jerryskids

Weird, I was reading this thread and the commercial during the LSU/Bama game said that it is also the 50 year anniversary of Miller Lite beer. Coincidence?

Senate? Bernie is pushing AOC for POTUS.

Maybe you should read my comments before spouting off. I doubt it though, because you responded directly to some of them with "but muh Argentina! "

This false dichotomy is stupid even for you.

I see our board Lefties have offered up a bevy of things the Dems could offer up to pay for more ACA entitlements. Like... ... who am I kidding, muh Argentina!

Muh Argentina! You guys are such sheep for your party lines, but you'll never admit it. I'd point out that your MSM masters don't like Argentina because it is an example of conservatism and libertarianism being more successful than socialism, and that's why they rev you up about it, but you'd just say "but muh Argentina money! " It is NOT a real concession to offer to get something you want (ACA subsidies) and propose the Reps give up something they want (Argentina support, which is strategically important). That's not how negotiations work. How about the Dems offer to carve out $30B of their progressive boondoggles? LGBTQ+ studies in the Middle East? THAT would be the beginning of a negotiation.

Why don't the Dems offer it? Since, you know, the Dems are keeping the government closed? And this is NOT supposed to be a negotiation, which all of you Lefties ignore whenever I say it. The negotiation is supposed to be for the actual budget. This proposal is idiotic, see my comments up thread. It would take these payments off the table for the actual budget discussion. I would be in favor of extending them for the period of the CR, not to exceed a certain date so that the Dems don't avoid approving the budget.

You responded to me as if you understood, then went back to this idiotic idea of giving an extension for a year, beyond the upcoming full budget. That's not a negotiation. That's a gift with money we don't have. If I were the Reps, I'd agree to extend the Covid ACA subsidies to the date they target for the full budget. And I would require the Dems to decide what of their boondoggle things they are willing to drop to pay to keep them going.

Why a year? Shouldn't it only be until the full budget is passed? You know, when negotiation is supposed to actually happen?

It's like you didn't read a word I've said. Several reasons why POTUS would hear a case? Ignored. Gays could have been added to the Civil Rights protected group list after 1964. Several other groups have been. The 13th-15th amendments were written specifically to protect former slaves. The 13th made slavery officially illegal throughout the land. The 14th made them citizens. The 15th codified their right to vote. You are arguing like the hysterical women that the author of that article fears.

I've been meaning to start a thread called "The Great Feminization." It's a fascinating article written by a woman who argues that the feminization of our institutions is destroying them. Here is a relevant excerpt: Your take, the liberal take, is what the author fears. Despite having majorities in both houses and the presidency in the past, you Lefties never explicitly added sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act. Much like you never codified abortion. So there is a risk that this court will follow the Constitution. I hope they don't though, because it would become a rallying point for the Left.

Well, you are proving my point about the Constitution. There is no enumerated federal power regarding marriage, so it technically defaults to the states. Guess we'll see.

Sigh... whenever I see posts like this, I respond with the following: https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology You'll note the following: - Sotomayor is the most biased and it isn't close. She is a joke, just voting for whatever progressive cause du jour with no thought about the law. - Alito and Thomas are next. - Kagan and Brown-Jackson are next. - The four other judges are all center right and the least biased. None of you libs ever respond to these posts, because the cognitive dissonance messes with your preconceived notions that the court is just a puppet for Trump and other pablum. This is all not to say that SCOTUS might do what you say. They might. Constitutionally, it's arguably the correct thing to do. But you know Roberts doesn't want to do it, so all it takes is one of the other 3 center-right justices to oppose it and he will side with the leftie loon justices.

You realize that not every case that is heard by SCOTUS overturns lower court rulings, yes? In fact I would guess this is much more often the case. Perhaps they just want to affirm the lower court ruling. This would put more weight on the ruling, and make it harder for someone down the road to challenge it. Perhaps they want to say that as opposed to abortion, where Congress did nothing in 50 years to codify it, in this case Congress enacted the Respect for Marriage Act, so everyone just relax. Or perhaps they want to weigh in on what to do in the case of the plaintiff. IMO I agree with @MDC -- she's not officiating or blessing anything, she is just issuing a license, and if she won't do that, don't let the door hit ya on the way out. But maybe they would say that governments need to make reasonable accommodations, like if there are 5 people who issue such licenses, have one of the other 4 do it. Depends. Mamdani isn't strong enough to throw anyone off a roof. But if he invites his Imam buddy, the one who was an unindicted co-conspirator of 9/11? I'd pass.

Yes! Great song.

$8 for 10 McNuggets doesn't seem like a value meal, let alone an EXTRA value meal.

Just by accepting the case? What if they find in favor of gay marriage?

Same with injuries. I'm starting Harvey in two leagues, I wish the Broncos would feed him.

Congrats Biff! If I couldn't win... well, fock everyone else. But i voted for your team. maybe you know but Sirius 313 is Alt 2K. Man there was some great music that decade. Hope we do that decade someday. Thanks also for running it. You did a fantastic job.

You voted for a guaranteed loser candidate so that you could biotch about whoever won on a low-rent FF message bored. Congrats, you are a tween girl in the company of weepaws. Also, whatabout does this have to do with Mamdani hating Jews?

This is a terrible analogy. One, Kirk's murderer did not yell "Jesus Christ is King" or similar after murdering Charlie. Two, he didn't seem particularly religious. Three and most importantly, there is nothing in the teachings of Christianity that tell people to kill the infidels. Quite the opposite, actually. It's already been addressed, but Christianity had it's reformation and renaissance. Still waiting on Islam. An individual Muslim might be fine -- I worked with lots of them in tech, and it didn't matter to me in the slightest. Islam as collective influence, however, is bad. There is no moral relativism here -- Judeo-Christian culture is morally superior to Islamic culture. That probably makes me an Islamophobe, and in the true meaning of the word, I accept that label: I am afraid of the collective influence of Islam on our culture.

You've upped your insufferable game recently, though. Do we really need a 3rd thread about the NY mayor? Do you get paid by how many dumb threads you start? If so, you are buying next round, Richie Rich.

It looks to me like the ICE car was trying to cut her off and she tried to accelerate past it before it happened. She clearly is uncooperative after the accident.

I would not vote for that man for mayor of my city.

I accept your L on the facts list. To your new goalposts: Mamdani founded an SJP chapter. SJP supports Hamas, whose charter is the death of all Jews worldwide. Antisemitic or not?