Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
    There's a middle ground, no? Some experience serving the people (whether in or out of government) would be nice to see. At the point someone has had an office in the Capitol for several decades, I'm done with them. That's no longer representative government; it's the establishment of a ruling class.

    I'm not a Georgia voter, so I have no dog in the hunt. But, if you compare and contrast, say, Stacy Abrams and Herschel Walker, you get one person who spent ten years in the Georgia State House, and has continued to serve the people of Georgia despite being out of office, and another person who lives in Texas but once won a Heisman Trophy while playing for Georgia. Completely ignoring their political positions, do you see some disparity in their qualifications to represent the people of Georgia?


    I think most sports figures make terrible politicians regardless of their party affiliation.
    But yes I see some disparity in the Qualifications of Stacey Abrams and Herschel Walker.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
      There's a middle ground, no? Some experience serving the people (whether in or out of government) would be nice to see. At the point someone has had an office in the Capitol for several decades, I'm done with them. That's no longer representative government; it's the establishment of a ruling class.

      I'm not a Georgia voter, so I have no dog in the hunt. But, if you compare and contrast, say, Stacy Abrams and Herschel Walker, you get one person who spent ten years in the Georgia State House, and has continued to serve the people of Georgia despite being out of office, and another person who lives in Texas but once won a Heisman Trophy while playing for Georgia. Completely ignoring their political positions, do you see some disparity in their qualifications to represent the people of Georgia?


      I think we do have a dog in the hunt, though. There are only 100 U.S. Senators. Every time someone like Walker gets elected (and this is about qualifications, not ideology) it impacts all of us.

      Comment


        Poor Rachel.

        ESPN has removed Rachel Nichols from NBA coverage and has canceled her show The Jump, the network confirmed Thursday.

        This comes nearly two months after Nichols' remarks became public in which she suggested that Maria Taylor was promoted because she is Black.

        "We mutually agreed that this approach regarding our NBA coverage was best for all concerned," David Roberts, ESPN's senior vice president of production, said in a statement. "Rachel is an excellent reporter, host and journalist, and we thank her for her many contributions to our NBA content."
        "If you need to give her more things to do because you are feeling pressure about your crappy longtime record on diversity — which, by the way, I know personally from the female side of it — like, go for it," Nichols said in the recording. "Just find it somewhere else. You are not going to find it from me or taking my thing away.
        https://www.npr.org/2021/08/26/10312...aylor-nba-jump
        Calmer than you are

        7/30/2017: The day the Minnesota Twins bought a prospect from the New York Yankees.

        Comment


          Originally posted by clownpickle View Post
          ok.
          Russian warship, go **** yourself

          Comment


            Originally posted by YFIB View Post

            I think we do have a dog in the hunt, though. There are only 100 U.S. Senators. Every time someone like Walker gets elected (and this is about qualifications, not ideology) it impacts all of us.
            This. Every US citizen suffers because of Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz. They don't torment only those who live in Kentucky and Texas.
            "Our work continues, the fight goes on, and the big dreams never die." -- Elizabeth Warren

            Comment


              Greg Stohr@GregStohr

              BREAKING: Supreme Court lifts Biden administration's moratorium on evictions, ending protections for millions of people who have fallen behind on rent payments during pandemic. Court's three liberals dissent.
              Not unexpected but still a bummer.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Texsahara View Post
                Not unexpected but still a bummer.
                How can anyone be so vile, so heartless, so CRUEL that they wouldn't support stopping evictions during a freaking pandemic? I just can't fathom being so depraved.
                "Our work continues, the fight goes on, and the big dreams never die." -- Elizabeth Warren

                Comment


                  Originally posted by jlw1980 View Post

                  How can anyone be so vile, so heartless, so CRUEL that they wouldn't support stopping evictions during a freaking pandemic? I just can't fathom being so depraved.
                  The Supreme Court's job isn't to consider whether something is cruel or heartless. Their job is to make sure the government acts in accordance with the limitations of power established by the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant the government additional powers because there's a pandemic. And, the Supreme Court doesn't make exceptions to the Constitution based on heartlessness.

                  What is NOT heartless is the government's reaction to a lot of peoples' loss of income. By extending unemployment benefits, and adding the $600/week the government has added in, many people had been receiving MORE income than they made while they were employed. [The $600 Unemployment Booster Shot, State by State - The New York Times (nytimes.com) ]There are people who are drawing unemployment at rates higher than they made as a part of the workforce, and are subsequently failing to pay rent because they can't be evicted. Isn't THAT depraved, too? If the individual states are inefficient at distributing allocated federal dollars to help those who need help, let's put pressure on the states. But, let's not tell every landlord in America that they need to suck it up, because expecting people to actually pay for their obligations could be construed as vile, heartless, and depraved.

                  We need to take care of our neighbors during this mess. We need to protect families that have been impacted. That includes families who get their income from rents received from their tenants. We've set aside a LOT of money to help. Where has that money gone? If it's sitting in state treasuries (which is the case in many states), THAT'S what's depraved.

                  "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
                  - President Barack Obama

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
                    The Supreme Court's job isn't to consider whether something is cruel or heartless. Their job is to make sure the government acts in accordance with the limitations of power established by the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant the government additional powers because there's a pandemic. And, the Supreme Court doesn't make exceptions to the Constitution based on heartlessness.

                    What is NOT heartless is the government's reaction to a lot of peoples' loss of income. By extending unemployment benefits, and adding the $600/week the government has added in, many people had been receiving MORE income than they made while they were employed. [The $600 Unemployment Booster Shot, State by State - The New York Times (nytimes.com) ]There are people who are drawing unemployment at rates higher than they made as a part of the workforce, and are subsequently failing to pay rent because they can't be evicted. Isn't THAT depraved, too? If the individual states are inefficient at distributing allocated federal dollars to help those who need help, let's put pressure on the states. But, let's not tell every landlord in America that they need to suck it up, because expecting people to actually pay for their obligations could be construed as vile, heartless, and depraved.

                    We need to take care of our neighbors during this mess. We need to protect families that have been impacted. That includes families who get their income from rents received from their tenants. We've set aside a LOT of money to help. Where has that money gone? If it's sitting in state treasuries (which is the case in many states), THAT'S what's depraved.
                    I disagree with their decision because I think it's constitutionally wrong. I think this court is wrong a lot. That it's also heartless and cruel is just icing on the cake. And you have no idea if the people that are "drawing unemployment at rates higher than they made as a part of the workforce" are the same people at risk of eviction. Plus your belief that people just don't want to pay rent since they can't be evicted is so offensive. You just hate poor people.

                    Comment


                      Well, at least SCOTUS has maintained its longstanding, nonpartisan principle that courts should, where possible, avoid interference with the President's broad authority to conduct foreign policy - the same principle that led them to uphold Trump's Muslim ban.

                      Oh, wait.

                      On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court issued one of the most radical orders in recent memory—and it did it in three sentences, unsigned. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative justices attacked the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy (a principle it had vehemently preserved throughout the Trump presidency) by compelling the Biden administration to revive Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required all asylum-seekers who arrive at the Southern border—including many fleeing violence in Central America—to wait for their U.S. immigration hearings in Mexico. This 2019 policy, the product of extensive negotiations between the Trump administration and the Mexican government, has been suspended for about 17 months. On Aug. 13, however, a single federal judge issued a nationwide injunction ordering the government to reinstate the long-dormant program immediately. Late Tuesday, the Supreme Court blessed this unprecedented hostile takeover of the executive’s immigration policies without bothering to explain how or why.

                      The implications of Tuesday’s decision are profoundly disturbing. The conservative justices spent the bulk of the Trump years insisting that courts must defer to the president’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs. Now they have allowed a lone Trump-appointed judge, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, to force the government into sensitive diplomatic negotiations over border policy. Their decision even grants Kacsmaryk sweeping authority to oversee these negotiations so he can ensure that the Biden administration is pushing Mexican officials hard enough to revive Trump’s program, something the administration does not want to do. And they have seemingly abandoned their skepticism toward nationwide injunctions like this one—a position some held when it allowed them to undermine the federal judiciary’s check on Trump. In the process, the six Republican-appointed justices have injected chaos, confusion, and cruelty into the United States’ border policy, thrusting thousands of asylum-seekers into legal limbo.
                      https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...en-policy.html
                      Russian warship, go **** yourself

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Texsahara View Post
                        I disagree with their decision because I think it's constitutionally wrong.
                        Where does the Constitution grant the government the power to prohibit a landlord from expecting to receive rent? It seems to be the taking of property without due process. Serious question. You can be strongly in favor of a particular action, but that doesn't give it Constitutional authority. The Constitution doesn't contain an exception because something might be the right thing to do.
                        Originally posted by Texsahara
                        Plus your belief that people just don't want to pay rent since they can't be evicted is so offensive.
                        I didn't throw that blanket over the entire community. I said there are people that fit that description. And I think that those who ARE drawing more in unemployment than they made while working, AND avoiding rent at the same time, are vile. I stand by that. That does NOT include people who genuinely need additional help. That's why I want to put pressure on the states to efficiently distribute the money we've provided to them for precisely this purpose.
                        Originally posted by Texsahara
                        You just hate poor people.
                        Not at all. I just hate people who make an obligation, and then expect someone else to pay for what they agreed to....loans, rent, mortgage. It shouldn't be up to me to make payments for what you signed up for. Circumstances change, particularly in the face of a pandemic. There are mechanisms to renegotiate certain obligations. But a blanket expectation for loan forgiveness or rent forgiveness is inappropriate (to me), and the description of a landlord expecting to receive rent from his tenant or a bank to receive payments on money it's loaned as being vile, heartless, or depraved is incorrect.

                        Your car breaks down, and the repair will be expensive. I have an additional vehicle, that I'm willing to let you borrow. A few weeks go by, and you haven't returned my extra car. I call you to ask about it, and you say, "I decided it's too expensive to fix my old car, so I'm just gonna keep yours." I take exception to this. Am I being vile, heartless, and depraved?

                        "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
                        - President Barack Obama

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
                          Where does the Constitution grant the government the power to prohibit a landlord from expecting to receive rent? It seems to be the taking of property without due process. Serious question. You can be strongly in favor of a particular action, but that doesn't give it Constitutional authority. The Constitution doesn't contain an exception because something might be the right thing to do.
                          I disagree with their interpretation of Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act. Determining the constitutionality of a law is what the court does. That the constitution does not specifically "grant the government the power to prohibit a landlord from expecting to receive rent" is irrelevant.

                          Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
                          I didn't throw that blanket over the entire community. I said there are people that fit that description. And I think that those who ARE drawing more in unemployment than they made while working, AND avoiding rent at the same time, are vile. I stand by that. That does NOT include people who genuinely need additional help. That's why I want to put pressure on the states to efficiently distribute the money we've provided to them for precisely this purpose. Not at all. I just hate people who make an obligation, and then expect someone else to pay for what they agreed to....loans, rent, mortgage. It shouldn't be up to me to make payments for what you signed up for. Circumstances change, particularly in the face of a pandemic. There are mechanisms to renegotiate certain obligations. But a blanket expectation for loan forgiveness or rent forgiveness is inappropriate (to me), and the description of a landlord expecting to receive rent from his tenant or a bank to receive payments on money it's loaned as being vile, heartless, or depraved is incorrect.
                          Let's not help as many people as we possibly can during a pandemic because someone might get something they don't deserve oh noes! Same old Maynerd.

                          Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
                          Your car breaks down, and the repair will be expensive. I have an additional vehicle, that I'm willing to let you borrow. A few weeks go by, and you haven't returned my extra car. I call you to ask about it, and you say, "I decided it's too expensive to fix my old car, so I'm just gonna keep yours." I take exception to this. Am I being vile, heartless, and depraved?
                          You are not the government and the government is not you. Stupid analogies are stupid.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
                            The Supreme Court's job isn't to consider whether something is cruel or heartless. Their job is to make sure the government acts in accordance with the limitations of power established by the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant the government additional powers because there's a pandemic. And, the Supreme Court doesn't make exceptions to the Constitution based on heartlessness.
                            Thomas Jefferson: "A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

                            Justice Robert Jackson: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

                            Russian warship, go **** yourself

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by JL25and3 View Post

                              Thomas Jefferson: "A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

                              Justice Robert Jackson: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
                              All good words. Neither goes so far as to say a landlord is powerless to expect rent to be paid.

                              "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
                              - President Barack Obama

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Texsahara View Post
                                You are not the government and the government is not you. Stupid analogies are stupid.
                                Okay. Should the government step in and say "Sorry, Maynerd, but Tex needs a car, and you have an extra, so you have no right to get your car back"?

                                Seems they should. Doing otherwise would be vile, heartless and depraved.


                                "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
                                - President Barack Obama

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X