-
Posts
4264 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Horn Dog
-
-
26 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:
I mean, she’s not wrong in that the Republicans have been caught doing this in N.C.
But like a lot of things that come from her, I don’t quite understand her motives.
She's the kinda woman that if you meet in a bar and take her home, don't be too surprised if you wake up in a tub missing a kidney.
-
12 hours ago, gmr548 said:
The talking point among Trumpkins is that actblue is some sort of shadow group that launders money abd diverts funds to BLM, Biden, etc (using the top fundraisers list as a source). I tried explaining that is a payment platform, and that saying actblue secretly diverts money to democrats is like saying visa secretly diverts your money to walmart when you buy something.
It did not go well.Cool. Ask them what they think ActRed does and what we should do with that organization
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:
From the crazies
Gotcha Grampa Jo! Caught you hiding a microphone in your sleeve cause your handlers wouldn't possibly be able to hear what you said with that big ass microphone mounted on your podium....or is that supposed to he some kind of hearing device implanted on your wrist?? I am so confused.
-
14 minutes ago, JBJ said:
Comparable in that they are both ideas (and not organizations) that people are performing violence in the name of.
I never equated the ideas. Ridiculous strawman.
Biden unequivocally condemned any violence and said that people committing violence should be prosecuted. He did it forcefully and clearly. So what are you "both sides" yapping about exactly?
-
18 minutes ago, JBJ said:
You guys hate the comparison for reasons unrelated to the debate topic. I'm okay with someone coming up with a better comparison, but that hasn't happened.
What right-wing idea/extremism is more comparable?
Why exactly do we need to come up with a new comparison for you? You are the one the made the ridiculous assertion that anti-facism and white supremacy are equivalent ideas. If you no longer agree with that assertion just say so.
-
5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:
Trump sabotaged the debate. This is a fact. He wants to muck everything up and create chaos. Any discussion of Biden's performance needs be qualified with that statement.
I'm not a huge fan of Joe, but that was admirable performance in an incredibly tough situation IMO. He kept his cool, laughed/shrugged off Trump, and focused his attention on the cameras/American people.
Criticizing Biden for last night would be like bitching about a hitter not getting a base hit when the pitcher is literally trying to bean him on every pitch.
Oh I agree 100%. But assuming there will be more debates, this is not going to stop, so need to prep as best one can for it. I think more of the Biden speaking to the camera and ridicule when Trump goes unhinged is the way forward
-
Things I would like to see Biden's prep team emphasize for next "debate":
1. If trump brings up his education and intelligence again, ask him why he won't release his college transcripts or his SAT registration/signature info.
2. When trump sates he "has done more in 4 yrs then anyone else", say oh yea no one is debating that. Most destructive events are quick and fast, its the building that takes time.
3. When trump brings up Hunter and drug abuse, Biden should just look at him and say "Careful Donnie....glass houses". Then loudly sniff repeatedly.
4. When Trump goes on an unhinged rant, Biden should just look at him and say "Donnie are you OK? Seriously we are all worried about you. Cleveland Clinic, the sponsor of these debates, has excellent mental health professionals"
5. More ridicule. Biden needs to work of his Ray from Goodfellas laugh for when Trump is going batshit
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:
Yes Nikki. Being 1 member of a 100 member organization that is one half of one branch composing 1/3 of government power, as well as holding a largely symbolic office for 8 yrs with absolutely no real power is exactly the equivalent of being the leader of the entire executive branch.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, JBJ said:
Now you are just parsing the language. Everyone knows antifa referred to the violent leftwing extremists. It was in the middle of a discussion on riots, police, and law and order.
You are the one who said it was an idea equivalent to white supremacy. It is not. There may be bad actors, and some may have used the banner to commit violence, but the idea is something one can support without supporting violence. Even "non-violent white supremacy" is something that should be universally rejected.
-
8
-
1
-
-
The "idea" of ANTIFA is being against fascism. The implementation that has been used you may disagree with, but you really disagree with the idea of being anti-fascist??
The "idea" of white supremacist is redundant regardless of the implementation.
-
2
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:
One guy just said Biden shouldn’t have called Trump a clown and it was disrespectful. That is what someone literally got out of that debate.
He’s right you know. That was very disrespectful......to clowns.
-
5
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, washparkhorn said:
Good colloquy between a Federalist and a Choice advocate on citizenship upon conception, inter alia. https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/abortion-and-the-courts
The Federalist's position:
This is very interesting thank you for posting. So as I understand it the Federalist viewpoint is that Blackburn was incorrect in asserting that the constitution did not grant “personhood” to a fetus and that a fetus is in fact a “person” upon conception. If that is true then shouldn’t a fetus of a foreign tourist couple be granted citizenship upon conception in the US? If not, wouldn’t that mean the constitution is allowing for a class of “persons” who are potentially stateless? That seems strange.
Furthermore, since the constitution instructs the census to “count all persons living in the United States” doesn’t that mean that fetuses are being illegally not counted? The only other logical conclusion is that the constitution is allowing for a separate class of “persons” in our country, that are considered differently then “born persons” which again seems unconstitutional.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:
A fetus is a living multicell differentiated organism with a genetic makeup consistent with what we have classified as human. "Person hood" is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. I will grant you that it is also used as a legal term. One of the knowledgeable lawyers here can probably outline the history of that term from a legal perspective, and its use for example to deny certain sets of humans their humanity, as a mechanism to justify things like slavery. A human sperm is a human gamete consisting of an expression of 23 chromosomes, one-half of the genetic material consistent with the diploid human genetic profile. Analogy to a fetus or even a zygote is not appropriate imo. A stem cell is a pluri-or multi-ponent cell extracted in a destructive process, at least in the case of embryonic and fetal stem cells, from an early embryo which contains the full suite of human genetic information. A stem cell is one of the "products" possible to harvest when you destroy an embryo. Clearly there are meaningful biological, and I would argue ethical, differences between a sperm, a stem cell harvested from a destroyed embryo, and a embryo or a fetus.
Thanks for responding, I enjoy reading your input. I agree there are biological differences in those examples, but my point was when do you draw the line and why? Is the line when there is multicellular, differentiate form with a certain genetic make up? Certain embroynoic cell malignancies have those characteristics..is it unethical to treat (and thus kill) those? Is it the number of chromosomes? Are fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities less human then those with 46? Is it when someone says its "non-viable"? That is not always clear cut. So what is the line and why? Obviously good people can disagree and in general I completely agree with your statement that it is best not to get in the weeds and instead focus on a socially acceptable solution, but that is what RVW attempted- a compromise. Furthermore, not what most abortion opponents advocate. They want life declared at conception and for that 2 cell organism to have the same rights as born children and adults.
Since this is a ACB thread, and she as well as other conservatives had stated that cases before the SC should be ruled as the constitution is written and how the founding fathers understood things at the time it is interesting to look at this issue from that perspective. Although the founding fathers did not understand about zygotes, multi differentiates cells, etc, they surely did understand the concept of growing fetuses in their wives wombs. Yet they gave rights such as citizenship and the right to be a future president "upon birth" not "upon conception". Why? The only logical conclusion on can reach is that they saw birth as a milestone worthy of obtaining rights and a strict interpretation of their actions would imply that they saw fetuses as lesser then born people not worthy of constitutionally guaranteed rights. This is not to say that fetuses should not have any rights. But any rights given to fetuses is bestowed by modern law, not the constitution.
-
2
-
-
Exactly. And since conservatives what judges who rely on an exclusive "originist doctrine" that states we must interpret the constitution as the founding fathers EXACTLY wrote and understood it, well lets see what those same founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Interpreted literally from a originist perspective, "MEN" (not "human potential life" or "human tissue" and arguably not even women or children) are entitled to Life. So basically the whole "right to life" argument fails in this context. But of course....we are not going to take an "orginist" prospective on this one right?
-
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:
Can’t wait to see how the totally-not-a-Trumper logics and reasons himself out of this.
Well you see, Trump is totally innocent and a great business man because.....what about Hunter Biden and Hillary? How come none of you libtards want to talk about their taxes? Did Hillary or Hunter take any deductions? Yes? Well checkmate motherfucker ! Checkmate!
-
12 hours ago, Anastasis said:
As I mentioned in the portions you quoted, I am not really interested in the tired political abortion debate to be honest, but I will address the questions you tagged me on.
The abortion "problem", if you view it as such, will not be solved by lawyers and judges or politicians. Abortions will continue no matter what lawyers and politicians do. Politicians don't give a shit about the issue really, they only care to the extent that they can wedge voters over it. What would actually move the needle is promoting a culture that acknowledges the intrinsic value of human life in every form.
Given the nature of the issue, I prefer pragmatism in areas that I think people can broadly get on the same page, no matter where they fall on the politics of the issue. For me that pragmatic space is focusing not on situations where abortion has become a solution to a tragic situation such as rape or incest, it is focusing on the significant number of abortions being performed as a basic and repeated form of birth control. Approximately 1 in 5 abortions (~100k annually) are performed on women that have had 2 or more previous abortions. None of us should find this acceptable. Abortion is a medical procedure associated with significant psychological and medical consequences. If you care not for the human life of the fetus, a compassionate concern for the women involved would lead you to considering the long-term consequences of serial abortion. There should be some space for a pragmatic common ground, no matter where you come from on the issue. But of course that is not how our current political system operates
Yes, a fetus is a living human being. It's not a donkey or a goat or an amoeba. "Person" is a philosophical term. I was told this discussion should focus on facts and science.
I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with you on this. No one is really "pro-abortion" and actually want to promote its use. Everyone I have ever talked to about the issue wants to minimize it's utilization as much as possible but have it available when absolutely needed to prevent death, injury or extreme harm to the mother as she determines. As others have pointed out, reducing the use of abortion involves supporting birth control, education, and other social economic polices to give people in vulnerable situations a way out. That is routinely rejected by one side of the spectrum.
Also, I am a bit confused by your distinction of "human being" from "human person". I understand not wanting to get into it, but that really is the issue from a legal point of view isn't it? Of course human tissue is "human"... as is human sperm and human stem cells but we don't assign human tissue inalienable rights, otherwise masturbation would be punishable by millions of counts of murder each pop. The only way the SC could rule RVW unconstitutional is to argue that a fetus is a "human person" with inherent rights afforded via the constitution. Thus although it may very well be "philosophical", its a pretty important legal distinction.
-
1
-
-
I was thinking about Biden's strategy for dealing with Trump just lying his ass off tonight. Hillary tried to just ignore it, which was not very effective. Using your time to correct him is also ineffective. I think the key is to shame and embarrass him. How? Turn it into a game.
Biden Opening statement: "Tonight Trump is going to lie constantly. We can't stop him. But if you go to to Biden2020.com and enter your guess for how many lie Trump will tell tonight, you may win something. Every time he tells a lie tonight I will announce "That is Trump Lie number ___!" If you guess the correct number of lies that Trump say in this debate, you will win 2 VIP tickets to my inauguration. Good luck!"
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
At 0:30
" He displays symptoms that 2 gerontologist told me are classic symptoms of middle level dementia. That's when he does that I pledge allegiance to the United Sta... .uhh...ahhh....uhhh...I think...uhhh... he's done it twice!"
Oh and Rudy, it's not called DSM-5 cause there are 5 symptoms of dementia you dip shit. It's the 5th revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:
I've read that local TV requires full payment upfront before the ad airs.
This is what I learned from watching Better Call Saul.
-
1
-
2
-
-
I posted this in the RBG thread but since it got no response will post here. Any Surly lawyer types want to comment? This article basically says that congress can change what the jurisdiction of cases that SC can review by simply passing a law since the constitution only gives SC original jurisdiction in very select circumstances. If this is true, then limiting the effect ability of the SC to overturn lots of different types of cases doesn't require more than simply passing a law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/23/unmaking-supreme-court/
SpoilerThe notion that Republicans will “win” and capture the Supreme Court for a generation by jamming through a highly partisan justice during an election on a strictly partisan vote is preposterous. It will simply be the starting gun in a race to dismantle the Supreme Court as we know it.
Remember that the agenda for the right on the Supreme Court is to subvert overwhelmingly popular policies, such as access to legalized abortion. As soon as the Supreme Court strikes it down, Congress could pass a bill enshrining it in law, albeit after unrooting the filibuster.
As for the court itself, the uneasy balance that has existed for decades — that each president gets a pick or two and that the Senate only occasionally blocks a nomination (Robert Bork being the sole example of a judge voted down in recent memory) — rests on restraint and comity that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) destroyed in denying President Barack Obama his pick and then jamming through President Trump’s. If, as seems very possible, Democrats capture the White House and the Senate, there will be a radical remaking of the Supreme Court and its role in our system.
Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.
The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).
A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.
That is only one change that a new Congress might enact. The Post’s Editorial Board and many others have suggested limiting the term of Supreme Court justices. Back in 2014, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute wrote:
With a Court that is increasingly active in overturning laws passed by Congress and checking presidential authority when there is a president of the opposite party, that means nominations both to appeals courts and to the Supreme Court have become increasingly divisive and polarized, for both parties. And the policy future of the country depends as much on the actuarial tables and the luck of the draw for presidents as it does on the larger trends in politics and society. …For more than a decade, I have strongly advocated moving toward term limits for appellate judges and Supreme Court justices. I would like to have single, 18-year terms, staggered so that each president in a term would have two vacancies to fill. Doing so would open opportunities for men and women in their 60s, given modern life expectancies, and not just those in their 40s. It would to some degree lower the temperature on confirmation battles by making the stakes a bit lower. And it would mean a Court that more accurately reflects the changes and judgments of the society.The Supreme Court could also be expanded by two or even four justices. The number of justices is a matter of statute, subject to the will of Congress. Since the Merrick Garland stunt, former attorney general Eric Holder has supported this approach. “If, in fact, they are successful in placing a justice on the court,” Holder said recently, “we need to think about court reform. And at a minimum, as part of that reform package, I think additional justices need to be placed on the Supreme Court."
To achieve some or all of these reforms, Democrats will probably need to do away with the Senate filibuster unless their wins in November are enormous and a few Republicans can be persuaded to strike a deal. Having destroyed even the patina of independence and of fair play, Republicans would be in a poor position to scream foul. And even if they do, I am certain a substantial majority of Democrats in the House and Senate will shrug, smile and proceed ahead. (Without the filibuster, a whole list of other measures can be passed, including a statute ensuring abortion rights and funding without the Hyde Amendment restrictions under any government health-care program, securing voting rights, admission of new states, etc.)
The mistake that Republicans make is thinking there is some permanent victory they can obtain in defiance of popular will that is increasingly hostile to their agenda. As undemocratic as our system has become, a substantial majority of voters can ultimately work their will by electing a president and congressional majority of their liking.
If McConnell is not able to jam through a confirmation before the election, all of these reforms and more will be on the table in the lame duck session. A president-elect Biden, armed with an incoming Senate majority, would be in a strong position to lay out the future of a diminished and defanged Supreme Court should Republicans jam through a nominee after a sizable election loss.
“The GOP is in the process of landing a devastating one-two punch on the credibility of the Supreme Court,” says Norman Eisen, former counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment process. By refusing to consider the nomination of Garland in 2016 and now flip-flopping to force through another nominee in an election year, Eisen argues, Republicans would have “tainted” two of the nine seats and therefore the court itself. He adds: “The Democratic leadership of the House and the Senate have made clear that any and all remedies should be on the table if this proceeds, and that is right. Adding additional seats, re-examining the scope of the court’s jurisdiction (to the extent constitutionally permitted), imposing stringent ethics requirements like the ones that apply to all other judges nationally, enhancing Court transparency and much more should be carefully evaluated if this appointment goes forward.”
The permutations and possible outcomes are endless, but two things are not up for debate. First, Democrats will need a convincing win to achieve any of these measures, not to mention the rest of their agenda. An army of Ruth Bader Ginsburg admirers marching to the polls can increase their chances of a convincing victory.
Second, let’s stop the silly moaning that “Republicans cannot be stopped” or that “the right will own the Supreme Court for decades.” Nonsense. Ultimately, the people decide — and there is every reason to believe that the people have no stomach for a Republican world in which millions lose health-care coverage, abortion is criminalized in many states, LGBTQ rights are undone, states can eviscerate voting rights and the executive branch gets a free pass to do whatever it pleases. November will become a referendum not only on all these issues, but on the Republican effort to impose minority rule of overwhelmingly White conservative states on the rest of the country.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, workswithseed said:
I didn't know miscarriage was a crime.
If a parent performed an action, or failed to perform an action, even if it is inadvertent, that resulted in the death of their toddler, that person would certainly be facing the risk of being charged with a crime. Therefore if a fetus is a person at conception, then a woman, even if she doesn’t know she is pregnant, performs an action or fails to perform an action which results in miscarriage should also be potentially criminally prosecuted. An example would be a women who is unaware of her 2 week pregnancy going out to a bar and drinking too much resulting in a miscarriage. That is unless we are going to treat “fetus persons” differently than “post born persons”.
-
3
-
-
59 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:
The dem senators give the gop senators nothing to go on at the confirmation hearings. Either ask zero questions or just use their time to remind the viewers how much trump is not the law & order president. Hell, ask Barrett what she thinks of trump and his past behavior. And if she doesn’t take the bait, use the tv time to remind her of trumps attitude and behavior towards women.
I think each dem senator should play a tape of either Barret herself, or a GOP senator stating that Obama should not nominate a SC justice during an election year then simply say “ Do you agree with what this person (including yourself) said or were they wrong?” Over and over again....
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:
That makes no sense. I get what you're saying, but it's semantic. The remainder of the act is in no way "unconstitutional", so the argument is that the means by which it was passed renders it unconstitutional, since as it stands now it would not make it through the process?
It absolutely makes no sense and as Wildcat points out, everyone including republicans laughed when the argument was made. Yet here we are, and there is a great chance the “nonpartisan” SC, which is only interested in calling balls and strikes, will agree with this line of reasoning that most 5yr olds would recognize as nonsensical
-
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:
I'm catching up on this nomination, having mostly been concerned with the machinations of majority Senate controlling the consideration of a particular nominee.
Can somebody explain exactly what about the ACA might be unconstitutional? Trump already got rid of the most "offensive" part for many Americans. What about the remainder of the act is illegal?
The idea that insurance companies must be compelled to cover preexisting conditions is not new. Bill Clinton drove that home while he was President.
What's the issue here?
I am sure someone smarter will explain this better but my understanding is the GOPs argument is the law was passed under Congresses authority to tax (the penalty for not having insurance being a tax). Then the GOP came along and reduced the penalty to $0. Now they say since the penalty is $0, there is no tax and therefore the entire law is unconstitutional
Kayleigh McEnany is Terrible at This Job
in Cloak Room
Posted
Genuinely surprised that she admitted she was wrong. I expected her to just run with it.