rigorousintuition.ca

One more reason to feel blessed for not watching television, PufPuf.

seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:16 am wrote:Willie Robertson, the star of Duck Dynasty.

I had to search on Duck Dynasty

I haven't watched TV in years and have never watched a reality TV show (except had a gf once who was into the Anna Nicole Smith reality show and insisted I watch and was not impressed).

Iamwhomiam » Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:18 am wrote:One more reason to feel blessed for not watching television, PufPuf.

In general you are right but I related somewhere recent at RI that I bought a subscription to Amazon Prime and have been watching TV and movies recently. I watched another episode of Boardwalk Empire this AM and am midway through the movie Trumbo from last evening. (I thought this was a dunce cap)

Iamwhomiam » Mon Jul 18, 2016 11:49 am wrote:

I recall however Obama's cabinet (albeit not bench) choices shortly after his first day in office. Turned out to be more of the same turds, no?

You've wandered off-topic, BS. Kagan and Sotomayor were O's appointments to the bench, replacing Stevens and Souter, respectively.

The future appointments to the Supreme Court our next president will nominate matters greatly, as they are the interpreters of our Constitution.

And no matter where in the world our military wreaks havoc, which will continue under either candidates administration, the interpretation of our constitutional rights remain paramount to me as a citizen, regardless.

That you want to pretend there's no difference in who makes the appointments, or in the impacts of their appointments decisions, I can do nothing to convince you otherwise.

"no difference" -- I've said no such thing. There is a difference in presentation, of course. And, I've already granted that there've been differences in appointments as well, though there is no guarantee of anything on a moving forward basis.
And just how have the 'interpretations' of our Constitutional rights been handled by our govt representatives over the last 20-30 yrs, Iam?
Are you satisfied?

Well, viewing those are a bit different than Duck Dynasty, which I've never had the pleasure of watching. But I have caught a few episodes of those Cajun alligator hunters! Unfortunately, also one partial viewing of an episode of HipHop Wives.

At least they got rid of The Apprentice!

My answer is that "constitutional rights" have been handled in an arbitrary manner at best, willful corruption too often.

The political and legal system is bought and used as a tool of power rather than for freedom and protection.

seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:00 pm wrote:yes vote for the guy who is going to have this guy speak at his convention

The above represents a sizeable demographic, which in turn is ONE reason for Trump's continued presence in this farce for an election.

We can laugh all we want -- and we may abhor it -- but it seems he's been leveraging that demo quite successfully to this point.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of TRUMP's continued existence in this "race" to one who is striking at the root.

Belligerent Savant » Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:31 pm wrote:

Iamwhomiam » Mon Jul 18, 2016 11:49 am wrote:

I recall however Obama's cabinet (albeit not bench) choices shortly after his first day in office. Turned out to be more of the same turds, no?

You've wandered off-topic, BS. Kagan and Sotomayor were O's appointments to the bench, replacing Stevens and Souter, respectively.

The future appointments to the Supreme Court our next president will nominate matters greatly, as they are the interpreters of our Constitution.

And no matter where in the world our military wreaks havoc, which will continue under either candidates administration, the interpretation of our constitutional rights remain paramount to me as a citizen, regardless.

That you want to pretend there's no difference in who makes the appointments, or in the impacts of their appointments decisions, I can do nothing to convince you otherwise.

"no difference" -- I've said no such thing. Don't misrepresent. There is a difference in presentation, of course. And, I've already granted that there've been differences in appointments as well, though there is no guarantee of anything on a moving forward basis.
And just how have the 'interpretations' of our Constitutional rights been handled by our govt representatives over the last 20-30 yrs, Iam?
Are you satisfied?

I hadn't written that you had said "no difference," but that you seem to be pretending there would be no difference. I also wrote that there was nothing I could do to convince you otherwise.

While I have seen many of the policies I have supported and worked for years to see instituted wiped out, or greatly diminished in effect, I remain elated from one of the Court's post-Scalia decisions and one or two prior to his death. So, yes. I am satisfied. It is a great feeling to have this court assert the protection of human health one has fought many years to achieve.

.
Battles won Re: court decisions, small or large, are always noteworthy, and I can understand a measure of satisfaction with certain recent decisions, but come now: our standards for satisfaction need to be higher, no?
Satisfaction is not a word that comes to mind when I consider the current system in place.

Also: my view tends to be more holistic in nature. In an ideal world, wins for The People within the system can accumulate and lead to an upward trend towards progress, to be sure.

But I don't think anyone here would call events of the last few years -- hell, the past few WEEKS alone -- as an UPward trend towards progress. Quite the contrary.

The 2 stooges (a euphemism, to be sure) currently being paraded in front of us as the representatives for the 2-Party system showcase a damning Exhibit A for how our system has failed us, and continues to fail us.

imagine yourself living in 1968 and your daughter was raped and became pregnant ....how would you have felt that the only way of helping your daughter was to hand her a coat hanger?

.
SLAD -- big fan of your work here, but c'mon now.

No, BS. It is that serious.

Belligerent Savant » Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:59 pm wrote:.
SLAD -- big fan of your work here, but c'mon now.

I'm serious if it weren't for the SC decision in 1973 that's what you and your daughter would be facing

and all women would be facing that again if a republican wins the WH

3 Supremes will be leaving..one is already gone ....the next president appoint 4 judges Samuel Alito who is on record opposing abortion rights.

you do know abortions were illegal till 1973?

you do understand before 1973 women had to shove wire hangers up their vaginas to solve the problem?

sometimes they died ...sometimes they became infertile

in the 1920's women used to use Lysol up their vaginas after sex

Before 1973, single women who got pregnant were fired from their jobs. Younger ones were sent to maternity homes for unwed mothers and their children were put up for adoption. Married women who got pregnant were forced to carry pregnancies to term regardless of their circumstances — even if they had so many children that they couldn't afford to feed another one; even if they had metastasized cancer; even if their fetuses couldn't live outside the womb because these fetuses had developed without a heart or brain

“In Chicago, at Cook Country Hospital, there were about 5,000 women a year coming in with injuries bleeding resulting to illegal abortions, mostly self-induced abortions,” Leslie Reagan, the author of When Abortion Was a Crime, said in an interview. “They had an entire ward dedicated to taking care of people in that situation. Those wards pretty much closed up around the country once abortion was legalized.”

Seemslikeadream

in the 1920's women used to use Lysol up their vaginas after sex

I mentioned in the TV thread I have been watching Boardwalk Empire (set in 1920s Atlantic City).

The show is so detailed as there is an interaction between a man, a woman, and a bottle of Lysol; the Lysol bottle filmed with no direct dialogue.

.

I may not have been born until the mid-70s, but I'm quite familiar with history. Appreciate the refresher, however.

Anything is possible in this current semi-dystopian era of politics, including the return of an Abortion ban, if we are to wholly subscribe to the rhetoric of the Trump campaign (though he's apparently changed his position on this topic several times -- shocker).

Somehow, despite various reports/indications of VOTER FRAUD throughout the primaries (http://observer.com/2016/07/california- ... stigation/) -- not to mention voter fraud in past National election cycles -- you both (Iam/SLAD) seem to subscribe to this notion that there will be accurately counted/un-altered votes of the registered citizenry, and those pristine votes (along with the results of the esteemed Electoral College) will drive the selection of the next Pantomime-In-Chief.

I say once again: admire the idealism.