Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Since you're too cowardly intellectually to address the facts of your BS, I'll post your words again, and you can fraudulently claim once more that you don't name call.

Jim Brown:  

I rarely call you names.

Richard is simply illiterate, and it was fun for me to point out his idiocy

I've been seriously curtailing my interaction with Richard for some time now, but like I mentioned the other day, sometimes it is fun to point out his idiocy, so I am reserving my right to make a fool out of him now and then, to correct the record and because it is fun.

Richard's take in this instance (like so many others) was ridiculous, and I felt like ridiculing him!

You exist entirely in a me-against-them world, probably because of some deep seated insecurities and self-loathing.


What I find fun is watching you act with your usual liberal hypocrisy, so I just thought I'd point it out again.

You are free to dodge and weave like all libs do.   LOL  

I rarely call you names.   That is objective truth.   I did not say I never call you names or that I never mock or ridicule you.  I certainly mock and ridicule you more often than I call you childish names.

You left out the best part.  I said that 99% of all vileness and name calling on this forum is your fault.  The vast majority is gratuitous vileness and name calling delivered by you, the rest is name calling delivered by someone else in retaliation for some hostility you initiated.  You know this is true, even though you often whine about being attacked.  Being rude is your reason for being here.  I am not sure what the underlying motivation for such extraordinary rudeness might be, but deep seated insecurities and self-loathing are good guesses.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Nah, pretty much the namecalling is equal back and forth...

See, this is a ridiculous statement from a ridiculous man.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'm still too depressed after the debate last night to get into the SCOTUS decisions. I spent a good portion of the morning installing/collimating my ES 12"/secondary after a recoat by Terry O the other week. (He recoated my astrosystems 16"/secondary last October.) I use the 12" truss dob as a grab & go scope since I leave the structure intact and lift and slide it horizontal in my SUV while placing the rocker box alongside of it.  A 12" scope gives you quite a bit of punch as a grab & go scope.

I immersed myself in that to take my mind off the debate and the SCOTUS decision(s).

It was therapeutic...

Good!  Do have a good relaxing weekend.

We'll have a lot to talk about in the next week or so.  Today's SC decision overturning Chevron deference is potentially a biggie, although I doubt that it changes much in the way of day to day federal agency actions.  This is a decision ripe for over-sensational headlines, in my opinion, especially if it had been released any other day.  "Supreme Court Guts Agency Authority!!"  That sort of thing.  I'll get out front and say that the decision only means that the courts do not have to automatically give deference to an agency's interpretation of ambiguities in the statutes it is administering.   Now the litigants and the agencies are approaching the court on equal footing.  So for agencies it is business as usual, they will just have a slightly less easy time in court defending challenges to the scope of their authority which arise.

The Grant's Park homelessness case is interesting.  I am not in favor of homeless encampments in my parks, and I am surprised so many seem to be.  The conservative majority (which not surprisingly in my opinion) held that statutes allowing cities to ban camping in parks among other things are not a form of "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Constitution.   Seems like an easy case to me, but I have not studied it.  Seems obvious to me that the cities and states should address homelessness to the best of their abilities and budgets without resorting to obscure legal arguments.  I know Gavin Newsome supported the conservative majority in this one, which is rare.   The mayor of LA sided with the liberal minority. 

Monday is the Trump qualified immunity opinion, which will of course suck up the next news cycle...  unless Biden makes some sort of announcement.   It is going to be an interesting week indeed.   I've got guests, so my participation here may be sporadic.  

FWIW, I for one sincerely believe the US is going to be OK, even if DJT is reelected, which now seems likely to me.  Nate Silver's model had Trump at 66% likely to win before the disaster of a debate.  I am not happy about DJT winning, but I still believe the US Constitutional system will curb and control Trump.

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Kamila Harris is a weak candidate, and all hell will break loose if she is bypassed as the nominee. Again, unless a very popular celebrity can somehow step in, if one even exists, it’s either Biden or Harris. I don’t like their chances.

it would take a left of center “Tom Hanks” or “Tom Brady” level figure that was active in politics at this point IMO.

Hi Russ:  I've been thinking about this.  I am talking myself into believing Biden can give a heartfelt prime-time speech (a short one) where he acknowledges his vulnerability and age and basically states that for the good of the country he is passing the baton by releasing his delegates.   With proper advance publicity he would literally get Super Bowl like viewership.  Everyone who is not a Trump fan would watch and love it.  I'm talking about a five minute speech carried by every news outlet there is.  Biden just has to be genuine and earnest to capture the heart of the Nation.   I think he can - last night first and foremost made me feel bad for him as a fellow human being.  His decline must be devastating to him on a personal level.  We are a forgiving people.

He would not anoint Harris or anyone else.   Then the Ds would have a couple weeks before the convention for likely candidates (there are actually a bunch of them) to make announcements, hold a few rallies and try to generate buzz.  Then the delegates would select a new candidate in the most watched and most interesting convention of our lives.  Our adult lives anyway.  The Ds would steal every news cycle between now and mid August from Trump.  Otherwise the D doom and gloom vibes after last night fester like an open wound and Trump's inevitability will only grow.

Possibly the D's lose the right to compete in Ohio for some arcane reason, but Trump probably has Ohio in the bag anyway.  If my scenario comes to pass, Trump is in a real pickle.  He has to debate a competent and nimble politician in September, and Joe would have earned incredible goodwill for the D party by doing the right thing.  As everyone knows, the majority of voters are unhappy with Trump and Biden.   Trump actually sucked last night with his lies and evasions.  He only looked good by comparison to a barely coherent tragedy.  

If this scenario comes to pass, I am on board to vote D again.  If not, something liberal Nate Silver said this morning resonates with me.  Neither of us live in a swing state.  I am as conservative as anyone on this forum except maybe you.  That said, I am likely to vote for Kennedy in a Trump v. Biden rematch as a protest vote against both parties being coopted by such terrible candidates.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Just as I find your excuses and denials to be expected.

It is after all, how entitled liberals think.  

It is puzzling you think "liberal" is an effective pejorative.   My avatar for years was the godfather of liberalism, a man who is worshipped by legit conservatives such as myself.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

She would be an impact player in much-needed MI,  and probable PA and WI. Could be Dems best choice.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

She would be an impact player in much-needed MI,  and probable PA and WI. Could be Dems best choice.

Trump is leading a lot in the southern swing states, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia.  If  he takes those three, the D needs to sweep Mi, Pa, and Wi to win the EC, according to Nate Silver.   Witmer would be a brilliant replacement candidate.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I said nobody on this forum shows panic, not the left or the media which I don't really care about.


Science: When the facts change, we change. I certainly did not think Biden would put up a historically bad performance in his debate, so when he did, my view changed.

BTW I have also learned in my lifetime that the universe expansion is actually accelerating, not decelerating - does that sound like panic to you?

Of course we all knew that Biden had lost a step.  We all thought he was too old to be president.   Like you, I thought he would muddle through the debate with a far better performance than he did.  So, like you, I now think Biden's inevitable and known cognitive decline is more progressed than I had hoped.  It is also accelerating as you note.  On the other hand, everything Trump said in the debate was an outright lie, or a wild exaggeration.  Trump said that he would have the Ukrainian war resolved between election day and inauguration.  Even Richard can't believe that.  Trump's lies, and Richard's incomprehensible and dishonorable take on them, has been well covered in another thread.

I certainly am not panicking.  As I have posted, (over-posted?) I think the United States will survive even another Trump presidency.  That said I do not think another Trump presidency is a good idea, and the risk of Constitutional catastrophe is much higher with Trump than any other candidate.  As of this morning, my primary emotional response (and frankly I am not that emotional) is anger with the Biden family and confidants who apparently told the President to stay the course yesterday at Camp David.   What the hell are they thinking?  Jill Biden said that Joe is not only the right man for the job, but he is the only man for the job.  It is indeed elder abuse to whisper this into the President's ear.   I am 100% confident that Whitmer or the other Ds mentioned in this and other threads can do the job and also beat Trump handily.   How can Biden's inner circle not see this?   It is blindness or ego that makes me angry.

Maybe in two weeks when the polling effect of the debate becomes obvious the inner circle would reconsider.  Could be too late by then though, the virtual roll call to nominate Biden is to occur before August 7 if I recall correctly.  I suppose replacement is never too late until after the convention, but it must get harder each day that goes by.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I guess that the media has you hookwinked on that as well?

Russ's analysis is cogent and correct.  So the media clearly does not have him hoodwinked.  

You on the other hand said this about Trump's debate performance, "And Trump didn't lie about anything that I heard."  Are you hoodwinked by the media?  Or will you acknowledge to the forum that you simply lied when you said the above.  Or maybe it was a typo?  Or maybe you would want to explain the veracity of some of the many whopper lies Trump spewed during the debate?  (Ha Ha, fat chance).   

No one on the forum is saying that Biden did not lie and exaggerate some too.  The rest of us are rational and honest though, even though we have our biases.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

It will be fun to watch the insane freaks here as well, which includes both RINOs.  

Just curious, have you read any of my commentary on the Supreme Court this year, or ever?  Were you able to understand my points?