Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
The result is almost irrelevant. It’s clown car all the way down. 🤡 🚙
To varying degrees, political elites, screamed on by the media, have responded to the threat posed by this virus as if it is world-ending. As if it demands the complete reorganisation of social and economic life around the supreme principle of safety. As if there is no way back. They treat it not as a nasty virus that poses a significant but manageable health risk to certain sections of the populace. No, they treat it as a god-like judgement on the old structures of social life, now deemed, in the jargon of the day, unsafe and unsustainable.
This is what is unprecedented. Not the novel virus itself. But the panicked, fear-laden and, in some quarters, gleefully apocalyptic response.
[O]urs is not a confident moment. Born of the long-term moral depletion of liberal capitalism, the exhaustion of political ideology and the subsequent breakdown of social solidarities, it is moment characterised by a profound sense of powerlessness and disenchantment about our way of life. That so much of that way of life has been sacrificed over the past few months is a testament less to the virulence of Covid-19, than to the weakness of even our ruling elites’ support for it.
Even the candidates have trouble hiding the deception. Harris referred to "a Harris administration" and Biden called the ticket "Harris/Biden". The Democrats would love to pack the SC, but first they need to stuff the ballot boxes. The stink they are trying to make about Trump stealing the election tells me that they are almost certainly going to abuse the postal vote system. They've been preparing the ground for months now. Sometimes I think that their hysterical unfounded accusations of abuse of the system are sincere because it's exactly what they would do and have done. The Lori Lerner affair was not an aberration and they almost always get away with it.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:34 pmCountdown to talk about President Harris packing the SC in three, two, one ....
In liberal America they drive on the left. If you got out more you would know this.
1) Block routine purging of voter rolls, because: racism;ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Even the candidates have trouble hiding the deception. Harris referred to "a Harris administration" and Biden called the ticket "Harris/Biden". The Democrats would love to pack the SC, but first they need to stuff the ballot boxes. The stink they are trying to make about Trump stealing the election tells me that they are almost certainly going to abuse the postal vote system. They've been preparing the ground for months now. Sometimes I think that their hysterical unfounded accusations of abuse of the system are sincere because it's exactly what they would do and have done. The Lori Lerner affair was not an aberration and they almost always get away with it.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:34 pmCountdown to talk about President Harris packing the SC in three, two, one ....
Happening in plain sight, but then even the "rational" Democrat public like Coyne don't believe that there is any evidence that mass postal voting will lead to fraud. What looks obvious to anyone who consumes media from all factions is not so obvious to those who trust the big mass media companies and tech giants.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:47 am1) Block routine purging of voter rolls, because: racism;ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Even the candidates have trouble hiding the deception. Harris referred to "a Harris administration" and Biden called the ticket "Harris/Biden". The Democrats would love to pack the SC, but first they need to stuff the ballot boxes. The stink they are trying to make about Trump stealing the election tells me that they are almost certainly going to abuse the postal vote system. They've been preparing the ground for months now. Sometimes I think that their hysterical unfounded accusations of abuse of the system are sincere because it's exactly what they would do and have done. The Lori Lerner affair was not an aberration and they almost always get away with it.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:34 pmCountdown to talk about President Harris packing the SC in three, two, one ....
2) Whip up irrational fear of the plague to rationalize all voting by mail;
3) Push for ballots to be sent to every street address;
4) Fabricate fiction about Trump shutting down the Postal Service;
5) Push for ballot-harvesting, no signature checking, counting of 'naked' ballots;
6) Insist that unpostmarked ballots received after election day be counted;
7) Juke the polls to show huge Biden lead;
8) Warn of "Red Mirage": apparent Trump EC landslide on election night, to be slowly whittled away as mail-in ballots counted;
9) Warn that Trump will refuse to leave office no matter what;
10) Threaten riots, secession, military coup if Biden not installed in WH.
Sounds legit to me.
Guessing you'll be voting for CMYK.Service Dog wrote: ↑ If I were a progressive feminist type-- seeking to leverage the death of RGB for political gain--
That's for people working at home, who are not allowed to smoke while they work for some Stalinist council at home. FFS! They want to own and control each and every part of their workers' lives. Almost enough to get me to restart. Actually, if Dunhill would make their delicious pipe tobaccos again, I'd buy a few kilos of Nightcap and enjoy myself while able. Mmmm, Nightcap! Here's my last, and long empty, tin with two home carved pipes from the distant past....Hammersmith and Fulham council, which represents one of the country's richest areas in London, told its staff in guidance that "any part of a private dwelling used solely for work purposes will be required to be smoke-free".
So it was ok that the Republicans through McConnell stopped Obama from replacing Scalia 11 months before the election, but its dubious politics to say that maybe replacing RBG should wait until after the election in a month or so?Service Dog wrote: ↑ If I were a progressive feminist type-- seeking to leverage the death of RGB for political gain--
First I'd consider Trump-- are there any concessions we can squeeze out of him? Anything on our wish list he might give, to pander for our votes?
Nothing immediately springs to mind. But Trump does seem willing to go-against conventional-republican-positions, for votes. So maybe-- he'll play sugar-daddy, given the right creative win-win sales pitch. Like when Kim Kardashian got the First Steps Act out of him. This would require lefty-progs to take a break from 24/7 vilifying Trump, to woo him a little. Which ain't gonna happen.
So, then: lean on Biden. I think Biden is waaay more ripe for picking. RBG's death is an opportunity for the Left to tell Biden that the URGENCY of all their pet issues just hit critical mass. Tell Biden he needs to stop dicking-around with empty-platitudes for the progressive lefty contingent, while making concrete backroom promises to his fatcat global-business & war-machine cronies...
Tell Biden: either he dances to the progressives' tune-- or he & his 'moderates' will be left waiting at the altar, on election day.
This is the only smoke that triggers the alarm in my place of work (home).screwtape wrote: ↑Guessing you'll be voting for CMYK.Service Dog wrote: ↑ If I were a progressive feminist type-- seeking to leverage the death of RGB for political gain--
In the meantime, be glad your life is not subject to such intrusion as this:That's for people working at home, who are not allowed to smoke while they work for some Stalinist council at home. FFS! They want to own and control each and every part of their workers' lives. Almost enough to get me to restart. Actually, if Dunhill would make their delicious pipe tobaccos again, I'd buy a few kilos of Nightcap and enjoy myself while able. Mmmm, Nightcap! Here's my last, and long empty, tin with two home carved pipes from the distant past....Hammersmith and Fulham council, which represents one of the country's richest areas in London, told its staff in guidance that "any part of a private dwelling used solely for work purposes will be required to be smoke-free".
Nightcap.jpg
I don't see the connection between what i wrote-- and your reply.KiwiInOz wrote: ↑So it was ok that the Republicans through McConnell stopped Obama from replacing Scalia 11 months before the election, but its dubious politics to say that maybe replacing RBG should wait until after the election in a month or so?Service Dog wrote: ↑ If I were a progressive feminist type-- seeking to leverage the death of RGB for political gain--
First I'd consider Trump-- are there any concessions we can squeeze out of him? Anything on our wish list he might give, to pander for our votes?
Nothing immediately springs to mind. But Trump does seem willing to go-against conventional-republican-positions, for votes. So maybe-- he'll play sugar-daddy, given the right creative win-win sales pitch. Like when Kim Kardashian got the First Steps Act out of him. This would require lefty-progs to take a break from 24/7 vilifying Trump, to woo him a little. Which ain't gonna happen.
So, then: lean on Biden. I think Biden is waaay more ripe for picking. RBG's death is an opportunity for the Left to tell Biden that the URGENCY of all their pet issues just hit critical mass. Tell Biden he needs to stop dicking-around with empty-platitudes for the progressive lefty contingent, while making concrete backroom promises to his fatcat global-business & war-machine cronies...
Tell Biden: either he dances to the progressives' tune-- or he & his 'moderates' will be left waiting at the altar, on election day.
I think the Repubs were in the wrong in 2016. Unfortunately for the Dems, two wrongs don't make a right... so it's still wrong now. The correct thing for the Dems to do-- is concede that Trump is allowed to make the nomination. And proceed with the confirmation process fair & square. But the Dems could also campaign like hell-- making the case that letting Trump win this-one shows the Dem's superior commitment to honorable, consistent fair-play: a reason to replace Trump & Republicans-- with Democrats. This strategy I've proposed-- would only work if the Dems actually were more virtuous. Unfortunately, they aren't.
Sorry. I jumped on what I felt was the zeitgeist re RBG from some commentators here, rather than the specifics of your post.Service Dog wrote: ↑I don't see the connection between what i wrote-- and your reply.
Possibly my own fault, if my writing wasn't clear.
The premise I attempted to examine-- was that the death of RGB is an opportunity for RGB's fans to bargain for favors from both prez candidates.
And-- RGB's fans are in a better position to extract concessions (by threatening to withhold support) from Biden-- than from Trump.
Do you have an opinion on that?
(i'll answer the question you asked-- in a separate comment.)
I know that two wrongs etc and tu quoque fallacy apply, but it seems that the Dems have historically passed Repub noms whereas the converse has not been true. Virtue in politics seems to be a losing strategy.Service Dog wrote: ↑I think the Repubs were in the wrong in 2016. Unfortunately for the Dems, two wrongs don't make a right... so it's still wrong now. The correct thing for the Dems to do-- is concede that Trump is allowed to make the nomination. And proceed with the confirmation process fair & square. But the Dems could also campaign like hell-- making the case that letting Trump win this-one shows the Dem's superior commitment to honorable, consistent fair-play: a reason to replace Trump & Republicans-- with Democrats. This strategy I've proposed-- would only work if the Dems actually were more virtuous. Unfortunately, they aren't.
I think you're overlooking the obvious precedent:
Following Bork's nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of him, declaring:
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.[27][28]
Bork responded, "There was not a line in that speech that was accurate."[29]
In an obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, "but it worked."[29]
Bork also contended in his best-selling[30] book, The Tempting of America, that the brief prepared for Sen. Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[31] Opponents of Bork's nomination found the arguments against him justified claiming that Bork believed the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, and he supported poll taxes, literacy tests for voting, mandated school prayer, and sterilization as a requirement for a job, while opposing free speech rights for non-political speech and privacy rights for gay conduct.[32]
However, in 1988, an analysis published in The Western Political Quarterly of amicus curiae briefs filed by U.S. Solicitors General during the Warren and Burger Courts found that during Bork's tenure in the position during the Nixon and Ford Administrations (1973–1977), Bork took liberal positions in the aggregate as often as Thurgood Marshall did during the Johnson Administration (1965–1967) and more often than Wade H. McCree did during the Carter Administration (1977–1981), in part because Bork filed briefs in favor of the litigants in civil rights cases 75 percent of the time (contradicting a previous review of his civil rights record published in 1983).[33][34]
It is what Democrats would want her to say. Who knows if she actually had that on her mind as she died. And there is nothing in the constitution to support the claim that outgoing justices can dictate how or when their successor is nominated. I think the Democrats need a reason to rally the troops before the election and this happened at a convenient time.Pitchguest wrote: ↑ Also, I kind of question the validity of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's final, dying wish. I don't know why. Call it a gut feeling.
I mean, I suppose I can sort of buy it if she said postpone an appointment until after the ELECTION, but apparently she said, according to her daughter, postpone until the NEXT PRESIDENT. So supposing Trump wins, her dying wish would be for the Supreme Court to remain vacant for FOUR YEARS. Somehow it doesn't ring true to me.Driftless wrote: ↑It is what Democrats would want her to say. Who knows if she actually had that on her mind as she died. And there is nothing in the constitution to support the claim that outgoing justices can dictate how or when their successor is nominated. I think the Democrats need a reason to rally the troops before the election and this happened at a convenient time.Pitchguest wrote: ↑ Also, I kind of question the validity of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's final, dying wish. I don't know why. Call it a gut feeling.
Sexual Assault allegations
Anderson was accused of raping a 25-year-old extra in a trailer on the film set of Hustle & Flow on July 27, 2004. The alleged victim accused Anderson and assistant director Wayne Witherspoon of forcibly removing her clothing, photographing her naked body, and digitally penetrating her.[17] A witness claimed to have heard the alleged victim's screams and to have seen her run naked from the trailer, and she was treated at St. Francis Hospital. The charges were dropped on October 6, 2004 because the judge ruled that there was no probable cause to try the case.[18]
Anderson was sued for sexual assault in September 2004 by another woman who claimed that Anderson made sexually suggestive remarks and then assaulted her in his dressing room on the set of All About the Andersons.[19]
On July 20, 2018, it was revealed that he was being investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department for another sexual assault allegation.[18] On September 4, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office decided not to press charges against Anderson due to lack of evidence.[20]
The newest justice sits on the end of the bench. I see several justices flying through the air.Service Dog wrote: ↑ .
The one thing we know for-certain... about Biden's list of nominees...
is it starts with a black women, then more black women, then somewhere down the list is...
...and then more black women
and then
after that
everybody else.
There's at least several in that one.Service Dog wrote: ↑ .
The one thing we know for-certain... about Biden's list of nominees...
is it starts with a black women, then more black women, then somewhere down the list is...
...and then more black women
and then
after that
everybody else.
Why were the Republicans wrong? You hold the senate and the presidency, you nominate a replacement. You don't like the candidate or think there's going to be an opposition bias in the SC with an incoming opposition to possibly exaggerate bias, you block if you hold the senate. Was always thus. This Biden Rule that lips are flapping about supposedly only applies when the presidency and Senate are at odds. Fact is that SC justices are political appointees. At least it is out in the open. The alternative would seem to be appointments by the judiciary themselves and then you may well end up with a hidden, unaccountable ideological bias given the nature of academia these days.Service Dog wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:52 pmI think the Repubs were in the wrong in 2016. Unfortunately for the Dems, two wrongs don't make a right... so it's still wrong now. The correct thing for the Dems to do-- is concede that Trump is allowed to make the nomination. And proceed with the confirmation process fair & square. But the Dems could also campaign like hell-- making the case that letting Trump win this-one shows the Dem's superior commitment to honorable, consistent fair-play: a reason to replace Trump & Republicans-- with Democrats. This strategy I've proposed-- would only work if the Dems actually were more virtuous. Unfortunately, they aren't.
As I indicated previously, I think that the politicisation of the process and of the nominees to the independent third arm of your Government smacks of a corruption that runs deep in your system. The trial by ordure just seems par for the course.Service Dog wrote: ↑I think you're overlooking the obvious precedent:
wikipediaFollowing Bork's nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of him, declaring:
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.[27][28]
Bork responded, "There was not a line in that speech that was accurate."[29]
In an obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, "but it worked."[29]
Bork also contended in his best-selling[30] book, The Tempting of America, that the brief prepared for Sen. Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[31] Opponents of Bork's nomination found the arguments against him justified claiming that Bork believed the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, and he supported poll taxes, literacy tests for voting, mandated school prayer, and sterilization as a requirement for a job, while opposing free speech rights for non-political speech and privacy rights for gay conduct.[32]
However, in 1988, an analysis published in The Western Political Quarterly of amicus curiae briefs filed by U.S. Solicitors General during the Warren and Burger Courts found that during Bork's tenure in the position during the Nixon and Ford Administrations (1973–1977), Bork took liberal positions in the aggregate as often as Thurgood Marshall did during the Johnson Administration (1965–1967) and more often than Wade H. McCree did during the Carter Administration (1977–1981), in part because Bork filed briefs in favor of the litigants in civil rights cases 75 percent of the time (contradicting a previous review of his civil rights record published in 1983).[33][34]
Earlier today, I woulda said the Republicans were wrong to leave Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland hanging-- until it expired. I thought they were in dereliction of their duty.
It wasn't just Biden in 1992, Schumer said in 2007 "we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances". It's clear the Democrats were always (or at least since 1992) planning to deny confirmation to a Republican nominee in the last year of a term if they controlled the Senate.Service Dog wrote: ↑
Then I read more about the 'Biden rule'-- until today, I thought it was based on something Biden said during the 2016 Garland mess. But, no, it was based on something Biden said back in 1992. I am warm to-- using something that fuckwit Biden blathered back in 1992-- against him in 2016. So the 2016 Republicans are even less 'wrong' in my book. The Democrats can only blame themselves for hitching their wagon to Biden again & again & again.
Must be why she can't stay married. Although her latest is rich by some coincidence. ;)Service Dog wrote: ↑ "Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) touted her intersectional oppression in a recent interview with the New York Times, lamenting that she constantly has to “deal with the hate of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-blackness, but also with sexism” in the United States."
Dear Muslima...
Thanks for the link. I just finished reading it. I am going to reread it too.Keating wrote: ↑ https://newdiscourses.com/2020/09/gamer ... l-justice/
Contains a summary of Elevatorgate too.
Keating wrote: ↑ https://newdiscourses.com/2020/09/gamer ... l-justice/
Contains a summary of Elevatorgate too.
That's a pretty nifty trick for a movement that was in effect a solution looking for a problem. And by the writers own admission stillborn.NewDiscourses.com wrote: Atheism Plus did not like to be questioned, and its most obvious activity was attempting to problematize the luminaries and lights of the movement, which it still continues to this day (despite the movement having effectively dissolved almost five years ago).
An armed group of black men who began patrolling Minneapolis during the unrest in the wake of George Floyd's death have been praised by city officials.
The Minnesota Freedom Fighters was formed in late May after the NAACP chapter in the city's north, predominantly black, neighborhood put out a call for residents to help protect small businesses from violence, fires and looting.
A group of about two dozen men gathered and have patrolled the streets since, carrying AR-15s and Glocks and wearing tactical vests and bandannas.
