Image of the day

Captured by
Jonathan Hayton

NGC 7380: The Wizard Nebula

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: James Brown

June 23, 2022 08:13 PM Forum: Politics

Wall Street Journal on Jan 6 hearings

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll


ABC: you said the ice was ‘junk’ tonight.
Kadri : it’s 105 degrees outside, what do you expect?


This is why hockey shouldn’t be allowed below the 38th parallel
Can you believe that Kadri scored the OT game winner about two weeks after his broken thumb was surgically repaired!  Hockey players are such studs.  Jim

June 24, 2022 04:28 PM Forum: Politics

Good News

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck
I'm not pro abortion at all but in certain cases it is warranted. In 24 hours the supremes gave a gun carrying rapist the right to choose the mother of his future offspring and force a government mandated unwanted pregnancy/child to the victim as a constant reminder of her rapist.

On edit: I guess you could argue the woman who gets raped should have been packing to ward off her attacker herself.
You are being silly Jim.  I have not read the opinion yet, but overturning Roe means that the states can regulate abortion as they see fit.  If you think a law allowing abortion in the case of rape is justified, please make sure that your state passes such a law.

As far as the gun goes, background checks are still mandated under federal law in all 50 states.  Any convicted rapist will fail the background check.  Assuming our splendid bureaucracy does its job.

By the way, the gun opinion only affects New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey.  These were the states that routinely denied carry permits.  The other 44 states, including your own Michigan, already have laws that grant a carry permit to anyone who applies and passes a background check.  

Jim

June 24, 2022 04:32 PM Forum: Politics

Good News

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell
Lying to get on the SCOTUS:
Apparently lying means something different in Canada.  Each of the quotes was 100% true at the time the quote was made.  It is not the candidate's job to answer questions that were not asked.   If the fools on the confirmation committees can't do their jobs then shame on them and shame on you for twisting the truth into some sort of supposed "lie." 

June 24, 2022 04:34 PM Forum: Politics

Good News

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell
Also, Thomas has declared in his concurring opinion today that they are going to look at Contraception, Sodomy and Same-sex marriage.

"In his concurring opinion, Thomas, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights."

These people want Gilead.  It's their operating procedure model. 

Disgusting.

Dave
Bullshit.  They want a properly interpreted Constitution.  The Handmaiden's Tale metaphor is as tired and meaningless as Hitler metaphors.  You've used it twice in two days.  If people want permissive abortion, then they should pass laws permitting abortion.  Most states have you know.

June 24, 2022 04:40 PM Forum: Politics

Good News

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell
Lying to get on the SCOTUS:
p.s.  you've riled me up - I thought only Richard could do that.  

I dare you to explain to me why those 4 absolutely true statements are "lies" without making yourself look foolish.  For starters, you'll want to list the question responded to.  I went through the exercise here in great detail when the draft opinion was leaked.   

There is a reason I hate Facebook.  Crap like the image you posted passes for insight and dialog.  You claim to worry about Gilead... I worry that people are so vested in Facebook style provincialism instead of reason and understanding that my country, and yours, don't stand a chance of surviving.

June 24, 2022 04:41 PM Forum: Politics

Good News

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey


No one is pro-abortion. That is a pejorative invented by the right-to-lifers. And, of course, no matter how much they celebrate this ruling, the truth is abortion is not illegal in the US. Instead, it's merely returned to State's rights. All they have done is marginalized the most vulnerable among us. The Federalist Society and Leonard Leo may regret this decision because while they may have won the battle, they may lose the war. There will be a massive backlash against Republicans over this, and if Democrats do get control, it's almost sure they will codify abortion rights into law. Once that is done, it will be practically impossible to reverse because it will not be subject to the whim of shifting SCOTUS justices, and the general intransigence of Washington will also insulate it from change.
Thank God you showed up James.  I was about to lose it.  Jim

June 24, 2022 04:50 PM Forum: Politics

Good News

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Of course I'm being silly. I had no reaction to yesterday's SC decision except to ask why Richard was so angry in his post.

Still, the fact a woman can get raped and then have to carry a rapists offspring because of where she lives and/or not having enough money to travel to a legal state is offensive beyond words.
Agreed.  This is easily fixed by state laws permitting abortion in the case of rape.  There are a few states that will continue to ban all abortions.  I understand that California will pay the poor woman trapped in one of these "complete ban states" to travel for the abortion.   Not a great fix, but there are going to be very very very few women, if any, who actually have a baby after rape because they were unable to travel for an abortion.


https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/New-California-bill-would-create-a-fund-to-aid-17010371.php

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-11/california-could-subsidize-abortion-services-for-out-of-state-patients

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/03/22/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-to-eliminate-out-of-pocket-costs-for-abortion-services/

June 24, 2022 05:05 PM Forum: Politics

At Least 6 Justices still believe in the Bill of Rights

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll
It is virtually impossible to get a conceal carry license in CA. I hope this changes that. There is no reason at all that I should not be allowed to have a handgun on my person for self-defense while away from home.
Right...other than the fact that you can fly, bend iron bars with your bare hands, and bullets simply ricochet off your chest?

June 24, 2022 06:33 PM Forum: Politics

At Least 6 Justices still believe in the Bill of Rights

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell
Lacey:  "Maybe you are unaware of your hostile and aggressive manner".

Davis:  "No, perhaps you're just a touchy little snowflake.  Has that thought ever occurred to you?"


You can't make stuff like this up, folks!

Dave
No sir, you can not make this up.  On this Dave, we agree completely.  The sight of Richard denying the core of his entire being is pretty darned amazing.  Perfect set up by Jim M.  Perfect close by James L.   

Go Avs!  Hopefully we hoist Lord Stanley's Cup tonight.  

Have a great weekend all, I'm outa here!

Jim

June 27, 2022 05:22 PM Forum: Politics

Good News

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

"That's the Law of the land.  I accept the law of the land"  until this week when he didn't accept the law of the land.

"It's settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court"  until this week when he unsettled it.

"Roe v. Wade clearly held that the Constitution protected a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy"  until this week when she decided the Constitution did not protect a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

EAch of the three decided this week to turn 100% against what they said in their confirmation hearings.  Not a lie?  OK. Misdirection, then?  Fingers crossed behind the back?  Pinky swear?

If any of these candidates had said at their hearing, "I'm going to vote against Roe v. Wade the very first chance I get"   would they have been confirmed?  

If I had stated in a teaching job interview that I would only teach the required curriculum, nothing more, nothing less, and got the job as a result of that declaration and then taught stuff clearly NOT on the curriculum at the expense of some other material that was on the curriculum was I lying in the interview?  Damn straight I was and I would be subject to firing.

They lied.  To get on the court while their agenda all along was to vote down Roe v. Wade.

And, as for the Gilead reference - some states are partway there already - murder charges for miscarriages are a thing now in some states.  Citizens can get a reward for snitching on a woman for going out of state to get an abortion in some states, the woman facing criminal charges as a result.  The teaching of factual history about slavery or the Native Residential Schools can cost a teacher his/her job in some states.. If Clarence Thomas' pledge to re-visit sodomy laws, contraception availability and gay marriage then some states for sure will pass laws to outlaw these practices.. Earlier this week the separation of Church and State was weakened by the Maine school funding decision.   And behind all of this sits 'Christian Theocratic Conservatism', smiling sweetly and drooling for the day that they can take over out in the open and re-open their Gay Conversion Therapy Camps and have cops busting motel doors in because someone inside is engaging in oral sex and make it legal to fire or not hire LGBTQ+ people or not serve customers who are 'undesirables' due to their skin tone or their spiritual practices or lack thereof.    Gilead - but the term 'Theocracy' is just as valid. That's where you are headed. One SCOTUS decision at a time...

Dave
You are being disingenuous Dave.  When a senator asked, prior to Friday, if "Roe is the law of the land," or "settled precedent," or if "Roe v. Wade held that the Constitution protected a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy" the only honest answer was "Yes."  These candidates did not lie.  

If the senator then asked whether the candidate agreed with the reasoning behind Roe, and whether they would vote to overturn Roe (and they did), the universal answer is "I refuse to comment on cases that I may have to decide."  Sorry, but that is the way the game is played by both sides.  I can make the historical case that this charade in the hearings is the Democrat's fault.  See Bork and Thomas.  

Go back and review the entire testimony of all post-Thomas confirmation hearings and you will see that I am correct.  Anyone who argues that these candidates mislead in their testimony is pretending that they do no understand how the game is played.   Every intelligent person on the committees and those of us who followed the confirmation hearings knew that the risk of these justices voting to overturn Roe was extremely high.  For some of these folks to now say that the justices "lied" is BS of the highest order.  It is political gamesmanship, and you appear to be buying it.  It is hard to believe you are serious.

In one sentence, do you think that any of these justices promised not to overturn Roe?  Seriously?  If they did, why did they get zero support from the left?  
Why do you think that only 1 or 2 or zero D's voted to confirm these justices?

Have you read the Handmaids Tale? I have, and enjoyed it.  There is little like Gilead going on in the United States.  It is a crap metaphor for our time of women's rights.  You and those wearing handmaid's costumes act as if universal abortion is the only right a woman might have or might care about.  J