Anyone self quarantined? AKA - the 2020 SH!T SHOW

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sharkey said:
Yesterday I was arguing with someone about the fact that Barrett is clearly qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. The other person complained that Barrett refused to answer specific questions about her personal beliefs and how she would rule on future issues brought before the SCOTUS. Of course, I educated the person about the judicial canon that actually precludes a judge from discussing how he/she might rule on a future case. Then, I hit the person with the following passage written in 2005:

“When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees.

Ginsburg, while a smart lawyer, had been a radical activist. Her record as an ACLU litigator placed her far outside the mainstream of American law. She had argued for legalizing prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women, and had speculated that there could be a constitutional right to polygamy.

Some Republican senators wanted to know whether she still held such extreme views. On question after question, though, she refused to answer: The Biden rules stipulated that she had no obligation to answer questions about her personal views or on issues that might come before the Court. Despite her silence, the Senate confirmed Ginsburg, 93-3.“

I guess the Democratic Senators who questioned Barrett for the last three days didn't think Barrett was entitled to the same protections that the current Democratic Presidential nominee (Biden) afforded to one of the most radical justices to ever take the bench (Ginsburg).

The person was literally speechless.

Irony is so much fun.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! I got into a similar argument this morning and set them up by asking if they recalled the 1993 Supreme Court nominee ... they knew it was the date of Ginsburg's nomination...so then I asked if they knew who chaired the confirmation hearings, they did not. I referred to this tidbit of information and the response I got was priceless! angry stare, huffed and walked away :cheesy:

Double whammy, made my day! :thumb:
 
jeeeep said:
Thanks for the info! I got into a similar argument this morning and set them up by asking if they recalled the 1993 Supreme Court nominee ... they knew it was the date of Ginsburg's nomination...so then I asked if they knew who chaired the confirmation hearings, they did not. I referred to this tidbit of information and the response I got was priceless! angry stare, huffed and walked away :cheesy:

Double whammy, made my day! :thumb:
Click to expand...

Ha! It is literally referred to as the "Ginsburg Rule" and it was created by Biden. Many people are aware of the Ginsburg Rule, but most people seem to have forgotten who actually wrote the rule!
 
Sharkey said:
Yesterday I was arguing with someone about the fact that Barrett is clearly qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. The other person complained that Barrett refused to answer specific questions about her personal beliefs and how she would rule on future issues brought before the SCOTUS. Of course, I educated the person about the judicial canon that actually precludes a judge from discussing how he/she might rule on a future case. Then, I hit the person with the following passage written in 2005:

“When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees.

Ginsburg, while a smart lawyer, had been a radical activist. Her record as an ACLU litigator placed her far outside the mainstream of American law. She had argued for legalizing prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women, and had speculated that there could be a constitutional right to polygamy.

Some Republican senators wanted to know whether she still held such extreme views. On question after question, though, she refused to answer: The Biden rules stipulated that she had no obligation to answer questions about her personal views or on issues that might come before the Court. Despite her silence, the Senate confirmed Ginsburg, 93-3.“

I guess the Democratic Senators who questioned Barrett for the last three days didn't think Barrett was entitled to the same protections that the current Democratic Presidential nominee (Biden) afforded to one of the most radical justices to ever take the bench (Ginsburg).

The person was literally speechless.

Irony is so much fun.
Click to expand...
Like button pressed.

Sent from my SM-N975U using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
jdofmemi said:
Soon, as in circling the drain, unless someone will put a plug in it, and with both parties now on the free money bandwagon, each trying to outspend the other.

There will come a day of reckoning, with a huge reset.
.
Click to expand...
Truth. Airlines trying to extort $$$, or we layoff.
 
OverlanderJK said:
You’re as much of a problem as the left.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
Click to expand...
There's a whole lot more like me here, in this red state....
If there were more in the land of "fruits and nuts", maybe it wouldn't be in the shape it's in.

I read that in the 1770's, you know, just before the American revolution, approximately 20 percent of the colonial population were loyalists. Another 20 percent were Patriots, also referred to as, rebels. Then... there were those who really wouldn't take a stand at all. Compromisers. AKA, "Fence sitters".
If it weren't for those hard core Patriots, we would be still flying the union jack.
 
Kuboske said:
There's a whole lot more like me here, in this red state....
If there were more in the land of "fruits and nuts", maybe it wouldn't be in the shape it's in.

I read that in the 1770's, you know, just before the American revolution, approximately 20 percent of the colonial population were loyalists. Another 20 percent were Patriots, also referred to as, rebels. Then... there were those who really wouldn't take a stand at all. Compromisers. AKA, "Fence sitters".
If it weren't for those hard core Patriots, we would be still flying the union jack.
Click to expand...

Do you start the food fight at Thanksgiving?
 
Kuboske said:
There's a whole lot more like me here, in this red state....
If there were more in the land of "fruits and nuts", maybe it wouldn't be in the shape it's in.

I read that in the 1770's, you know, just before the American revolution, approximately 20 percent of the colonial population were loyalists. Another 20 percent were Patriots, also referred to as, rebels. Then... there were those who really wouldn't take a stand at all. Compromisers. AKA, "Fence sitters".
If it weren't for those hard core Patriots, we would be still flying the union jack.
Click to expand...

The very purpose of the U.S. Constitution (and our Constitutional Republic) is to preserve the ideal that not everyone has to think the same or be the same. Diversity of thought, even contrary thought, was treasured by the Founding Fathers...not suppressed. The hope (which may be impossible in today’s world) was that all people had enough in common that the federal government, in its intended limited roll, could act for the collective benefit of all states on certain issues.

There really is no other way to have UNITED states because it is foolish to believe that sparsely populated rural areas and densely populated city centers would ever have the same wants and needs at the local level.

From where I sit, the far left and the far right are no different in that both want to have the ultimate power to tell everyone else how to think and act. At its most basic level, what could possibly be more unConstitutional? I’m not sitting on the fence, I’m rejecting both sides as equally unreasonable. It’s not a binary choice and it never has been.

If both sides don’t figure this shit out and find some middle ground, there will be no more “United” states. That may sound just fine to you, but I’m quite certain the “Free and Independent Territory of Indiana” would have no hope of defending its borders against foreign adversaries.

The benefits of collective national defense aside, what about the impact of the loss of federal aid? I think about 35% of Indiana’s general revenue is comprised of federal aid, putting Indiana about 14th in the country in terms of reliance on federal aid to survive.

So, if you really want another Civil War (the far more correct analogy than the American Revolution), I might suggest that you begin learning Mandarin sooner rather than later. Alternatively, I suggest the collective “you” out there (on either side) should find some middle ground, or at least a way to accept governance from the middle, before it’s too late.

Just my .02. 🥃


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
 
Last edited:
Sharkey said:
The very purpose of the U.S. Constitution (and our Constitutional Republic) is to preserve the ideal that not everyone has to think the same or be the same. Diversity of thought, even contrary thought, was treasured by the Founding Fathers...not suppressed. The hope (which may be impossible in today’s world) was that all people had enough in common that the federal government, in its intended limited roll, could act for the collective benefit of all states on certain issues.

There really is no other way to have UNITED states because it is foolish to believe that sparsely populated rural areas and densely populated city centers would ever have the same wants and needs at the local level.

From where I sit, the far left and the far right are no different in that both want to have the ultimate power to tell everyone else how to think and act. At its most basic level, what could possibly be more unConstitutional? I’m not sitting on the fence, I’m rejecting both sides as equally unreasonable. It’s not a binary choice and it never has been.

If both sides don’t figure this shit out and find some middle ground, there will be no more “United” states. That may sound just fine to you, but I’m quite certain the “Free and Independent Territory of Indiana” would have no hope of defending its borders against foreign adversaries.

The benefits of collective national defense aside, what about the impact of the loss of federal aid? I think about 35% of Indiana’s general revenue is comprised of federal aid, putting Indiana about 14th in the country in terms of reliance on federal aid to survive.

So, if you really want another Civil War (the far more correct analogy than the American Revolution), I might suggest that you begin learning Mandarin sooner rather than later. Alternatively, I suggest the collective “you” out there (on either side) should find some middle ground, or at least a way to accept governance from the middle, before it’s too late.

Just my .02. 🥃


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
Click to expand...

Quit being rational. You’re messing up the vibe.
 
WJCO said:
Has anyone seen the new Five Finger Death Punch video? Wow. Very powerful.

Click to expand...

That’s a fantastic video. Hopefully everyone who watches it understands that masks are so much more than something that is worn.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
 
WJCO said:
View attachment 354484

View attachment 354485

:usa-flag:
Click to expand...
Wonderful quotes. Makes me wonder what the founders would think if they could see us now....

Sharkey said:
The very purpose of the U.S. Constitution (and our Constitutional Republic) is to preserve the ideal that not everyone has to think the same or be the same. Diversity of thought, even contrary thought, was treasured by the Founding Fathers...not suppressed. The hope (which may be impossible in today’s world) was that all people had enough in common that the federal government, in its intended limited roll, could act for the collective benefit of all states on certain issues.

There really is no other way to have UNITED states because it is foolish to believe that sparsely populated rural areas and densely populated city centers would ever have the same wants and needs at the local level.

From where I sit, the far left and the far right are no different in that both want to have the ultimate power to tell everyone else how to think and act. At its most basic level, what could possibly be more unConstitutional? I’m not sitting on the fence, I’m rejecting both sides as equally unreasonable. It’s not a binary choice and it never has been.

If both sides don’t figure this shit out and find some middle ground, there will be no more “United” states. That may sound just fine to you, but I’m quite certain the “Free and Independent Territory of Indiana” would have no hope of defending its borders against foreign adversaries.

The benefits of collective national defense aside, what about the impact of the loss of federal aid? I think about 35% of Indiana’s general revenue is comprised of federal aid, putting Indiana about 14th in the country in terms of reliance on federal aid to survive.

So, if you really want another Civil War (the far more correct analogy than the American Revolution), I might suggest that you begin learning Mandarin sooner rather than later. Alternatively, I suggest the collective “you” out there (on either side) should find some middle ground, or at least a way to accept governance from the middle, before it’s too late.

Just my .02. 🥃


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE
Click to expand...
Interesting, and I agree with the underlying principle. For any nation to survive, the people have to live together.
I honestly don't think the "diversity", the founders treasured included the taking by the hundreds of thousands, of innocent lives.
Or, same sex marriage. Or even would understand the "Transgender", movement.
I think they would abhor, the diversity of thought, from someone like Nancy Pelosi.

The difference in needs, between rural and urban areas is precisely why the Electoral college is essential.

I agree the the choice does not have to be Rep. or Dem. I find many in the Republican party objectionable. A libertarian vote is basically a "conscientious objector", act. Admirable, but of no use.

I DO NOT WISH, the nation to fail.

The Free and Independent Territory of Indiana, sounds good. More like substitute Red States for Indiana in the name. We would have to go with a "mutually assured destruction", defense policy.
I'm kidding now....

The bottom line for me is, I'm a "values" voter. Rigidly adhering to the priciples I believe in. I will not compromise those. In everyday life, I do not attack abortion clinics, or harass people who I believe are living immoral lifestyles. I would rather see hearts and minds changed, than "tell everyone how to think and act".

It boils down to what a persons bedrock worldview is. Most do what is right in their own eyes. Mine, is stated in my signature line...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom