legislature intended to cartelize the industry. Yet this did happen . . . In fact, over the entire history of the CAB, no new trunkline carrier had been permitted to join the sixteen that existed in 1938. And those sixteen, later reduced to ten by a series of mergers, still dominated the industry in the 1970s. All these companies… developed into large companies under the protective wing of the CAB. None wanted deregulation.”

Robert Higgs: “The government’s regulatory agencies have created or sustained private monopoly power more often than they have precluded or reduced it. This result was exactly what many interested parties desired from government regulation, though they would have been impolitic to have said so in public.”

Jeffrey M. Berry:“The ties between interest groups and [regulatory] agencies can become too close. A persistent criticism by political scientists is that agencies that regulate businesses are overly sympathetic to the industries they are responsible for regulating. Critics charge that regulators often come from the businesses they regulate and thus naturally see things from an industry point of view. Even if regulators weren’t previously involved in the industry, they have been seen as eager to please powerful clientele groups rather than have them complain to the White House or to the agency’s overseeing committees in Congress.”

Jonathan Emord:.“The minutes of the First National Radio Conference in 1922 reveal that even at this early date, industry leaders clamored for government limits on the number of licenses issued; they sought protection against entry by new licenses. For its part, the government desired control over the industry’s structure and programming content . . .The classic rent/content control quid pro quo soon developed: in exchange for regulatory controls on industry structure and programming content, industry leaders would be granted restrictions on market entry that they wanted. These restrictions would ensure monopoly rents for licensees and would provide the government with assurance that the broadcast industry would not oppose regulatory controls.”

David Schoenbrod: Effective participation in agency lawmaking usually requires expensive legal representation as well as close connections to members of Congress who will pressure the agency on one’s behalf. The agency itself is often closely linked with the industry it regulates. Not only large corporations, but also labor unions, cause-based groups, and other cohesive minority interests sometimes can use delegation to triumph over the interests of the larger part of the general public, which lacks the organization, finances, and know-how to participate as effectively in the administrative process.”

Douglass North: “The more successful the interest group becomes the greater the probability that it will be in a position to impact on the policy making process of successive governments. … Aspiring monopolists will retain lobbyists to assure a favourable outcome and devote resources to the acquisition of the monopoly right. A government will more than likely grant monopoly privileges to various groups of politically influential people. Cartels and anti-competitive behaviour will be maintained and politicians will react to the demands of the more vociferous and well organised interest groups.”

Andrew Odlyzko: “It is now widely accepted that the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was not a pure triumph of the populist movement and its allies in the anti-railroad camp. The railway industry largely decided that regulation was in its best interests and acquiesced in and even encouraged government involvement. This is often portrayed as the insidious capture of the regulators by the industry they regulate.”

Lawrence Lessig: “Built into the DNA of the most important agencies created to protect innovation, is an almost irresistible urge to protect the most powerful instead.

The FCC is a perfect example. … With so much in its reach, the FCC has become the target of enormous campaigns for influence. Its commissioners are meant to be “expert” and “independent,” but they’ve never really been expert, and are now openly embracing the political role they play. Commissioners issue press releases touting their own personal policies. And lobbyists spend years getting close to members of this junior varsity Congress.”

Thomas Frank: “The first federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was set up to regulate railroad freight rates in the 1880s. Soon thereafter, Richard Olney, a prominent railroad lawyer, came to Washington to serve as Grover Cleveland’s attorney general. Olney’s former boss asked him if he would help kill off the hated ICC. Olney’s reply, handed down at the very dawn of Big Government, should be regarded as an urtext of the regulatory state: ‘The Commission… is, or can be made, of great use to the railroads. It satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of the railroads, at the same time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal. Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and railroad view of things. … The part of wisdom is not to destroy the Commission, but to utilize it.'”

Tim Wu:“Again and again in the histories I have recounted, the state has shown itself an inferior arbiter of what is good for the information industries. The federal government’s role in radio and television from the 1920s through the 1960s, for instance, was nothing short of a disgrace…. Government’s tendency to protect large market players amounts to an illegitimate complicity … [particularly its] sense of obligation to protect big industries irrespective of their having become uncompetitive.”

David J. Farber: “When the FCC asserts regulatory jurisdiction over an area of telecommunications, the dynamic of the industry changes. No longer are customer needs and desires at the forefront of firms’ competitive strategies; rather firms take their competitive battles to the FCC, hoping for a favorable ruling that will translate into a marketplace advantage. Customer needs take second place; regulatory “rent-seeking” becomes the rule of the day, and a previously innovative and vibrant industry becomes a creature of government rule-making.”

Holman Jenkins: “When some hear the word ‘regulation,’ they imagine government rushing to the defense of consumers. In the real world, government serves up regulation to those who ask for it, which usually means organized interests seeking to block a competitive threat . . . We should also notice that an astonishingly large part of the world has experienced an astonishing degree of stagnation for an astonishingly long time for exactly such reasons.”

Bruce Schneier: “unless there’s some other career path, pretty much everyone with the expertise necessary to become a regulator will be either a former or future employee of the industry with the obvious implicit and explicit conflicts. As a result, there is a tendency for institutions delegated with regulating a particular industry to start advocating the commercial and special interests of that industry. This is known as regulatory capture, and there are many examples both in the U.S. and in other countries.”

Bruce Owen: “It is rather legislative oversight and budget committees and their chairs that are (willingly) captured by special interests in the first instance. One could equally say that legislators capture the special interests, seeking campaign funding The behavior of regulatory agencies simply reflect the preferences of their congressional masters. Regulators generally seek to please their committees, not to defy them.”


Yes, the administrative state is real, not a kooky theory, and both parties are guilty of supporting what is essentially this fourth and rather independent branch of government. Few Presidents have done much to curb the administrative state--Coolidge, Reagan, Carter a little bit, Trump with deregulation efforts including eliminating business strangling regulations and jumping over the regulatory process to engage private business in manufacturing medical equipment to fight covid and speed up the manufacture of vaccines. But the real fight against it is within conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover institute (which is ironically named since Hoover was a Progressive proponent of government regulation) and the Federalist Society and others. And these institutions hold some influence over the more conservative wing of the Republican Party. The Progressives, in both parties, use the regulators to do what they don't want to be accused of.

And the Progressive left Dems want to replace the constitutional separation of powers with a centralized administrative form of government. They have told us many times in many ways that is their goal.

So that's one of the reasons I will vote Republican, not because Republicans are a paragon of virtue and strict defenders of the Constitution. Between the two parties, they're the one to slow down the Progressive juggernaut and offer any chance to roll back the power of the regulatory agencies and move back power to the people.

I know Pete will read and engage, but I can’t imagine how slow your life is to expend this amount of time attempting to prove to Biden supporters they are electing the wrong guy. You have zero chance of moving that needle, I think you need a hobby, hey quick thought everyone else is writing a book about Trump being a monster you could defend him on a national stage.

My links were not a support of a kooky theory. They were links to what actually exists and how it came to be and why. They are fact and history. Saying they are about kooky theories is like saying that describing the Constitution is describing a kooky theory. The Constitution is not a kooky theory. The administrative state is not a theory. They both actually exist. And one opposes the other.

Remaining ignorant of that, not willing to discuss it, misses the essential political battle, and reduces us to bitching about personalities and concocting enough lies about them to make what insufficient truths that are available seem like the really important catastrophic differences that should decide the election. That leads to the totally hyped, kooky, conspiratorial BS that we've been fed.

The Constitution protects rights that we take for granted. The administrative state nullifies whatever right that stands in the way of implementing what a few deemed "experts" think is good for us. In effect, regulatory agencies within the administrative state have the power to tell us what we have a right to do within their sphere of supposed expertise. And there are well over a hundred such agencies within the American administrative state. Some say as many as 400. Apparently, the total number is not definitively known. The number has blossomed into enough, and wide enough scope, to regulate nearly every aspect of our lives.

But not to worry. They are peopled with politically neutral, honest, experts who don't impose any self-interest and are not susceptible to special interests and always are only trying to administer to the well being of the American people. The only problem with that assessment is that "people," "experts," are human, with all the self-serving flaws that humans are prone to. Even the heads of many agencies are "peopled" by those who came from the businesses they regulate. What could go wrong there?

Well, if degrading the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers is not enough, there is this thing called regulatory capture wherein those large corporations that the are supposed to be the object of regulation actually use the agencies for their own benefit--leading to the dreaded crony capitalist destruction of the middle class and the widening of the dreaded income inequality. Think that's my kooky theory? Here's a large list of quotes on that by "experts" on the subject of something that is not just a theory, but actually exists:

Woodrow Wilson: “If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don’t you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don’t you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it? ”


Ronald Coase: “When rights, worth millions of dollars, are awarded to one businessman and denied to others, it is no wonder if some applicants [to a regulatory agency] become overanxious and attempt to use whatever influence they have (political and otherwise), particularly as they can never be sure what pressure the other applicants may be exerting.”

Milton Friedman: “the pressure on the legislature to license an occupation rarely comes from the members of the public . . . On the contrary, the pressure invariably comes from the occupation itself.”

Harold Demsetz: “…in utility industries, regulation has often been sought because of the inconvenience of competition.”

Richard Posner: “Because regulatory commissions are of necessity intimately involved in the affairs of a particular industry, the regulators and their staffs are exposed to strong interest group pressures. Their susceptibility to pressures that may distort economically sound judgments is enhanced by the tradition of regarding regulatory commissions as ‘arms of the legislature,’ where interest-group pressures naturally play a vitally important role.”

George Stigler: “…as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefits.” And “Regulation and competition are rhetorical friends and deadly enemies: over the doorway of every regulatory agency save two should be carved: ‘Competition Not Admitted.’ The Federal Trade Commission’s doorway should announce , “Competition Admitted in Rear,” and that of the Antitrust Division, ‘Monopoly Only by Appointment.’”

Theodore J. Lowi, in The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States: “a considerable proportion of federal regulation, regardless of its own claim to consumer protection, has the systematic effect of constituting and maintaining a sector of the economy or the society. These are the policies of receivership by regulation.”

Alfred Kahn: “When a commission is responsible for the performance of an industry, it is under never completely escapable pressure to protect the health of the companies it regulates, to assure a desirable performance by relying on those monopolistic chosen instruments and its own controls rather than on the unplanned and unplannable forces of competition.” “Responsible for the continued provision and improvement of service, [the regulatory commission] comes increasingly and understandably to identify the interest of the public with that of the existing companies on whom it must rely to deliver goods.”

Mark Green and Ralph Nader: “a kind of regular personnel interchange between agency and industry blurs what should be a sharp line between regulator and regulatee, and can compromise independent regulatory judgment. In short, the regulated industries are often in clear control of the regulatory process.”

Richard B. McKenzie and Gordon Tullock: “although regulation is begun with the good intentions of those who promote and pass the laws, somewhere along the line regulators may become pawns of the regulated firms.”

Milton and Rose Friedman: “Every act of intervention establishes positions of power. How that power will be used and for what purposes depends far more on the people who are in the best position to get control of that power and what their purposes are than on the aims and objectives of the initial sponsors of the intervention.”

Barry M. Mitnick: “Much relatively recent research has argued that regulation was often sought by industries for their own protection, rather than being imposed in some ‘public interest.’ Although the distinction is not always made clear in this recent literature, we may add that regulation which is not directly sought at the outset is generally ‘captured’ later on so it behaves with consistency to the industry’s major interests”

Barry Weingast: “Often . . . Agency heads and commission members, anxious to further their careers and goals (including large budgets) as well as completing their own of power and prestige pet projects and policy initiatives, depend upon service to interest their success groups and key committee members for their success.”

George Gilder: “One reason for government resistance to change is that the process of creative destruction can attack not only an existing industry, but also the regulatory apparatus that subsists on it; and it is much more difficult to retrench a bureaucracy than it is to bankrupt a company. A regulatory apparatus is a parasite that can grow larger than its host industry and become in turn a host itself, with the industry reduced to parasitism, dependent on the subsidies and protections of the very government body that initially sapped its strength.”

Bruce Yandle:“what do industry and labor want from the regulators? They want protection from competition, from technological change, and from losses that threaten profits and jobs. A carefully constructed regulation can accomplish all kinds of anticompetitive goals of this sort, while giving the citizenry the impression that the only goal is to serve the public interest.”

Thomas K. McCraw: “Clearly, in passing the Civil Aeronautics Act [of 1938], Congress intended to bring stability to airlines. What is not clear is whether the legislature intended to cartelize the industry. Yet this did happen . . . In fact, over the entire history of the CAB, no new trunkline carrier had been permitted to join the sixteen that existed in 1938. And those sixteen, later reduced to ten by a series of mergers, still dominated the industry in the 1970s. All these companies… developed into large companies under the protective wing of the CAB. None wanted deregulation.”

Robert Higgs: “The government’s regulatory agencies have created or sustained private monopoly power more often than they have precluded or reduced it. This result was exactly what many interested parties desired from government regulation, though they would have been impolitic to have said so in public.”

Jeffrey M. Berry:“The ties between interest groups and [regulatory] agencies can become too close. A persistent criticism by political scientists is that agencies that regulate businesses are overly sympathetic to the industries they are responsible for regulating. Critics charge that regulators often come from the businesses they regulate and thus naturally see things from an industry point of view. Even if regulators weren’t previously involved in the industry, they have been seen as eager to please powerful clientele groups rather than have them complain to the White House or to the agency’s overseeing committees in Congress.”

Jonathan Emord:.“The minutes of the First National Radio Conference in 1922 reveal that even at this early date, industry leaders clamored for government limits on the number of licenses issued; they sought protection against entry by new licenses. For its part, the government desired control over the industry’s structure and programming content . . .The classic rent/content control quid pro quo soon developed: in exchange for regulatory controls on industry structure and programming content, industry leaders would be granted restrictions on market entry that they wanted. These restrictions would ensure monopoly rents for licensees and would provide the government with assurance that the broadcast industry would not oppose regulatory controls.”

David Schoenbrod: Effective participation in agency lawmaking usually requires expensive legal representation as well as close connections to members of Congress who will pressure the agency on one’s behalf. The agency itself is often closely linked with the industry it regulates. Not only large corporations, but also labor unions, cause-based groups, and other cohesive minority interests sometimes can use delegation to triumph over the interests of the larger part of the general public, which lacks the organization, finances, and know-how to participate as effectively in the administrative process.”

Douglass North: “The more successful the interest group becomes the greater the probability that it will be in a position to impact on the policy making process of successive governments. … Aspiring monopolists will retain lobbyists to assure a favourable outcome and devote resources to the acquisition of the monopoly right. A government will more than likely grant monopoly privileges to various groups of politically influential people. Cartels and anti-competitive behaviour will be maintained and politicians will react to the demands of the more vociferous and well organised interest groups.”

Andrew Odlyzko: “It is now widely accepted that the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was not a pure triumph of the populist movement and its allies in the anti-railroad camp. The railway industry largely decided that regulation was in its best interests and acquiesced in and even encouraged government involvement. This is often portrayed as the insidious capture of the regulators by the industry they regulate.”

Lawrence Lessig: “Built into the DNA of the most important agencies created to protect innovation, is an almost irresistible urge to protect the most powerful instead.

The FCC is a perfect example. … With so much in its reach, the FCC has become the target of enormous campaigns for influence. Its commissioners are meant to be “expert” and “independent,” but they’ve never really been expert, and are now openly embracing the political role they play. Commissioners issue press releases touting their own personal policies. And lobbyists spend years getting close to members of this junior varsity Congress.”

Thomas Frank: “The first federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was set up to regulate railroad freight rates in the 1880s. Soon thereafter, Richard Olney, a prominent railroad lawyer, came to Washington to serve as Grover Cleveland’s attorney general. Olney’s former boss asked him if he would help kill off the hated ICC. Olney’s reply, handed down at the very dawn of Big Government, should be regarded as an urtext of the regulatory state: ‘The Commission… is, or can be made, of great use to the railroads. It satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of the railroads, at the same time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal. Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and railroad view of things. … The part of wisdom is not to destroy the Commission, but to utilize it.'”

Tim Wu:“Again and again in the histories I have recounted, the state has shown itself an inferior arbiter of what is good for the information industries. The federal government’s role in radio and television from the 1920s through the 1960s, for instance, was nothing short of a disgrace…. Government’s tendency to protect large market players amounts to an illegitimate complicity … [particularly its] sense of obligation to protect big industries irrespective of their having become uncompetitive.”

David J. Farber: “When the FCC asserts regulatory jurisdiction over an area of telecommunications, the dynamic of the industry changes. No longer are customer needs and desires at the forefront of firms’ competitive strategies; rather firms take their competitive battles to the FCC, hoping for a favorable ruling that will translate into a marketplace advantage. Customer needs take second place; regulatory “rent-seeking” becomes the rule of the day, and a previously innovative and vibrant industry becomes a creature of government rule-making.”

Holman Jenkins: “When some hear the word ‘regulation,’ they imagine government rushing to the defense of consumers. In the real world, government serves up regulation to those who ask for it, which usually means organized interests seeking to block a competitive threat . . . We should also notice that an astonishingly large part of the world has experienced an astonishing degree of stagnation for an astonishingly long time for exactly such reasons.”

Bruce Schneier: “unless there’s some other career path, pretty much everyone with the expertise necessary to become a regulator will be either a former or future employee of the industry with the obvious implicit and explicit conflicts. As a result, there is a tendency for institutions delegated with regulating a particular industry to start advocating the commercial and special interests of that industry. This is known as regulatory capture, and there are many examples both in the U.S. and in other countries.”

Bruce Owen: “It is rather legislative oversight and budget committees and their chairs that are (willingly) captured by special interests in the first instance. One could equally say that legislators capture the special interests, seeking campaign funding The behavior of regulatory agencies simply reflect the preferences of their congressional masters. Regulators generally seek to please their committees, not to defy them.”


Yes, the administrative state is real, not a kooky theory, and both parties are guilty of supporting what is essentially this fourth and rather independent branch of government. Few Presidents have done much to curb the administrative state--Coolidge, Reagan, Carter a little bit, Trump with deregulation efforts including eliminating business strangling regulations and jumping over the regulatory process to engage private business in manufacturing medical equipment to fight covid and speed up the manufacture of vaccines. But the real fight against it is within conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover institute (which is ironically named since Hoover was a Progressive proponent of government regulation) and the Federalist Society and others. And these institutions hold some influence over the more conservative wing of the Republican Party. The Progressives, in both parties, use the regulators to do what they don't want to be accused of.

And the Progressive left Dems want to replace the constitutional separation of powers with a centralized administrative form of government. They have told us many times in many ways that is their goal.

So that's one of the reasons I will vote Republican, not because Republicans are a paragon of virtue and strict defenders of the Constitution. Between the two parties, they're the one to slow down the Progressive juggernaut and offer any chance to roll back the power of the regulatory agencies and move back power to the people.

Hey Bossman,
Just an FYI, if you put character limits on posts, then you’ll prolly save a lot on your hosting data limits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey Bossman,
Just an FYI, if you put character limits on posts, then you’ll prolly save a lot on your hosting data limits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Russian bots get paid by the character....

🤫😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey Bossman,
Just an FYI, if you put character limits on posts, then you’ll prolly save a lot on your hosting data limits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The great pontificator loves to hear himself speak in print, frankly I find it sad that a retired crappie fisherman is so obsessed with defending Trump and his political views on an obscure striped bass fishing board a thousand miles away.

The great pontificator loves to hear himself speak in print, frankly I find it sad that a retired crappie fisherman is so obsessed with defending Trump and his political views on an obscure striped bass fishing board a thousand miles away.
It’s his job, full time troll. He’s even more famous than we thought :hihi:

https://www.buzztwang.com/2011/04/how-to-white-wash-racism-revisiting-the-tea-party-racists/

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just love poking fun at him it’s amusing to watch him ramble on thinking we (well I’m not anyway) reading any of his bullcrap.

Hey Bossman,
Just an FYI, if you put character limits on posts, then you’ll prolly save a lot on your hosting data limits.


He has put character limits on posts. My first attempt was blocked because of that. I actually had more examples in case the ones posted might not be enough to put to rest your kooky idea that what I was saying was a "kooky theory" or a "tin foil hat." Savvy, chum?

It’s his job, full time troll. He’s even more famous than we thought :hihi:

https://www.buzztwang.com/2011/04/how-to-white-wash-racism-revisiting-the-tea-party-racists/

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


I remember that. I mentioned in another post that there could be a large number of non-members who find this site by accident while browsing a topic with their search engine. And that's how I did. Buzztwang apparently did also. I forget how I knew of his bit on me, whether his original post was posted here, or if I accidentally found it on the web. I was not, am not, a member of his site. Nor have I posted anything else there. I am not a "full time troll." If accidently finding his remarks makes me one, then I guess you are as well. :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

So I replied in his comment section. BTW, did you read my reply to him in the comments? It's the first one under Danny. It pretty effectively demolished his rant on me. I checked back a few times to see if he replied. But he never did. Don't think he could have made a convincing rebuttle. In case you missed it, here it is:

Hi Buzz Twang. I’m Detbuch. Everyone on the fishing forum uses what you refer to as an “anonymous moniker.” It’s not an underhanded attempt to hide. It’s just the convention of the forum. Sorry if I came off as an uncompassionate racist “teabagger” in the bit that you discovered in trackback to the forum. I am not a member of the Tea Party, and I don’t have compassion for any race.

The “straw man argument” you refer to was a response to “Zimmy” (his anonymous moniker)–another member of the forum who claimed that he knew “at least 12 people who are active w/tea party rallies” who are all unashamedly bigoted, specifically pointing to one who “does not hide his feelings . . . in private” and is the reason “many of us would never associate with the Tea Party” even though they don’t represent everyone in the party.

My response to him was not “apologizing for racism via the ‘we’re all racists’ approach” as you put it–nowhere did I defend, approve of, or apologize for racism in that response. If you had included the comment by Zimmy, it would be clear that I was responding to his reason why “many of us would never associate with the Tea Party.” In view of Zimmy’s remarks, it should be evident that I was making parallel comparisons to the blacks that I know who are overtly racist in “private situations,” or the “great Americans” who were racists pointing out the silliness of Zimmy’s reason why “many of us would never associate with the Tea Party .

So it doesn’t “miss the point entirely” as you put it. It is directly on point to Zimmy’s anecdotal account of why we, or he, or they, would never associate with the Tea Party. Nor do I find that it is “difficult for the Tea Party faithful to simply admit . . . they do have racists among them.” As you say, “every party does”. Which is what I was pointing out to Zimmy, and why it would be ridiculous to not associate with a party because it had racists.

As for my observation that all but one of your photos are other than racist in theme, and your claim that each sign “has a unique view that is blatantly racist, and I gloss over it with the nonchalance of one completely desensitized to racist jargon and imagery”, here is my thinking.

Sign #1: You claim that I glossed the blatant racism and claimed that it referred to religion not racism. The text is “Obama my forefathers were Christian yours were from Kenya that explains a lot about you.” You say that I miss the “obvious ” racism which is “implied.” Implications are a level removed from actuality. If racism is implied, it is not obvious. Many things can be implied by the sign. There are a lot of reasons why a “good” Christian might see being Kenyan is a threat. Most of the reasons are ignorant or exaggerated. The implication which I see in the sign is the silly idea that Obama is a Muslim because his Kenyan Father was. That is why I see this as referring to religion not race. I don’t see a racist “imagery” or racist “jargon” to which I’m desensitized in the sign. Perhaps, you’re glossing over it with the nonchalance of one who is over-sensitized to racist jargon and imagery so that you see it “implied” in something that doesn’t speak of race.

Sign #2: which I said reversed the slavery cliche did exactly that. It “obviously” points out very crudely that Obama’s reign, rather than a kumbaya get along is regarded by the carrier as slavery. He/she even sees the irony of a black man being the slave master. It is unavoidable to harken to American slavery without “racist loaded imagery,” but to point out the irony of a black man adhering to slavery-like big government power over individuals, which is a Tea Party theme, is not racism. Of course, if you want it to be, then you can gloss into that mode.

Sign #3: compared Obamacare to voodoo. The picture clearly refers to Obamacare and relates it to a lower standard of health care exaggerated by depicting Obama as a witch doctor. If showing pictures of witch doctors is racist, than let’s ban pictures of witch doctors. If comparing a “health plan” to voodoo practice is racist, then let us never again compare anything to voodoo or witch doctors (unless they are shown to be superior, of course.) So are we to enter an era of racial thought control. Politics is usually practiced crudely. Insults are common, exaggeration and lies are as well. Why must we find racism “implied” if it is not overtly expressed. We demean that which is perceived to be lesser. Witch doctors are a political shorthand term to refer to lesser health care. Do you think blacks don’t make fun of witch doctors or bones in the nose or primitivism? I don’t know, by the way, what your phrase “essential compassion for blacks” is other than a superior attitude toward an entire race–which is the actual definition of racism.

Sign #4: does emphasize the Islamic stuff (Hussein), and the go back to Kenya is “obviously” a stupid concern of many that he is not qualified to be POTUS because his citizenship is, in their mind, Kenyon (you’d think you’d brush up on this stuff and not always see “implied” racism rather than “blatant” stupidity that rampages in the news.) You gloss a bit here as well by saying that telling people to go back to their native land “is a long time cry of Nativists and racists.” So which is it, nativism or racism? It could in no way refer to the controversy of his birth certificate and his right to be POTUS? You also gloss absolutely by ignoring the “dixie chickin” our nation part of the sign. Hard to impute racism to that, so skip it.

Sign #5: I supposedly missed the “racism of the back to Kenya part. You think that “odd.” And that maybe I didn’t read it all. Yeah, I did. Didn’t miss a thing. You say I probably focused on the cap and trade part but not the actual “racist” part. I have explained that back to Kenya for most Tea Partiers refers to the citizenship controversy. Does it evoke a hidden “implied” racism for some Tea Partiers (and non-tea partiers for that matter)–sure, as we both have said: there are racists in all parties. Perhaps you focused on your agenda to find racism “implied” in this sign and didn’t focus on the cap and trade part and the play on the word trade.

That Tea Partiers originally used Tea Baggers before they knew it had another meaning (most Americans were not aware of this other meaning) is no reason to rub salt in the wound. Call people what they wish to be called: Afro-American, Black, People of Color, but not NEGRO. That is now derogatory. It is apparently an insult to say homo-sexual rather than gay. But Tea Bagger is fair game? You used Tea Party and Tea Bagger and nonchalantly claim the latter is not an insult. Is it an insult to use the “N” word if you are not Black? By the way, your characterization that the Tea Bagger was stolen rather than invented would imply that Tea Partiers knew of the double meaning and stole it. Perhaps you are so into the implication mode that you don’t know you’re doing it in a silly way.

Where do you get that its “a historical fact that the modern Tea party are the philosophical and political heir to the Know Nothing party of the 1800s.” That’s a sweeping statement with no analysis of actual Tea Party concerns. Were Know Nothings concerned with national health care plans and the national debt? Are the Tea Party doctrines secret? Do Tea Partiers reply “I don’t know” when asked questions about the party, or are they more than glad to expound what they are about? Are they anti-Catholic? Concerning racism, wasn’t much of the northern faction of the Know Nothings anti-slavery (so strange to emphasize racism in the Tea Party then compare it to Know Nothings)? Are Tea Partiers predominantly anti-immigration as were the Know Nothings, or are they against illegal immigration as are most Americans? Does the Tea Party want repeal of the naturalization laws?

I ran across your post accidentally–was surprised it filtered out into web-space. Amazing world we live in. I can see how you can read racism into the signs, or just about anything else in our social and political sphere. Doesn’t mean that what you see is what was intended. I prefer to stick to what is provable, “obvious” rather than what I might consider to be implied.

I just love poking fun at him it’s amusing to watch him ramble on thinking we (well I’m not anyway) reading any of his bullcrap.

So then you won't be replying to this (yay!!), as you've replied with bullcrap to many of my other posts that you didn't read.

Tell him what he has won Vanna!

Tell him what he has won Vanna!

A bull crap post by Got Stripers! Yay!!

Look at what the con man is saying now

Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution - Title 18 US Code 1073: Trump suggests he'd leave the country if he loses to Biden
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at what the con man is saying now

Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution - Title 18 US Code 1073: Trump suggests he'd leave the country if he loses to Biden
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Still waiting for all those people to leave who said they would if Trump won.

Tell him what he has won Vanna!

Ooh, I know...it’s a My Little Pony crappie rod.

Aren’t there panfish sites you should be “trolling” instead of this one.

Some people just don’t belong...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ooh, I know...it’s a My Little Pony crappie rod.

Aren’t there panfish sites you should be “trolling” instead of this one.

Some people just don’t belong...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The ignore button is a very effective way of erasing me.

The ignore button is a very effective way of erasing me.

And miss the fun of winding you up, no way, it's almost as fun as watching first time boat owners launch at the town ramp on a busy Saturday.

The ignore button is a very effective way of erasing me.

Nah, you’re sort of like an accident on a divided highway, everybody going the other way needs to slow down and look.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The ignore button is a very effective way of erasing me.

This here’s my website, homie.

Go back to blowing up night crawlers for fun.

The fish you chase are bait to us.

Some folks just don’t belong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This here’s my website, homie.

Go back to blowing up night crawlers for fun.

The fish you chase are bait to us.

Some folks just don’t belong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think of you and your brother as the cuttyhunk golf cart repair service
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think of you and your brother as the cuttyhunk golf cart repair service
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mike never did that...it was me, my friend Mark, and George Periera
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:devil2::devil2: Looks like I got under some Trump hating skin :hidin:

This is how lefty Dems respond when they got nothin' else--mock, suppress, dismiss, destroy--if you don't have the ability to hold a rational discussion, just attack, just say stuff--the cruder and more insulting, the better:

"That was just a straight-up diss to all the guys who acted like #^&#^&#^&#^&s in high school, and now think they can get back on the #^&#^&#^&#^&-wagon with Caveman Politics."

"I can’t imagine how slow your life is to expend this amount of time attempting to prove to Biden supporters they are electing the wrong guy. You have zero chance of moving that needle, I think you need a hobby, hey quick thought everyone else is writing a book about Trump being a monster you could defend him on a national stage."

"The great pontificator loves to hear himself speak in print, frankly I find it sad that a retired crappie fisherman is so obsessed with defending Trump and his political views on an obscure striped bass fishing board a thousand miles away."

"It’s his job, full time troll."

"I just love poking fun at him it’s amusing to watch him ramble on thinking we (well I’m not anyway) reading any of his bullcrap."

"Tell him what he has won Vanna!"

"Ooh, I know...it’s a My Little Pony crappie rod."

"Aren’t there panfish sites you should be “trolling” instead of this one.
Some people just don’t belong..."

"And miss the fun of winding you up, no way, it's almost as fun as watching first time boat owners launch at the town ramp on a busy Saturday."

"Nah, you’re sort of like an accident on a divided highway, everybody going the other way needs to slow down and look."

"This here’s my website, homie.
Go back to blowing up night crawlers for fun.
The fish you chase are bait to us.
Some folks just don’t belong."

:devil2::devil2: Looks like I got under some Trump hating skin :hidin:

This is how lefty Dems respond when they got nothin' else--mock, suppress, dismiss, destroy--if you don't have the ability to hold a rational discussion, just attack, just say stuff--the cruder and more insulting, the better:

"That was just a straight-up diss to all the guys who acted like #^&#^&#^&#^&s in high school, and now think they can get back on the #^&#^&#^&#^&-wagon with Caveman Politics."

"I can’t imagine how slow your life is to expend this amount of time attempting to prove to Biden supporters they are electing the wrong guy. You have zero chance of moving that needle, I think you need a hobby, hey quick thought everyone else is writing a book about Trump being a monster you could defend him on a national stage."

"The great pontificator loves to hear himself speak in print, frankly I find it sad that a retired crappie fisherman is so obsessed with defending Trump and his political views on an obscure striped bass fishing board a thousand miles away."

"It’s his job, full time troll."

"I just love poking fun at him it’s amusing to watch him ramble on thinking we (well I’m not anyway) reading any of his bullcrap."

"Tell him what he has won Vanna!"

"Ooh, I know...it’s a My Little Pony crappie rod."

"Aren’t there panfish sites you should be “trolling” instead of this one.
Some people just don’t belong..."

"And miss the fun of winding you up, no way, it's almost as fun as watching first time boat owners launch at the town ramp on a busy Saturday."

"Nah, you’re sort of like an accident on a divided highway, everybody going the other way needs to slow down and look."

"This here’s my website, homie.
Go back to blowing up night crawlers for fun.
The fish you chase are bait to us.
Some folks just don’t belong."

This is a fishing site and you took the bait hook, line and sinker, too funny.

This is a fishing site and you took the bait hook, line and sinker, too funny.

Since, as you repeatedly have said, you read my stuff, I don't know what you're referring to.

Since, as you repeatedly have said, you read my stuff, I don't know what you're referring to.

No actually I’ve said repeatedly I don’t read your stuff.

It’s tempting to use the analogy of rats fleeing a sinking ship to describe the growing number of Republican elected officials starting to speak out against Donald Trump. But that's really not fair to rats, who tend not to be complicit in driving ships to the bottom of the sea.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No actually I’ve said repeatedly I don’t read your stuff.

Thanks for correcting me. That's what I meant to say. Which is why I didn't know what you were referring to in the previous response to me since you don't read my stuff, yet responded to it, as you are doing here, even though you don't read my stuff.

It’s tempting to use the analogy of rats fleeing a sinking ship to describe the growing number of Republican elected officials starting to speak out against Donald Trump. But that's really not fair to rats, who tend not to be complicit in driving ships to the bottom of the sea.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, if it's not fair to rats to use the analogy, it implies that the fleeing Repubs are complicit.

Well, if it's not fair to rats to use the analogy, it implies that the fleeing Repubs are complicit.

Not only are rats not complicit in driving ships to the bottom of the sea, "Rats avoid actions that will hurt others – even if it earns them a treat". Now if we could teach the Republican party that trick we would really be making some progress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not only are rats not complicit in driving ships to the bottom of the sea, "Rats avoid actions that will hurt others – even if it earns them a treat". Now if we could teach the Republican party that trick we would really be making some progress.


Ah, so now the Republican party IS complicit, and Republicans fleeing a ship (that isn't a ship but is supposedly sinking to the bottom of the sea because of polls and commentators who said it was sunk already before the 2016 election) would make us all some progress if they quit acting like humans instead of rats. Rats, BTW, avoid actions that hurt other rats. They do things that hurt most other beings, including humans. And Democrats have learned that trick and practice it well.

Ah, so now the Republican party IS complicit, and Republicans fleeing a ship (that isn't a ship but is supposedly sinking to the bottom of the sea because of polls and commentators who said it was sunk already before the 2016 election) would make us all some progress if they quit acting like humans instead of rats. Rats, BTW, avoid actions that hurt other rats. They do things that hurt most other beings, including humans. And Democrats have learned that trick and practice it well.
Trump is losing. Democracy is winning.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump is losing.

That's a tickler. He's been losing ever since the summer of 2016.

Democracy is winning.


It, and the Republic, and the Constitution, will win if the Progressives lose.

This is a fishing site and you took the bait hook, line and sinker, too funny.

Butchie is a back winder.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It, and the Republic, and the Constitution, will win if the Progressives lose.



“Because they hate liberals so much, most Republican politicians and many conservative commentators are ready to keep our government in the hands of an irrational, unstable extremist. The truest conservatives are thus those who oppose Trump. They see that the far right is radical, not conservative, and that even small-government conservatism depends on taking the government we have seriously.“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It, and the Republic, and the Constitution, will win if the Progressives lose.

these dummies would make GREAT antifa members....we should get them spray paint and Molotov cocktails for Christmas

Just keep believing, meanwhile the closing message from Trumplicans: We behaved in corrupt, unethical and un-American ways in public for the past 4 years, but actually secretly and in private we were good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we can change the name of the political forum for you guys...would you prefer Chaz or Chop?

Just keep believing, meanwhile the closing message from Trumplicans: We behaved in corrupt, unethical and un-American ways in public for the past 4 years, but actually secretly and in private we were good.


You didn't put quotes on the Trumplicans message. Did you make it up?

Trump is a bad president and a worse person. He routinely says unamerican things that strike at the heart of our Republic. It's obviously fair to ask Republican members of Congress where they've been on these issues for the last four years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump is a bad president and a worse person. He routinely says unamerican things that strike at the heart of our Republic. It's obviously fair to ask Republican members of Congress where they've been on these issues for the last four years.


Again, no quotes, no links, no corroboration, no proof, did you make it up?

Trump encourages domestic rebellion, domestic violence and insurrections of state governments.

This is what autocrats would do, not a president that represents all Americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump encourages domestic rebellion, domestic violence and insurrections of state governments.

This is what autocrats would do, not a president that represents all Americans.


He does none of those things. He is accused. But it's the same kind of BS like the he said Nazis are fine people. And the age old technique, as you so thoroughly demonstrate, is just to keep repeating the lie.

Ya he does

A new low point came on Saturday, when Mr. Trump held a rally in Muskegon, Mich., where he demanded that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer reopen the state and then said “lock them all up” after his supporters chanted “lock her up!”

It was a stunningly reckless comment from a president whose own F.B.I. this month arrested 14 men who it said had been plotting to kidnap Ms. Whitmer, a Democrat, and were captured on video with an array of weapons allegedly planning the crime. Mr. Trump has assailed Ms. Whitmer for months, disregarding her solid approval ratings with independent voters and women, two groups he is purportedly trying to court.

Michigan Republicans, already struggling to avoid an electoral debacle in a state that has been returning to its Democratic roots in elections since Mr. Trump’s narrow victory in 2016, were again forced to answer for the president’s penchant for targeting high-profile women there.

“She was literally just targeted,” Lee Chatfield, the speaker of the Michigan House and a leading state Republican, said of Ms. Whitmer. “Let’s debate differences. Let’s win elections. But not that.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we can change the name of the political forum for you guys...would you prefer Chaz or Chop?

I think Pete needs to fly out west and have dinner with DeBarr, assuming they don’t kill each other before the main course.

Ya he does

A new low point came on Saturday, when Mr. Trump held a rally in Muskegon, Mich., where he demanded that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer reopen the state and then said “lock them all up” after his supporters chanted “lock her up!”

It was a stunningly reckless comment from a president whose own F.B.I. this month arrested 14 men who it said had been plotting to kidnap Ms. Whitmer, a Democrat, and were captured on video with an array of weapons allegedly planning the crime. Mr. Trump has assailed Ms. Whitmer for months, disregarding her solid approval ratings with independent voters and women, two groups he is purportedly trying to court.

Michigan Republicans, already struggling to avoid an electoral debacle in a state that has been returning to its Democratic roots in elections since Mr. Trump’s narrow victory in 2016, were again forced to answer for the president’s penchant for targeting high-profile women there.

“She was literally just targeted,” Lee Chatfield, the speaker of the Michigan House and a leading state Republican, said of Ms. Whitmer. “Let’s debate differences. Let’s win elections. But not that.”


Yeah well it's propaganda to say that Trump encouraged any of that. A lot of people in Michigan are dissatisfied with Whitmer's oppressive lock down. And the group that planned the kidnapping is a mixed bag. From a Detroit News article: while two of the alleged plotters posted pro-Trump social media messages, one member of their group thinks the president is "a tyrant," according to a viral video.

Most of these militia groups are some form of "anti-government" types. They've been a threat before Trump and will be after him. As will be ANTIFA and BLM and the Communist Party USA.

These "radical" groups are ideologically driven. They don't depend on so-called "dog whistles" or political rhetoric in order to act. They're not waiting for signals from politicians to do their violence. For political purposes, operatives make that fake connection. It's called politics, and, in the long run, it requires far more diligence and knowledge by the average voting public who may be just as prone to be duped as are the radicals, and that is more dangerous to the democratic process.

Well Debarr did say “The first duty of government is to protect the safety of its citizens”
Just not from viruses
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well Debarr did say “The first duty of government is to protect the safety of its citizens”
Just not from viruses
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, and in our federated system, we have several units of government. They are called states. The federal government is not supposed to usurp the power of the states.

COVID-19 is quite clearly a threat to national security and pandemics were identified as such since the Bush administration.
Covita failed in his duty to protect the American people
Bigly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

COVID-19 is quite clearly a threat to national security and pandemics were identified as such since the Bush administration.
Covita failed in his duty to protect the American people
Bigly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump did one meaningful thing back in January, the travel restriction. The democrats all said it was an hysterical overreaction. Pelosi tried to get the House to bass a bill overturning the travel restrictions. Biden called it hysterical and xenophobic, which is a fairly strong indicator that Biden wouldn't even have done that.

Then in late February, you have Pelosi and DIblasio telling their constituents that it was safe to go out in crowded public places.

Also interesting if you look at the states with the highest death rates, and look at the political leadership of those states. I guess you never bothered to look at it that way, because sure as heck you won't like the results.

If you want to say Trump did a poor job, I think one can make that case. But there's not a lot of logic to supporting Biden, who clearly would have done even less than Trump did, if you listen to what Biden said then, which is what matters.

Can't have it both ways, big guy.

Trump did one meaningful thing back in January, the travel restriction. The democrats all said it was an hysterical overreaction. Pelosi tried to get the House to bass a bill overturning the travel restrictions. Biden called it hysterical and xenophobic, which is a fairly strong indicator that Biden wouldn't even have done that.

Then in late February, you have Pelosi and DIblasio telling their constituents that it was safe to go out in crowded public places.

Also interesting if you look at the states with the highest death rates, and look at the political leadership of those states. I guess you never bothered to look at it that way, because sure as heck you won't like the results.

If you want to say Trump did a poor job, I think one can make that case. But there's not a lot of logic to supporting Biden, who clearly would have done even less than Trump did, if you listen to what Biden said then, which is what matters.

Can't have it both ways, big guy.

You’ve been watching too much Faux
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’ve been watching too much Faux
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did i say that was false, exactly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did i say that was false, exactly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He can't tell you what was false with what you say. He also doesn't seem to be able to specifically, verifiably, say how Trump "failed in his duty to protect the American people." He just keeps repeating it in various forms. Repeating it is supposedly proof that it is true.

220K dead
Millions infected
The infections are rising at the highest rate in months and Covita claims he’s doing the best in the world
Keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

220K dead
Millions infected
The infections are rising at the highest rate in months and Covita claims he’s doing the best in the world
Keep believing


What am I supposed to keep believing? What do you keep believing? That Trump or Biden are supposed to solve covid. And given the nature of this country--government structure, politics, cultural heritage, diverse contradictions to that heritage. Unusual lack of unity in purpose or belief. Virtually a country of various countries. And this virulent political dissent and obstruction against the opposition party programs that we have come to in the last couple of decades. And, more importantly, our dependence on our bureaucracy to provide the answers and actions to do most things including pandemics. The real initial failure in testing was our CDC's inability to start a testing regime. It actually took Trump to fix that. But precious time was wasted.

From all this, you expect a Trump or a Biden could solve covid. And don't bring up this phantom THE science. There is no proven one scientific view on all aspects of the virus, nor on the best way to conquer it.

And no, I don't put stock in what Trump says about how well we're doing. But I don't see this massive failure that you claim. And I'm optimistic that we are going to get through it and are doing well with creating vaccines, drugs, and protocols. I think it was good to open up the economy. That probably saved more lives in other ways that are not considered by those who focus with strict blinders on killing the virus.

You seem to view the presidency as some kind of dictatorship or our system some sort of Progressive European thing. With all the factors of what and who we are as a country, we may be doing quite well.

But just keep counting. That's so meaningful and helpful.

220K dead
Millions infected
The infections are rising at the highest rate in months and Covita claims he’s doing the best in the world
Keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

dodged my question. what did i say that was incorrect? what did i say that’s a foxnews myth?

can you be specific?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Covita’s brilliant closing argument: #^&#^&#^&#^& Science. 15 days to the end of a Moronic Sociopath.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Covita’s brilliant closing argument: #^&#^&#^&#^& Science. 15 days to the end of a Moronic Sociopath.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Any special reason why you keep dodging, Pete?

Covita’s brilliant closing argument: #^&#^&#^&#^& Science. 15 days to the end of a Moronic Sociopath.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what if he wins pete? :lossinit:

dodged my question. what did i say that was incorrect? what did i say that’s a foxnews myth?

can you be specific?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You blamed the states w/the highest death rates on their Dem. leaders as if there was nothing else that caused those high death rates.

You blamed the states w/the highest death rates on their Dem. leaders as if there was nothing else that caused those high death rates.

Of course there are other factors, especially in a place like NY, where so many tourists flock. I'd be a lunatic to deny that.

How about the way Cuomo handled the nursing home situation? effective leadership, or a self-inflicted disaster?

Paul, Trump did one meaningful thing back in January. All the democrats, including Biden, said it was a stupid overreaction. Now those same exact people are saying he didn't do enough. That's called "wanting to have it both ways".

And Pelosi and DiBlasio were on TV in February, encouraging their constituents to go out to crowded public places. Can you comment on that? Or can you only criticize Republicans?

Everyone (other than Trump) has learned a lot since early on - and will continue to learn new things. You go on the best science based info. you have. Trump ignores science (and frequently does the opposite).

Everyone (other than Trump) has learned a lot since early on - and will continue to learn new things. You go on the best science based info. you have. Trump ignores science (and frequently does the opposite).

Oh, I see...

You allow democrats the benefit of a learning curve.

"go on the best science based info. you have"

So how is it, back in January, that Trump saw the need for travel restrictions, but the democrats all missed it?

And back in January/February when Cuomo was forcing nursing homes to admit infected residents, most people knew at that time, that the disease was especially dangerous for seniors. Yet Cuomo forced nursing homes to admit covid-positive residents, and prohibited nursing homes from allowing healthy people to visit loved ones. You're saying with a straight face, that this was based on the best science available at the time.

Liberal=good, conservative=bad, no exceptions, not ever.

Everyone (other than Trump) has learned a lot since early on



he said wearing masks is patriotic(especially the trump masks);)

Trump said the virus would disappear when the number of reported new daily cases was in the hundreds.

He’s still saying it with the number in the tens of thousands — and rising.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump said the virus would disappear when the number of reported new daily cases was in the hundreds.

He’s still saying it with the number in the tens of thousands — and rising.


Did he give a date certain? This is really important?

Back to Barrett
The GOP is kicking and screaming about how they are allowed to confirm Barrett 7 days before an election so they're gonna do it, and they can fear monger about court packing. But I'm not seeing any conservative offer an actual articulation for not just waiting a few weeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, I see...

You allow democrats the benefit of a learning curve.

"go on the best science based info. you have"

So how is it, back in January, that Trump saw the need for travel restrictions, but the democrats all missed it?

And back in January/February when Cuomo was forcing nursing homes to admit infected residents, most people knew at that time, that the disease was especially dangerous for seniors. Yet Cuomo forced nursing homes to admit covid-positive residents, and prohibited nursing homes from allowing healthy people to visit loved ones. You're saying with a straight face, that this was based on the best science available at the time.

Liberal=good, conservative=bad, no exceptions, not ever.

You always come back to the famous “partial” travel ban, boy are you stuck on that, consider it did nothing to prevent Covid coming in from Europe or from US citizens allowed back in from China with little testing or quarantine. Like a screen door on a submarine, but you hang your MAGA hat on it with pride. :deadhorse:

You allow democrats the benefit of a learning curve.
Democratic areas were hardest hit first, this isn't rocket science.

So how is it, back in January, that Trump saw the need for travel restrictions, but the democrats all missed it?
The Democrats weren't in a position to enact any restrictions nor were they privy to the same intelligence Trump was which was far more serious than he was letting on.

And back in January/February when Cuomo was forcing nursing homes to admit infected residents, most people knew at that time, that the disease was especially dangerous for seniors. Yet Cuomo forced nursing homes to admit covid-positive residents, and prohibited nursing homes from allowing healthy people to visit loved ones.
This isn't true. NY did not force nursing homes to accept sick patients, some of them mistakenly thought that was the directive. The investigation into this showed the majority of deaths occurred because of sick workers causing infections compounded by unsafe operating practices rather than sick occupants being moved back in from hospitals.

Democratic areas were hardest hit first, this isn't rocket science.


The Democrats weren't in a position to enact any restrictions nor were they privy to the same intelligence Trump was which was far more serious than he was letting on.


This isn't true. NY did not force nursing homes to accept sick patients, some of them mistakenly thought that was the directive. The investigation into this showed the majority of deaths occurred because of sick workers causing infections compounded by unsafe operating practices rather than sick occupants being moved back in from hospitals.

this is hilarious...

You always come back to the famous “partial” travel ban, boy are you stuck on that, consider it did nothing to prevent Covid coming in from Europe or from US citizens allowed back in from China with little testing or quarantine. Like a screen door on a submarine, but you hang your MAGA hat on it with pride. :deadhorse:

"You always come back to the famous “partial” travel ban, boy are you stuck on that"

It's th eone thing Trump did. It the democrats said it was an overreaction.

"it did nothing to prevent Covid coming in from Europe or from US citizens allowed back in from China with little testing or quarantine"

I'm not saying the travel restrictions helped or didn't help. I'm saying he implemented that ban early, and all the elected democrats and everyone in the media, said it was an overreaction. You had very prominent democrats - Pelosi and Diblasio - encouraging people to go to crowded public places in late February. You have Biden saying Trumps travel restrictions were "hysterical" and "xenophobic". If they get a pass, then on what basis do you attack Trump? Trump was more conservative than they were. If Trump is guilty of not doing enough (and maybe that's fair), then how can they not be more guilty? They were saying into late February, that the virus wasn't serious enough to warrant even Trumps travle restrictions. Again, you can't have it both ways. But that's what you're trying to do.

I'm very reluctant to give anyone grades on this issue, I just don't know enough. But it's absurd to give Cuomo and Pelosi and Biden a pass for what they said and did, and simultaneously say Trump should have done much more. There's no logic to that, that's pure partisan bullsh*t, and it's what every one of you is doing.

Democratic areas were hardest hit first, this isn't rocket science.


The Democrats weren't in a position to enact any restrictions nor were they privy to the same intelligence Trump was which was far more serious than he was letting on.


This isn't true. NY did not force nursing homes to accept sick patients, some of them mistakenly thought that was the directive. The investigation into this showed the majority of deaths occurred because of sick workers causing infections compounded by unsafe operating practices rather than sick occupants being moved back in from hospitals.

"The Democrats weren't in a position to enact any restrictions "

They weren't in a position in January to implement the lockdowns that they eventually implemented in March? What changed?

"nor were they privy to the same intelligence Trump was which was far more serious than he was letting on"

The feds were keeping secrets from the states. That's what you're saying? And only Trump had the federal intelligence, not any democrats in congress? The democrat-controlled house, they didn't get briefings?

You're not backing into whatever scenario paints the democrats in the best possible light, no sir.

Every assumption you make, is in favor of liberals. Trump had the intelligence, but somehow congress didn't. Trump conspired with Russia, but the Bidens didn't sell influence for money.

It' snot Cuomos fault that NY was hit early and hard. Forcing nursing homes to admit sick residents? Beyond stupid.

I'm not saying the travel restrictions helped or didn't help. I'm saying he implemented that ban early, and all the elected democrats and everyone in the media, said it was an overreaction.
I don't remember any prominent Democrat criticizing the travel restrictions. It was the recommendation by HHS and many airlines were already canceling flights.

You have Biden saying Trumps travel restrictions were "hysterical" and "xenophobic".
He never said this Jim.

I don't remember any prominent Democrat criticizing the travel restrictions. It was the recommendation by HHS and many airlines were already canceling flights.


He never said this Jim.

"I don't remember any prominent Democrat criticizing the travel restrictions."

You're lying, or amazingly ignorant. Biden said it was hysterical and xenophobic. Pelosi introduced a bill in the House to undo the travel restrictions, even Chris Cuomo pans her for that.

Where in Gods name do you get your news?

"You always come back to the famous “partial” travel ban, boy are you stuck on that"

It's th eone thing Trump did. It the democrats said it was an overreaction.

"it did nothing to prevent Covid coming in from Europe or from US citizens allowed back in from China with little testing or quarantine"

I'm not saying the travel restrictions helped or didn't help. I'm saying he implemented that ban early, and all the elected democrats and everyone in the media, said it was an overreaction. You had very prominent democrats - Pelosi and Diblasio - encouraging people to go to crowded public places in late February. You have Biden saying Trumps travel restrictions were "hysterical" and "xenophobic". If they get a pass, then on what basis do you attack Trump? Trump was more conservative than they were. If Trump is guilty of not doing enough (and maybe that's fair), then how can they not be more guilty? They were saying into late February, that the virus wasn't serious enough to warrant even Trumps travle restrictions. Again, you can't have it both ways. But that's what you're trying to do.

I'm very reluctant to give anyone grades on this issue, I just don't know enough. But it's absurd to give Cuomo and Pelosi and Biden a pass for what they said and did, and simultaneously say Trump should have done much more. There's no logic to that, that's pure partisan bullsh*t, and it's what every one of you is doing.

Jim since it’s the World Series opener today let’s go with a baseball analogy. It would be like watching your starting pitcher fan the first three batters he faces, then giving up three walks with grand slam in the third, back to back home runs in a five run forth, then putting three on to start the fifth and still not pulling him. Jim the manager keeps saying to the team hey remember how good he was in the first two innings we could still win with him, let’s make this team great again.

Back to Barrett
The GOP is kicking and screaming about how they are allowed to confirm Barrett 7 days before an election so they're gonna do it, and they can fear monger about court packing. But I'm not seeing any conservative offer an actual articulation for not just waiting a few weeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here’s the articulation. the people
elected trump potus and gave sente control to the gop through the end of this year. is that going to fast for you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim since it’s the World Series opener today let’s go with a baseball analogy. It would be like watching your starting pitcher fan the first three batters he faces, then giving up three walks with grand slam in the third, back to back home runs in a five run forth, then putting three on to start the fifth and still not pulling him. Jim the manager keeps saying to the team hey remember how good he was in the first two innings we could still win with him, let’s make this team great again.

again, you’re completely ignoring what the democrats did.

in your analogy, the democrats were in favor of leaving the starting pitcher in after the three walks, then after the home
run and only then, are they acting like the manager should have known to take him out.

there weren’t any orominent democrats in january and february, calling for more severe reaction.

we closed schools and shut the economy down. almost everyone is wearing masks outside. what more do you want? what more should we have done??

we bent the curve, which everyone said wasn’t guaranteed. no hospitals were overwhelmed, out of respirators. unemployment and the stock market coming back. m

way too many dead, but what were democrats suggesting in january, which trump ignored, which would
have helped? can you name
anything at all?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim there is only one manager, the manager on the other team is not at fault, come on give it up your manager is hapless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim there is only one manager, the manager on the other team is not at fault, come on give it up your manager is hapless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

are we a dictatorship? our federal government by design, doesn’t have one manager who makes all the calls.

the legislature is also powerful, as are the states.

again, what was trump suooosed to have gone back in december or january, based on what we knew then?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I don't remember any prominent Democrat criticizing the travel restrictions."

You're lying, or amazingly ignorant. Biden said it was hysterical and xenophobic. Pelosi introduced a bill in the House to undo the travel restrictions, even Chris Cuomo pans her for that.

Where in Gods name do you get your news?


clearly not where you get yours

It’s true that Biden has referred to Trump and some of his statements and actions in the context of his handling of the coronavirus outbreak as “xenophobic.” But it’s unclear whether Biden was specifically referencing Trump’s travel restriction on China, as Trump has claimed.

Back to Barrett
The GOP is kicking and screaming about how they are allowed to confirm Barrett 7 days before an election so they're gonna do it, and they can fear monger about court packing. But I'm not seeing any conservative offer an actual articulation for not just waiting a few weeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why wait a few weeks when the Court is in session now with an overload of cases. One was just decided with a 4 and 4 split. That decision is an excellent "conservative" articulation for confirming as soon as possible. And restoring the court to 9 Justices is not "packing" it. You are a master at the propagandistic trick of shading the meanings of words so that they appear to be accurate rather than deceitful. You do that a lot. Precision in diction is not your friend.

The unfathomable thing about the four justices siding w PA Republicans tonight: they would’ve stripped a state supreme court of the authority to say what the law is in their own state.

That’s way beyond right field.

It’s judicial activism on steroids.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

clearly not where you get yours

It’s true that Biden has referred to Trump and some of his statements and actions in the context of his handling of the coronavirus outbreak as “xenophobic.” But it’s unclear whether Biden was specifically referencing Trump’s travel restriction on China, as Trump has claimed.
xenophobic and hysterical. and pelosi tried to pass a bill in the house to overturn the travel restrictions.

same question for
you, based on what we knew in december and january, what should
we have done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

xenophobic and hysterical. and pelosi tried to pass a bill in the house to overturn the travel restrictions.

same question for
you, based on what we knew in december and january, what should
we have done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She was just giving Moscow Mitch something NOT to do, he hates working and passing bills.

She was just giving Moscow Mitch something NOT to do, he hates working and passing bills.

It's interesting, you're all very critical of Trumps handling of the virus (which again, may be fair...maybe he deserves an F on that issue, I'm just not sure, I feel like I'm always playing catch up, but I'm not blindly defending him). Yet when I ask you guys what he should have done differently in December/January, based on what we knew then, I don't think any of you has come up with one single thing he should have done differently.

Which means you give him an F because you hate him, but you don't know why.

We basically shut the country down, and everyone is wearing masks and social distancing. Many countries didn't go nearly that far. What more was he supposed to do?

She was just giving Moscow Mitch something NOT to do, he hates working and passing bills.

so we should have passed a bill overturning the travel restrictions? Yet you say he didn't do enough?

In other words, no matter what he does or doesn't do, it's wrong, because he's Trump. Why not just admit that you're all that thoughtless?

Why this is just like Deja vu all over again🥱



Biden, Jan. 31: America needs a president they can trust, especially at times of a crisis. You know, we have right now a crisis with the coronavirus, emanating from China. A national emergency, you know, worldwide alerts. The American people need to have a president who they can trust what he says about it, that he is going to act rationally about it. In moments like this, this is where the credibility of a president is most needed, as he explains what we should and should not do. This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia – hysterical xenophobia – and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science.

Now perhaps you may assign superhuman powers to Biden and assume that he did this within an hour of Azar announcement of travel restrictions to start February 2nd.

But actually all you need to do is look at Covita’s tweets during the time of concern about Ebola and you can see why Biden had concerns about the ability of the current President to mount a coherent defense against a national threat.
There’s more than 220 Thousand people dead now and Tweety’s still saying it going away
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so we should have passed a bill overturning the travel restrictions? Yet you say he didn't do enough?

In other words, no matter what he does or doesn't do, it's wrong, because he's Trump. Why not just admit that you're all that thoughtless?

Your taking this to seriously, go vote and roll the dice. I guess no room for humor on this very serious board.

xenophobic and hysterical. and pelosi tried to pass a bill in the house to overturn the travel restrictions.

same question for
you, based on what we knew in december and january, what should
we have done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim stop looking in the rear view mirror
Thats all Trump has ever done with covid after that hes been wishing it away... meanwhile were 20% of the worlds covid deaths and counting but we've rounded the Bend?

Look at the last 30 days

you're all very critical of Trumps handling of the virus (which again, may be fair...maybe he deserves an F on that issue, I'm just not sure



Your not sure? Do you hear the words that spill from his mouth?

A lot of traditional Republicans are really tearing into trump TDS can't always be the excuse.. can it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim stop looking in the rear view mirror
Thats all Trump has ever done with covid after that hes been wishing it away... meanwhile were 20% of the worlds covid deaths and counting but we've rounded the Bend?

Look at the last 30 days

you're all very critical of Trumps handling of the virus (which again, may be fair...maybe he deserves an F on that issue, I'm just not sure



Your not sure? Do you hear the words that spill from his mouth?

A lot of traditional Republicans are really tearing into trump TDS can't always be the excuse.. can it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim stop looking in the rear view mirror"

You're the ones saying he did a lousy job...

"Your not sure?"

In terms of the virus, I'm not sure what we should have done differently. Some nations didn't do lockdowns and are doing OK. Should we have gone that route? I don't know.

For the 5th time, what should he have done differently in the beginning, based on what we knew then? Not one of you can come close to answering that.

Your taking this to seriously, go vote and roll the dice. I guess no room for humor on this very serious board.

In other words, you say he did a lousy job, but can't give ONE SYLLABLE of what he should have done differently. Not one syllable.

I'm rolling the dice? As opposed to voting for a guy with dimentia, who might have to turn the reigns over to a whore who couldn't get over 5% even in the democratic primaries? That's what you call a safe bet?

Anger management Jim it’s time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Anger management Jim it’s time.


This guy needs anger management:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHDIgEzTONQ

Anger management Jim it’s time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not angry, i just exposed you for
not knowing why you say what you’re saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Covita can’t handle 60 Minutes, how can he possibly handle 4 more years?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not angry, i just exposed you for
not knowing why you say what you’re saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

YouR “leader” of choice has thrown in the towel, without “officially” endorsing a herd immunity policy, that’s exactly what his continued irresponsible rhetoric is doing. We are tired of the idiots like Dr, Fauci and the other medical experts. Unless your living in a bubble the virus is about to shove reality right back in his science denying face. Mid west hospitals are strained to the limit, Europe who was always weeks ahead of us is in various stages of lockdown and your “I did everything right” guy is in denial. Either that or he knows the countries focus on Covid and his miserable handling will cost him the election and I can’t wait to see him escorted out.