Engorgeous George

We repelled Frank N Furter back in the 70's and we will repel this new onslaught, just you watch.

Was it painful, hsving your vaginoplasty?

I would like to see her moons.

Milwaukee is a hole, Wisconsin should cede it to Illinois and annex the U.P.

We already have a place for this, It's called Ru Paul's Drag Race.

So you have got that going for you, which is nice.

Your choice of grammer pronouns are I, You, He, She, and It. As this individual does not qualify for any of the other pronouns the correct pronoun to use is It. How could anyone vote for It? Now the politicalloy correct mob will insist it is demeaning to use grammar properly. I ignore them. They don't have the right to redraw language as some attempt to force compliance with their beliefs. They argue I hurt the feelings of the individual who would like to be percieved as they wish to be percieved. Franklyu if my opions damage someone else's self worth or self esteem I am not the problem, thier oversensitivity and lack of self confidence is. That is an internal matter to them, not an external matter.

If so I am completely out of touch with the cost of this kind of thing. I would think $1000 plus her sccess to celerbrity when she is with him would be more than sufficient.

You need know nothing more to form your opinion. Writing legislation, however, requires much more, it requires knowledge of the subject. For years you have sought ignorance on the subject of firearms, a subject you could ahve mastered by now if you had simply processed the information shoved before you in these forums, yet you have refused to do so. You could have taken a course in firearm handling, safety and use yet you chose not to so that you can argue from ignorance. it would seem anyone so passionate about a subject might spend a bit of time and energy acquainting themselves with the subject, but you, you tout your own ignorance. Your persistence in doing so, is, however, admirable. Persistence is a great trait. Unfortuantely persistence without a plan is simply the yipping of a lap dog.

The beauty and the curse of our system is the ignorant are allowed opinions, votes, and the right to express either. Tim is supremely confident in his own intelligence and in the rightness of his ill-founded opinions. To some extent we are all guilty of the same hubris though hopefully in magnitudes less than is he.

If the organizers of a beauty (scholarship) pageant wish to allow this and to have judges taht sanction this that is their right. Whether maryland ought to have its name associated with this is an interesting question, to me. Whether women ought to have their gender associated with this is another intersting question. Perhaps it ought to be called the Miss Maryland beauty and mockery of womanhood pageant

For the record you can more or less guess which states by guessing blue states on an electoral map but with Michigan and Florida flipped. I support the right of those states to ban the appliance if they can do so under their state constitutions and I do not think the ruling yesterrday has any real impact on thier right to do so.

Oh I agree. Pretty clearly Biden thought he might engage with the parachutist to his left, to acknowledge his presence and maybe even to give him a thumbs up and a few words of thanks for his service. That was not the time for it, but I understood his intent and any who claim not to are doing so for partisan purposes. I did find the gesture funny as you could see him, Biden, thinking after he turned and wandered over how do I express my appreciation in Italian which I do not speak and so he came up with the halting "thumbs up" hoping it is a universal sign, which it is not. The thing is, he need not have worried. The odds are high that the parachutist speaks at least some English while Biden speaks no Italian.

No it was not, not remotely, not as a matter of law. Her standard of review, that she feels a thing ought to be, is no legal standard of review. She is a judicial disgrace. That her end result is what you wish the law to be does not change the fact that she has a job. She has procedures she has to follow and she threw them all aside to argue for a legislative, not a judicial, result.

Yes, he was interested in what was happening off to his left. The thing is the exercise at that time was a photo op with the other leaders. They were gathered and all looking in one direction when he got distracted like a dog who sees a squirrel. He forgot what was happening. He had to be corraled and the other leaders had to reform around him for the pictures. This is not to be read as an endorsement of Trump who has never been able to keep his train of thought on one track.

He did have months to prepare. it was the latest SOTU address in my memory as for when it was delivered in the calendar year. It was also a rehash of previous canned pieces from other speeches, cobbled together. As for me I would not say he aced it. I would say he exceeded my expectations. Regardless, neither of these men should be at the controls of our government. Neither is fit to drive their own car or to be left alone with kitchen appliances. I would trust neither to keep a gold fish alive for a week without the intervention of personal assistants.

I want a debate moderated by a high school debate coach who cuts off clearly nonresponsive answers or rephrased questions and gives that time to the opponent if the opponent can addrress the question asked. I would watch that

The debates have never held much interest for me as debates as the participants are never held to account for not addressing the questions asked. Typically the participants start off with some variation of "what I hear you asking is..." They then rephrase the question beyond recognition and give a canned response, a nonresponse if you will. I may watch as a drinking game. Drink everytime Trump insults Biden with a juvenile name unfit for even a grade schooler in a name calling battle. I might also drink everytime Biden calls Trump "Jack", threatens to fight him, or goes into whisper mode and assures us his hyoperbole is a true story. the problem is I don't think I would get to the first commercial break. I just don't drink like I use to. I'm out of training.

For those of us with a micropenis an inch is as good as a mile.

When a statute is clear we don't get to the philosophies of an originalist. There are several authoritative treatises on statutory interpretation and none of them worry about feelings such as Sotomayor relied upon. You want what you want. You want an outcome so for you the end justifies the means, but when we operate under the rule of law that is a poor metric for reaching an end. The process is important, one might say imperative to prevent a dictatorship.

If I remeber correctly the NRA supported the 1986 legislation as they got some clarifications they wanted. Imagine that, 38 years ago the NRA did not knee jerk oppose firearms legislation.

I remember attending an outdoor fgun show in 1986 where Thompson had a booth set up trying to clear out their stock before the ban took effect. They let you test fire Thompsons. I did. It was fun in an Untouchables fantasy camp sort of way, but I did not purchase one as I have no use for such a weapon. There was also a company selling semiautomatic 10 gauge shotguns with an extended magazine. They let you fire that as well. I swear you could have taken down a barn with that thing. Again I did not purchase as who has need of such, excepting perhaps demolition companies. Also 10 gauge ammunition is not all that easy to come by, even then.

No it really doesn't, not under any form of recognized stautory interpretation. Feelings do n ot come into it when there is a specific definition. had congress passed a law that said in general no weapon or weapon system available to the general public shall be designed to have rates of fire over a certain limit, well then that general definition would encompass this. When they went to a more specific definition that specificity rules. In the end none of this matters if congress can get together on a new definition. The Democrats certainly would be willing to do so. As the bump stock ban was a Trump era matter it may be that there are some Republicans who would join in. Now some on the NRA right would oppose as democrats have scared them with their rhetoric, but it would only take a few republicans to join in to get this done.

Tribalism has always been with us and the recent trend was not created by Trump, just taken to a slightly new level, a level embraced by both sides of the political spectrum.

Nope. The dissent wants to legislate. That is not their job. Sotomayor may be a fine legislator where she elected to that job, but her job is to interpret the law, to read the law with a view to whether it is constitutional. In our tripartite system each branch needs to stay in their own lane. A law banning contraception is not a law banning back seats in cars simply because a Justice might feel back seats lead to conception and such a law, if passed by congress should not be read that way. Also, fully automatic weapons were banned in 1986 and that ban was not a complete ban, just a ban for those who did not register and qualify with the federal government, so 38 years ago, not 100.