Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

I don't know.  Some of the new photos kind of give credence to the fake Melania theories.

Jim

Like this one:

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Good Grief.  Yeah we HAVE reached peak psychotic-ness.  Are you really postulating that that Isn't her?  

Because her upper lip is thinner due to the Botox treatments that had worn through, after the 3 month period that it usually lasts?

Man, I've heard some conspiracy theories, but your own header belies your utter madness.

Now he's having standins for Melania is he?  

YOU have reached Peak Weirdness dude.  

And the 2 usual fruitcakes chime in with their support  LOL  

I think that collagen gel or another bulking agent is injected to give pouty lips.  Not that I would know.  Botox is a neuro-paralyzing agent used to relax out little wrinkles like everyone's "frown lines."

No personal experience though.  Nor with the Ms.

Jim 

Originally Posted by James Brown

I think that collagen or another bulking agent is injected to give pouty lips.  Not that I would know.  Botox is a neuro-paralyzing agent used to relax out little wrinkles like everyone's "frown lines."

No personal experience though.  Nor with the Ms.

Jim 

https://www.epiphanydermatology.com/blog/how-to-make-lips-look-fuller-options-plump-lips/

Just in case any of you guys were thinking of going full-pouty on us...

J

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

First, Roe Vs Wade was correctly decided. The argument to the contrary is simply fodder for those who oppose it.

You seem rather sure of yourself.  I can link to many serious legal scholars who argue that Roe was incorrectly decided.  Including Sandra Day O'Connor.  Of course there are legal scholars who agree with you too.  Anyone who thinks this is an easy legal issue with only one valid set of arguments is being rather partisan and rather foolish.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

What would YOU tell the person like Rod and the other nutjobs here (those who think that Melania Trump is not Melania Trump), regarding the Schools?

Do you not think they need to be challenged for their Utter INconsistency that they are for closing schools when the threat of death by Covid is 10%, 20% of the death threat posed by the Yearly Flu?






So then I'll pose this question to you.

What are you going to say IF Harris/Biden get elected and they shut down the nation?  

"Tough noogies people"

Will that be your response?  

Apparently, in your world, those whose lives have been destroyed economically, and those who are taking their own lives, take a backseat to the leftist Governors agenda, which is destroying the nation in front of our eyes.

Ok, I'll just say that I've posted thousands of words about Covid here, and I'm not interested in having a hypothetical debate with a hypothetical lefty nutjob.   Also, I don't think Rod is a nutjob, not by a long shot.  I've replied to him and disagreed with him hundreds of times.  I really can't see rehashing any of that.  Much more fun to simply reply to Rod when I feel like it and debate him directly rather than obliquely.  

Regarding your specific question to me of, "Biden and Harris shutting down the nation..."  I don't think they will.  Maybe some sort of hand-wavy mask mandate, but there will be no federally enforced shut downs.  I expect more openings as the Biden presidency ramps up.  I am that cynical.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

We know exactly how you feel since it's so frustrating to interact with a right-wing COVID denying conspiracy-theory believing whacko.


Carnegie Mellon University has been tracking all kinds of COVID-related data, including the prevalence of mask-wearing. Their data clearly shows a correlation between mask-wearing and a decrease in the prevalence of COVID infections.

Hi James:

I agree with you 100%. 

That said, I don't like that graph.  Having the Y axis show "% of people who know someone with Covid 19 symptoms" would possibly be more highly correlated with community interaction and social isolation than with actual infection rates.  NY and DC are pretty low on the graph, compared to MT for example.   Each of these three jurisdictions have about the same infection rate/M.  NY and DC have about 3-5 times higher death rates/M than MT.  Maybe people in MT are just more neighborly?

Anyway, that data would be much better charted against hospitalizations, or known infections/M than the poll data of "do you know someone...".  I would not be surprised if Carnegie Mellon was cherry picking to prove a point.  Mask wearing is a point I agree with, but still.  I've charted a few extremes using a combination of the CM % mask numbers and World-o-Meter infection/M numbers.  Other than the outlier of "Sturgis Dakota" the other small western states are doing just as well as the more mask wearing Eastern states.  There are a lot of factors at play here.  Population density is a huge factor in communicable disease transmission.  Like I said initially, I agree with the point, but don't like the CM graph at all.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Possibly. This graph is actually from the Washington Post and is their interpretation of some of the CMU data, so I suppose this will only add to your "cherry-picking" concerns. However, anyone can look at all of the data for themselves here: https://covidcast.cmu.edu

That is a sweet repository of data.  I might spend some time trying to graph mask% vs. hospitalizations or infections, if I can.  But later.  I did a bit of that by hand up above.  And yes, I certainly think the WaPo is very capable of cherry picking data to make us fly-over rubes look bad.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Jim,

What is your take as an attorney about this analysis:

"Barrett is the least-experienced Supreme Court nominee in 30 years, having never worked as a judge until President Trump nominated her to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. 

A graduate of Notre Dame law school, Barrett has almost no experience practicing law whatsoever—a hole in her resume so glaring that during her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing in 2017, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were dismayed that she couldn’t recall more than three cases she’d worked on during her brief two years in private practice. (Nominees are asked to provide details on 10.) 
Barrett has never tried a case to verdict or argued an appeal in any court, nor has she ever performed any notable pro bono work, even during law school...In response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questions about her pro bono work, Barrett said she probably helped with such cases during her two years in private practice, but she couldn’t recall any details.

Barett's inexperience isn't just judicial—her privileged perspectives and upbringing have also kept her from understanding the hardships that afflict most people, Stephanie reports. "During the hearings, she seemed at times to strain to acknowledge that there are real human beings experiencing the consequences of her decisions," she writes. "Her testimony inadvertently reinforced the fact that she’s spent her entire adult life in a conservative bubble, not a place known for its forgiving human spirit."

—Abigail Weinberg

The last paragraph is simply partisan hand-wringing.   Elena Kagan probably did not gather a deep understanding of the plight of the little man as Dean of Harvard Law either. 

Speaking of Justice Kagan, she never worked as a judge at any level before the Supreme Court.  Justice Kagan only worked in private practice for a short time after law school, just like Barrett.  That said, I think Justice Kagan is a fine and highly qualified justice.   Both women clerked for Supreme Court Justices, and that is perhaps the best training for the role possible.  Both women were described by their respective Justices as being exceptional and unique.  The very best of a very elite and talented group of lawyers who can actually qualify for a Supreme Court clerkship. 

Last, this commentator does not acknowledge that Barrett's role as a mother might allow her to bring some insight and compassion to the bench that it currently lacks.  O'Connor and Ginsburg had adult children.  Kagan and Sotomayor do not.  As you know, lots of modern studies demonstrate that diversity of background on a board leads to better decision making.  I think Barrett's legal credentials are perfectly fine, even though she does not have Robert Bork's resume.  I think her background is an advantage too.  Last, I think the partisan hand wringing over Roe is ridiculous.   Justices surprise those who opposed them and disappoint those who supported them every day.  Look at Roberts as the most recent example.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Here is what would have to happen for something like Roe v. Wade or even Obergefell v. Hodges to be over-turned.

1. A state legislature would have to pass a law severely restricting abortion or gay marriage.
2. Inevitably, the law would be challenged.
3. All lower courts would then have to go along and spurn the Supreme Court rulings.
4. Eventually, if number three happened, and it won't, it would make it to the Supreme Court.
5. If all of this happened, then the Supreme Court might have a chance to overturn a previous ruling. More likely, what could happen is that cases could make it to the Supreme Court that ended up chipping away at established rights.

By the way, the above is essentially the answer ACB gave in her testimony when she was asked about how she would handle a case that did try to overturn Obergefell. I'm no fan of how the GOP has used raw political power to "pack the courts," but all of the political fear-mongering about Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges being unilaterally overturned or redecided by the Supreme Court by fiat is overblown. Besides, when the Democrats regain power and likely sooner rather than later, they will then get their turn to use naked power-play politics to influence the judiciary's make-up.

Amen.  I think a case can get to the Supremes even if the lower courts follow the controlling SC precedent though.  Whether the Supremes take up the case is discretionary of course.  But, if a majority of the SC was targeting Roe or Obergefell, they could get it done.  This is not Robert's way though.  Not even close - and he has a lot of control.  

By the way, I think Obergefell was correctly decided using law I outlined on this forum over ten years ago.  I think Roe was incorrectly decided.  I am not in favor of overturning either one.  But if one or the other is overturned, the states simply will respond by legalizing abortion in certain circumstances and legalizing gay marriage.  Most or at least many states already have.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Well wait a minute, how come you didn't die?  You guys are claiming this is the most dangerous thing to come down the pike ever, so much that we need to close down everything and stay in the basement.

I'll ask again, why didn't you die?  Why didn't you get very sick? You even said you didn't go to a doctor, so how did you recover?

After all, you appear to be morbidly Obese?  In the photo there on your avatar, it looks like your gut is huge.

Why must you be so rude Richard?  This is not persuasive.  Same deal with all of the ultrasounds.  This sort of thing embarrasses you and embarrasses me by association since we agree on many issues.  I know that you don't care.   I just feel like restating the obvious now and then.