Could you elaborate in your words what is meant by "a higher law" ... particularly in context of "the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law" and constitutionalism "is the name given to the trust which men repose in the power of words engrossed on parchment to keep a government in order" ... is it that the written human law ensconced in, say the US Constitution, is paramount to any personal law or belief?
I probably used the wrong word - the term "originalist" would have been a more appropriate one. It's an age-old division, largely along party lines, where conservatives (Antonin Scalia as one example) interpret the constitution as in what it's text actually says, and what it and its associated history like the Federalist Papers tell us about the intent of the framers.
Non-conservatives / progressives interpret it as a living, flexible document that can be bent and reshaped according to ever changing, more modern times. They claim that the founders couldn't have known about how society would change 200 years into the future, etc.
This debate has been going on for over 100 years, I have no desire to get any more involved with it here.
In regards to Trump, do his frequent claims that the Constitution allows him to do what he wants meet the smell test?
For those who don't hate him and wish him out of office before his first term is up, yes.
Was his use of his position to attempt to extort a foreign government leader into assisting his re-election campaign overstepping the bounds?
No. Attempting to discover the truth about possible criminal activity of the son of Joe Biden, who isn't, and won't be, his opponent in 2020, had nothing to do with his re-election campaign.
Is his refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the House in pursuit of due diligence on oversight overstepping the bounds?
Nah, he's the president. He should have a few privileges - he does have a lot of things to do, that a large part of the population probably considers more important.
Edited by marc9000, : forgot to answer all questions
Is there anyone on the right who finds it suspicious that Trump is this determined to keep his tax returns secret?
No.
Most any organization or individual who has lots of money isn't quickly willing to make every detail of how they got it, public. Most of those "on the right" are much more concerned about healthcare, national security, the economy etc. to worry about all the various witch hunts against Trump.
Right in the very preamble of the Constitution it says that the purpose is to "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare." If you're against that then you're not a constitutionalist.
So I'm an originalist, and you're a living constitutionalist. My opinion is that if the constitution is bendable and shapeable to an extreme extent, then we might as well not have it. Thomas Jefferson put it this way;
quote:To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
Your use of this word seems to be an attempt to sugar-coat increases in government power. It's exactly like saying "Hitler voluntarily killed 6 million Jews to make the world a better place."
Godwin's law strikes again, plus this makes little sense. What is true is that as the world's wealth has grown the ability of government to do good with that wealth (as opposed to billionaires soaking up wealth by purchasing political power) has also grown. It would much more accurately be called an increase in government's recognition and acceptance of its responsibilities.
Do you agree with, or think it's good for the U.S. for Bloomberg to dedicate $100 million in 2020 ad campaigns against Trump?
Did you believe all of these similar types of predictions when they came out decades ago?
This bears no relevance to climate science.
How were those false predictions different from today's climate science predictions? The political motivations were identical (increase the size and scope of government) the "science" was identical (show a lot of charts and graphs that can be made to say whatever their creators want them to say) What can you show that is different between yesterdays predictions of doom versus today's predictions of doom?
Read your own words again. You said, "Climate change can and has happened from other sources completely unrelated to human activity," and I said not this time. Spelling it out, the climate change we're experiencing now is definitely not "completely unrelated to human activity."
But it is still partly unrelated to human activity, and those other non-human causes / sources can't possibly be pinpointed and predicted to an accuracy that separates them from artificial changes (government mandates) to human behavior. Which solidifies my earlier claim, that the harm, or uselessness, of government mandates to reduce climate change have no accountability.
But don't forget that all the climate models say that even if we reduced greenhouse gas production to zero right now that it would take decades and more before the climate change momentum that has already built up would peak and begin reversing.
That means that no matter what we do, citiies like Miami Beach and Alexandria and Venice are already doomed.
Thank you, so no matter what we do, politicians who decide how much of our money and freedoms they are going to take to combat climate change don't have to worry about being accountable for what they do our freedoms, our economy. Very convenient for the politicians that the climate models work that way.
marc9000 writes:
Carbon credit trading is still in it's infancy, has already made some millionaires,...
This seems like a good thing. Publicly owned corporations have a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, so undoubtedly there would be profits. Things that make money are more likely to happen, so if there are profits to be had in fighting climate change then that is a good thing.
I don't think profits are a good thing when those who are paying for the profits (the general public) aren't getting a defined product or service that they're willing to pay for.
Unfortunately it is usually easier to make money by ignoring the impact on the environment, for example coal or power companies that dump slag or ash into huge ponds that pollute groundwater and leave towns with enormous cleanup bills.
I've always wondered just what environmentalists expect coal and power companies to do with their waste, they can't make it disappear, or send it into outer space. "Cleanup" seems to always be a gathering process, often loading waste into fossil fuel burning trucks, and taking it somewhere else on the exact same planet, and dumping it there, because "there" is an "approved" waste site. And it always seems to be very expensive.
Why are you suddenly badmouthing the profit motive? Aren't you a capitalist? Is it just that you don't like to see companies making money on something you don't believe is real?
There is a world of difference between profits that are made in free exchange of goods and services, versus profits that are made through forcing the general public to pay money for things that they can't see, or experience.
Your arguments are all over the place and don't really bear on the point you're trying to make, but addressing this anyway and without checking your numbers, yes, the transportation industry has some huge pension commitments, among them car manufacturers and the Teamster's Union. As of 2016 General Motors had a global pension obligation of $92.9 billion and was underfunded by $18.3 billion. This means that their pensioners are already receiving notices that place them into one of several categories according to age: a) their pensions will not be affected (the oldest pensioners); b) their pensions will be reduced by around 20% sometime in the next 10 years if the underfunding cannot be remedied (the next oldest pensioners); c) their pensions will be reduced by substantial but currently unknown amounts sometime in the next 10 to 20 years if the underfunding cannot be remedied (the youngest pensioners).
This has nothing to do with climate change.
But it has something to do with corruption. I don't see big, old, stagnant, troubled companies getting involved with anything unless they smell money.
Speaking of corruption, as an aside, I remember very well a little trivia question I saw in a car magazine in the early 70's. "How many U.S. car manufacturers have come on the scene since 1900, and how many are left today?" The answer, almost 600. And how many were left (at that time) - Four. GM, Ford Chrysler, and American Motors. It make me wonder, why were so many guys interested in starting car companies in the teens, 20's and 30's mainly, and why (other than the short-lived DeLorean, and Bricklin) have there been zero guys interested in starting car companies since 1950?
There were still about 10 or 15 car companies left by 1950, but they all dropped off in the 50's, it's somewhat understandable, GM, Ford and Chrysler were doing things right in the 50's, and the others, Kaiser, Studebaker, Packard, Nash, were crippled by the 40's war effort. American Motors lasted awhile longer, but they were starting to have trouble in the 50's.
The U.S. general public really flocked to imported cars by the 1980's, because they weren't satisfied with what the U.S. companies had to offer. Where were new car company start-ups?
There's more corruption in U.S. business than most all of us can imagine. When climate change mandates really get going, we ain't seen nothing yet.
You sound very anti-business, very untypical for a conservative. There's no need to get older cars banned - the national car fleet turns over too fast for that to be necessary.
I can't quickly find it, but you made some reference earlier to increase the efficiency of the auto fleet, how can it be done without government mandates against the free will of the people?
That's what's amazing to me, there are so many climate protests going on today, and yet no one there attempts to define what they want done. Someone said things still aren't as bad today as they were in the late 60's with all the Vietnam war protests, but I'm not so sure. At least those people back then could say what they wanted very simply, they wanted the U.S. troops out of Vietnam! Today's protesters don't say what they want, they're just angry. (and jealous) It would be nice if they'd define what they want. They show pics and vids of putrid smokestacks and factories, but they have clothes on, carry processed wooden signs, marked with paint, all things that are made in factories. What is it that they want, other than to cry and complain about people more successful than they themselves are?
I was just very specific: reduce our reliance on power generation that produces greenhouse gases. That means fewer coal-fired plants (China has plans to build nearly 400 coal-fired power plants over the next decade, which is very bad) and more wind farms, solar cells, geothermal, nuclear (which needs improved technology), etc.
Less coal, more everything that needs improved technology, which means more expense for already strapped rural America.
You seem to be saying that solving climate change will be a difficult problem, and that the costs might not be borne equally. Agreed.
But we disagree on just how serious of a problem that could turn out to be. The costs could very well enrich a few, and destroy the majority. Venezuela style.
Of course they were grandfathered. All states hold automobiles to the emission standards in effect at the time of manufacture.
You said earlier that older cars are driven less, and are therefore less of a pollution problem. How much less they were driven was not a consideration in my area at that time. How any future tests will be conducted will be strictly political. They can make tailpipe sniffer specifications anything they want.
[to be continued in the coming days, out of time tonight]
quote:As hospitals and physicians continue to disappear from rural America at record rates, here is the latest attempt to fill a widening void: a telemedicine center that provides remote emergency care for 179 hospitals across 30 states. Physicians for Avera eCare work out of high-tech cubicles instead of exam rooms. They wear scrubs to look the part of traditional doctors on camera, even though they never directly see or touch their patients. They respond to more than 15,000 emergencies each year by using remote-controlled cameras and computer screens at what has become rural America’s busiest emergency room, which is in fact a virtual ER located in a suburban industrial park.
Anyone here ever been to an ER where no doctor is present, where a doctor only appears by video feed who can instruct nurses on what to do and what to look at, but cannot examine or treat the patient himself? It would be interesting to hear firsthand what that's like.
Everybody who grew up in New York City grew up knowing about Trump and what a crook he was, which is evidenced by how few votes he got from there.
Yes, I know. I often mention that I grew up in the New York Metropolitan area and knew precisely the nature of Trump's character long before he became nationally known through his TV show.
My wife used to be a small town doc. The docs in her clinic coverd the local ER. There were 5 docs on permanent rotation to cover the ER 24 hrs/day, 365 days/year. So she had every 5th ER shift. That meant covering overnight or over the weekend. So about once a week after a full day at clinic she had to spend the night at the hospital to cover the ER. Usually she had the next day off, but if there were vacation or other issues she would still have a full clinic day. The weekends were the craziest. When she was covering the ER for the weekend she would go in by 8 Saturday morning to cover clinic appointments and then she would be covering the ER until 8 Monday morning. She is no long with that clinic, this was one of the reasons, but they still just have 5 docs and they still cover the ER so I don't think much if anything has changed.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
I grew up in NE PA and had a lot of family in NYC. I have never heard anyone in our family say anything complimentary about donnie or his daddy. Fred was always known as a racist, as was donnie. I have relatives(Puerto Rican) that were not allowed to rent at trump properties. In hindsight that was probably a good thing. Racism is long and deep with that family.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
Re: Constitutionalism? oops now "originalist" pt 1: re guns
I probably used the wrong word - the term "originalist" would have been a more appropriate one. It's an age-old division, largely along party lines, where conservatives (Antonin Scalia as one example) interpret the constitution as in what it's text actually says,
quote:In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment, and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five.[1] This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of the current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document.[2][3]
The term originated in the 1980s.[4] Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered.[5] Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning
The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists. Alfred Avins and Raoul Berger (author of Government by Judiciary) are associated with this view.
The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, are associated with this view.
Such theories share the view that there is an identifiable original intent or original meaning, contemporaneous with the ratification of a constitution or statute, which should govern its subsequent interpretation. The divisions between the theories relate to what exactly that identifiable original intent or original meaning is: the intentions of the authors or the ratifiers, the original meaning of the text, a combination of the two, or the original meaning of the text but not its expected application.
Article 5 referring to the process of amendment.
So it's a relatively new (1980) interpretation of the Constitution.
Now I would expect an originalist interpretation of amendment 2 ...
quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
... would mean that people with arms should be members of a state organized, funded and trained militia as defined in the Constitution, in the current manner of the individual State National Guard units operating today (see Constitution:
quote:Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
... and I would NOT expect that to include private ownership of mass killing machines, or carrying them in public, as those - along with proper training in their use would be provided by the National Guard units, or the armed services should they enlist.
We do not normally see any armed service members carrying arms in public, nor do we normally see any police carrying weapons, except a single service pistol issued for specifically work and protection, and which use is tightly controlled.
Note that I do not see anywhere any provision for individuals to use arms to murder large numbers of innocent citizens going about their normal everyday business, or for arming them for such purpose.
I think you would agree that the founders would find such behavior abhorrent.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."
Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written: "For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor," he explained.
"I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.' So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided."
And carrying loaded mass murder weapons in public would also be a misdemeanor (affrighting), because that was the law when the constitution was written.
This debate has been going on for over 100 years, I have no desire to get any more involved with it here.
Do you at least agree that the current situation has gotten out of hand, and that the states have the legal right to pass laws regulating weapons and their use? Scalia thought so.
Re: Constitutionalism? oops now "originalist" pt 1: re guns
Constitutionalism? oops now "originalist"
Both of which basically mean "make it up as I go alongism."
For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Müller
Re: Constitutionalism? re Trump's Criminal Behavior pt #2
I've broken this into two parts because they are different issues
In regards to Trump, do his frequent claims that the Constitution allows him to do what he wants meet the smell test?
For those who don't hate him and wish him out of office before his first term is up, yes.
Hate and political leaning has nothing to do with this simple question, and your answer is totally inadequate.
You claim to be an "originalist" and your answer should be based on that position.
Let me ask again ... consider any president, democrat, republican or independent:
Does the US constitution give the president the absolute right to do whatever he wants.
If you are really an "originalist" I would think your answer would be a resounding NO.
Can you explain why you went all wishy-washy and gave Humpty Dumbty Trumpty a pass?
Would you do the same for Obama or Bill Clinton? Somehow I doubt it given your weaseling answer. Your answer doesn't pass the smell test.
Was his use of his position to attempt to extort a foreign government leader into assisting his re-election campaign overstepping the bounds?
No. Attempting to discover the truth about possible criminal activity of the son of Joe Biden, who isn't, and won't be, his opponent in 2020, had nothing to do with his re-election campaign.
First off, Hunter Biden was investigated and cleared by Ukraine prosecutors in May.
Second, that's not the question. It is against Federal campaign law to ask for or receive assistance from a foreign country. Here is Humpty Dumbty Trumpty asking for a political favor from Ukraine.
Third, using his office of President to ask a personal favor in return for US approved aid is abuse of power.
Fourth, there were no other requests regarding corruption, or requests for investigation of any other people,
Humpty Dumbty Trumpty was withholding approved aid to get the Ukraine president to open an investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
There were no other requests regarding corruption, or requests for investigation of any other people, and the word corruption does not appear in the phone call memos/transcripts (summaries) for either his first call or his second call (the one where he asks for a favor).
Why was the aid suddenly released after the whistleblower document was released? Because he didn't have the authority to hold it (his lawyers told him).
Why did the Ukraine president cancel an interview with CNN that he had scheduled two days after the document was released? Because the aid came through and the extortion scheme had been exposed.
If he really was "Attempting to discover the truth about possible criminal activity of the son of Joe Biden" then why did the aid suddenly go through and why did the Ukraine president suddenly cancel the scheduled interview?
Why would that change?
Is his refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the House in pursuit of due diligence on oversight overstepping the bounds?
Nah, he's the president. He should have a few privileges - he does have a lot of things to do, that a large part of the population probably considers more important.
So actually you are just a fake "originalist" and only whine about it when it suits you, not when it really matters.
quote:No Democrat in Congress or anyone in the news media is being crude or uncivil on anywhere near the scale of Trump.
is a false statement. Political opinions aside, it's simply a false statement. You say you object to Tlaib's statement, but your false statement above shows that you're not acknowledging that she made it, or that so many others associated with anti-Trump rhetoric are using similar crudeness.
You're simply wrong. I issued you a challenge to match you one-for-one on insults and attacks and have kept up a steady stream of Trump attacks/insults in a series of posts where you have not replied once. Begin at Message 3461 and follow the posts back. So far you're losing 19-0. Let's give you the Tlaib quote and call it 19-1.
That quote's not from Amazon. That's from his publisher, Simon and Schuster, the company making money off the sale of his books (as is Amazon).
I don't think Simon and Schuster made those statements...
Those words are at Simon and Schuster's website on their page about the author of The Art of the Deal, Donald J. Trump | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster. Visit that link and you'll see the words you quoted are from Simon and Schuster:
quote:An accomplished author, Mr. Trump has authored over fifteen bestsellers and his first book, The Art of the Deal, is considered a business classic and one of the most successful business books of all time.
Moving on:
Nothing to do with crudeness and incivility, but something to do with the fact that he could have experience and abilities to be a good president.
His background and experience seem to lie almost exclusively in the areas of misrepresentation, subterfuge and chicanery and not at all in government administration, diplomacy, the military, economics or anything else.
Better than a community organizer that has authored zero books, better than a peanut farmer who authored zero books,...
Jimmy Carter authored Why Not the Best in 1975, a year before he ran for president.
...or as the best example, better than a dumbass, racist Texan who was picked as a Vice President by JFK.
What an insightful analysis of LBJ.
They didn't know what kind of president he would likely become.
He's been pretty much the same as president as when a private citizen: bumbling, impulsive, uninformed, petty, vengeful, manipulative, opportunistic, heavy handed, thin skinned, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic and profane.
He was from New York, one of the most liberal areas of the country.
Trump has changed his party affiliation five times
He didn't exactly live an anti-evolution Christian life.
Trump is the man I described above, not whatever he claims to be at any particular time.
You've just reinforced my point. Unlike Trump, other recent presidents possessed presidential demeanor.
And unlike the news media, late night comedians, Democrat congresswomen, etc etc, those people / groups possessed a civilized demeanor. They started with childish taunts and laughter when he announced, then went nuts with crudeness when he won the election.
You can make up as many excuses for Trump as you like, the fact remains that unlike other recent presidents, Trump does not possess presidential demeanor. And he admits this himself. He makes fun of presidential demeanor at all his rallies, speaking in a monotone and marching stiffly.
You claim he behaves this way because he's forced into it, but everyone else knows that that's just who he is, a rude, crude and dishonest real estate developer who's gone bankrupt multiple times, and who for these reasons is secretive in the extreme. He's even reluctant to pay his bills, even as president. He still hasn't paid bills for campaign and presidential visits to many cities, such as Burlington (VT), Lebanon (OH), Mesa (AZ), Erie (PA), Green Bay (WI), Spokane (WA), and on and on. Trump just skips town and ignores the bills, just as he always has.
This looks like tabloid jargon to me, what's your source for this?
You're kidding me - this is all new information to you? Wikipedia describes the bankruptcies at Donald Trump - Wikipedia:
quote:His hotel and casino businesses have been declared bankrupt six times between 1991 and 2009 in order to re-negotiate debt with banks and owners of stock and bonds...Trump was quoted by Newsweek in 2011 saying, "I do play with the bankruptcy laws — they're very good for me" as a tool for trimming debt.
quote:Donald Trump has made many false or misleading statements, including thousands during his presidency. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the rate of his falsehoods as unprecedented[3] in American politics,
quote:President Trump’s campaign rallies are racking up big bills, and he’s reportedly not paying them.
A new investigation from NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity found the Trump campaign owes city governments across the country upwards of $800,000 for police and public safety costs from his events.
The largest invoice to date comes from El Paso, Texas, where the president held a campaign rally in February. Trump still owes the city $470,417 for the event, the invoice shows.
quote:The president has a long history of stiffing people who work for him.
Moving on:
marc9000 writes:
That was all I needed, to show actual quotes of employees at CNN, who clearly showed Zucker's objectives.
The only way you could know if these employees' beliefs are correct is to check the news at CNN, which you haven't done,
There are plenty of other ways I can see CNN's vendetta against Trump - their youtube videos that almost always seek to attack him,...
Uh, this is incoherent. YouTube videos of reports carried by CNN are examples of exactly what I was talking about. Since you claim to have watched YouTube videos that make your case that CNN unfairly attacks Trump, please provide them in your next post. There's a [youtube] dBCode for including YouTube videos in posts.
...the antics of their reporters like Jim Acosta,...
Here's the YouTube video of what you're calling Jim Acosta's supposed "antics":
While aggressively trying to ask Trump questions Trump issued several choice insults:
"Honestly, I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN, and if you did it well your ratings would be much higher."
"CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude terrible person. You shouldn't be working for CNN."
"You're a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, and the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn't treat people that way."
"When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, you are the enemy of the people."
If you don't think there is a bias against Trump in the news media, then I have nothing more to say on that subject.
Accurately reporting on Trump's racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, unlawful and impeachable behavior is what the news media should do. If you don't like seeing news media reports about these things then you and all the other Trump supporters should make clear to him that you wish him to cease these kinds of behaviors.
Your quote has a typo that isn't in the original ("found" instead of "founder"). Did you really type that quote in from scratch instead of just cut-n-pasting?
Some web pages don't allow a highlight for a copy/paste. This one was doing something I'd never seen before, it would just let me highlight a few letters, or one word, then it would stop highlighting. I just decided to retype it and yes, I messed up one word. I didn't realize it was a big deal.
We're talking news and you're citing an opinion piece, but in any case, didn't you watch the video of Trump's announcement that Baghdadi had been killed? If you watch this I think you have to agree with the characterization:
No time to watch this whole thing, but the first few minutes make me wonder what your point is. Was he not polite enough in how he referred to terrorists?
You quoted this from that CNN page saying it was biased:
quote:He [Trump] relished the demise of ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, playing the role of a ruthless commander-in-chief to silence critics of his impulsive foreign policy leadership.
I provided this YouTube video of Trump's announcement which makes clear that CNN's characterization was highly accurate:
Don't watch it if you don't have the time, but neither make allegations you can't support.
This is gonna be a long one folks, Trump's fingers have been very busy. Marc and Faith aren't even trying to keep up, so I'm not going to add explanatory comments with the tweets this time:
Current attacks/insults score: Trump: 33; Democrats: 1
Of course mileage wasn't considered. What do you think grandfathered means?
You said earlier that old car emissions weren't much of an issue, since they aren't driven as much, which is true. But how much they were driven wasn't a consideration when tests were done here before, and there's no guarantee that they'll be a consideration if / when tests are done again.
Do you think it means that the standards for a given vehicle lessen over time? If so then you'll just have to recognize that that isn't so. A couple years ago I traded in a car that I'd owned for 20 years. It was held to the same emission standards in year 1 as in year 20.
Do you think it might have been just a little less clean burning in year 20 as it was in year 1? I guess it was if the engine was freshly overhauled. Many people who have 10, 15, 20 year old cars find them useful, even if they don't have brand new engines.
Reducing emissions isn't hard. Today I own a hybrid vehicle with recharging capability. While the range for all-electric miles is small (around 30), since I mostly make short trips I almost never use the engine, mostly in the winter when the battery capacity drops by about 20% and the engine is needed to provide heat. I fill up the tank maybe 6 times a year.
It can be hard for many who live in rural America, who have a lifestyle that's much different from yours.
From climate change to guns? Are you in some kind of free association mode? Turn off the TV and focus on the topic. I'm ignoring this.
Oh sorry, I was mainly hoping to get a glimpse of that hottie Mary Bruce again. I believe I'd go liberal for her, if she'd ask me to.
I didn't put quotes around the word "disparaging." I put quotes abound what you said in Message 3217 where you used the word "disparaging":
Here's my quote from 3217;
quote:Most of what you're calling disparaging attitudes have been traditional in the history of the U.S.
"what YOU'RE CALLING disparaging" - the word was used by you, I was simply addressing YOUR USE of the word.
You're living in your imagination. Physical abuse, i.e., assault, is a pretty big deal, and blacks are arrested for assaulting white people all the time. A disproportionate amount of the time, one might say, given the growing evidence of arrests of blacks who have committed no crime.
It's the reporting of it by the mainstream media that's often lopsided. It's done in many clever ways, one of MSM's favorite things is to report white on black crimes including major displays of the picture of the white guy, yet when they (usually very briefly) report on black on white crime, the black guys picture isn't shown.
Again, how do you know "climate change action involves untold billions in corruption and bribes"?
I suspect it could happen, using logic and reason. As I linked above, Al Gore has mastered it, and any time anyone makes easy money, there are flocks of imitators who try to do the same thing. And once that kind of corruption gets a foothold, it's often hard to reverse it.
I would say people in general are less medieval today, perhaps you could call it more enlightened. When Grover Cleveland was president women didn't have the vote, the first antitrust laws were brand new, and Jim Crow laws were rampant. We've already come a long way, but we still have far to go.
And some things never change. Did you notice how Adam Schiff's first hearings were held in the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility"?
A bunker for national security / national defense / national emergency use? Schiff used it for partisan political meetings. I've always taken an interest in similarities of today's Democrat party's antics, versus the antics of the King of Great Britain which led up to the revolution. Here's a paragraph from the Declaration of Independence;
quote:He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
See any similarities there? I discovered this one all by myself, never heard it on any news or opinion show. I'd have probably gotten a gold star if I had time to call into a talk radio show with that one.
marc9000 writes:
The recent Baltimore riots weren't racist? Elijah Cummings, or Don Lemon of CNN are never racists?
You're not going to make any headway arguing that racism is greater in the cities than rural areas because it just isn't true. See, for example, The black-white and urban-rural divides in perceptions of racial fairness, which has a chart at the top indicating that racist attitudes are greater in rural than urban areas by every measure across the board.
You missed my point - racism goes both ways. Black lives matter, Black Panthers, Black Entertainment Television, Black History Month, calls for reparations for slavery, all racist. The reason?, if those establishments were reversed, they would be loudly condemned as racist. White Lives Matter, White entertainment Television, White History Month? Now I understand that blacks are a minority compared to whites, and maybe it's harmless for them to have their black entertainment channel, or certain month's commemorating their accomplishments. But they need to be humble and respectful with it, and most of them are. But a significant percentage of them aren't respectable, they're in our face with it. If white people succumb too much, they're going to find themselves the targets and victims of black on white racism.
I didn't comment on the growth of government. It was a comment that when liberals mention socialism that they're only talking about social programs, not the public ownership of business and industry or the nationalization of major industries.
Increases in social programs are a growth of government. When the government grows in some ways, it often gives it more power to grow in other ways.
You've made accusations of bias in the mainstream news media, and it just doesn't hold up.
I'm surprised you continue to deny it. Public opinion polls, actual statistics on negative coverage, the evidence is overwhelming. Here's only one link, just after Trump won the election,it's all I'm going to bother with for now.
quote:There’s one thing I’m certain about going into Wednesday: The mainstream media is going to need to go through a serious readjustment period after this presidential election. The collusion between reporters and the Clinton campaign, revealed by WikiLeaks, have laid bare to the American public the left-leaning bias of the press.
The American public thinks the media wants Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to win by an almost 10-to-1 margin, according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll released late last month. It mirrors an Associated Press/GkF poll showing 56 percent of likely voters, including 87 percent of Donald Trump’s supporters, believe the media is against him.
They've actually done the exact opposite of going through a "readjustment period" in the 3 years since this piece was written, they've made it clear to everyone how biased they are.
[This weekend, maybe even Thanksgiving weekend, I'll try to get to more replies - can't wait to do some whistleblowing on RAZD. ]
I'm very busy at work - I'll try to answer all the replies to me thus far, in a few more days/ weeks, but I'm getting close to being done. You'll eventually get your last word in as usual.
™ Version 4.2
(1)