(07-29-2024 02:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Biden has already done that, and much more diplomatically. Harris' actions were redundant, and more harsh than necessary.

By the way, that sort of "piling on" by second-tier admins is rather common academia, where an official statement on some issue is made with reasonable skill, but then various next-level administrators feel the need to grab their 30 seconds of signaling by adding their own needless and generally less skillful comments.

(07-29-2024 03:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 02:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:33 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  No, but no need to snub a foreign head of state to score points with an extreme faction either. I'm not arguing that Harris failed to bring about peace in the Middle East, just that her dealings with Netanyahu were less than adroit or politically astute.

Bolded is simply your guess as to her motivations. Maybe you're right. But maybe it was a message to Israel that they shouldn't expect us to rubber-stamp civilian casualties no matter how horrific.

You can't have it both ways. If she was "sending a message" by not being present at Netanyahu's congressional appearance, then it was deliberate choice and therefore a snub by definition. If I don't attend my best friend's wedding because I'm in the ICU, that's not a snub. If I don't attend because I don't like his new haircut, and make it clear to everyone that's why I'm not attending, that's a snub. It doesn't matter how bad his haircut is or how many people agree with me that it's awful, it's still a snub.

Quote:I guess time will tell if this was the right approach or not.

Agreed that time will tell. She'll surprise me if she gains more votes than she loses by taking sides against the pro-Israeli lobbies.

Quote:But I appreciate our administration commenting on these civilian casualties.

Biden has already done that, and much more diplomatically. Harris' actions were redundant, and more harsh than necessary.

The domestic Jewish vote bloc seems strangely resistant to issues involving Israel.

The showing of no reduction in support by the Jewish American bloc to the Democrats during Obama 1 and 2, and even later is seemingly testament to that somewhat strong tie even when subject to rather stringent anti Israeli sentiment.

Coupled with the pivotal nature of the Arab vote in MN, WI, and MI, I would weigh that is worth losing some votes in NY and Cali.

Notwithstanding if the action was a flub or not.

I don't agree that Jewish and pro-Israeli are equivalent. With respect, that's an ethnic stereotype.

Thats not what I said. It was made to show the big gap between 'pro_Israel' and 'Jewish American'. I think that we both actually agree that 'pro Israel' and 'being Jewish American' are very much non-equivalent.

And within the Jewish population of the United States, there doesnt seem to be a high incidence of very strong pro-Israel. Obama was for all intents and purposes the worst 'pro-Israel' President. That made almost no difference in the strong Jewish support for him. Even after the Iran Nuclear Agreement.

Quote:A large number of pro-Israel voters tend to vote GOP, so maybe Harris has nothing to lose by antagonizing them. How many swing voters, though?

NY and California are already in the bag. She could say or do just about anything with no worries about their electoral votes, though of course some Congressional seats could be at stake.

My point exactly. Buttress very tangible numbers of pro-Arab votes in swing states all the while throwing away votes from places she doesnt really need.

She will lose the ardent pro-Israel (regardless of creed) vote no matter, and will lose only a *small* portion of a more important bloc for the Dems -- Jewish Americans. And those really being significantly concentrated in states she will take no matter what.

I would add that there's a difference between pro-Israel's right to exist and defend itself and pro-Netanyahu doing whatever he wants.

Quote: Governor Pritzker and Mayor Johnson moving illegals out of downtown Chicago to the south side so that you don’t see it during the DNC Convention next month. Brand new Holiday Inn right down the street from Midway Airport, using your tax dollars to be converted to an illegal alien shelter. How much more of this are you going to put up with America?

pic.twitter.com/t2qnszU3bL


{VIDEO}

— Ben Bergquam – Real America’s Voice (RAV-TV) News (@BenBergquam) July 19, 2024

The logistics of such an enterprise is so vast that a collaborative effort between multiple NGOs, City of Chicago, Utility Companies, and the State of Illinois is needed. The cost is so exorbitant that it’s no surprise the State of Illinois raised taxes by $1B in 2024 with a lionshare of that revenue being earmarked for the care of the new class of illegal citizens being purchased. According to Illinois Policy, as of March of 2024 the City of Chicago had spent approximately $300M on illegals since 2022. THAT's JUST THE CITY OF CHICAGO! INSANE!!

The Democrats are once again trying to HIDE illegals by having Chicago's poor citizens pay for them. If I was a Chicago Democrat voter, I'd be pi$$ed at the Democrats....
Q: Why doesn't the City of Chicago sepnd that $300 Million on the legal poor black and brown American citizens of Chicago INSTEAD of gving all that money to Illegals???

(07-30-2024 05:27 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

Quote: Governor Pritzker and Mayor Johnson moving illegals out of downtown Chicago to the south side so that you don’t see it during the DNC Convention next month. Brand new Holiday Inn right down the street from Midway Airport, using your tax dollars to be converted to an illegal alien shelter. How much more of this are you going to put up with America?

pic.twitter.com/t2qnszU3bL


{VIDEO}

— Ben Bergquam – Real America’s Voice (RAV-TV) News (@BenBergquam) July 19, 2024

The logistics of such an enterprise is so vast that a collaborative effort between multiple NGOs, City of Chicago, Utility Companies, and the State of Illinois is needed. The cost is so exorbitant that it’s no surprise the State of Illinois raised taxes by $1B in 2024 with a lionshare of that revenue being earmarked for the care of the new class of illegal citizens being purchased. According to Illinois Policy, as of March of 2024 the City of Chicago had spent approximately $300M on illegals since 2022. THAT's JUST THE CITY OF CHICAGO! INSANE!!

The Democrats are once again trying to HIDE illegals by having Chicago's poor citizens pay for them. If I was a Chicago Democrat voter, I'd be pi$$ed at the Democrats....
Q: Why doesn't the City of Chicago sepnd that $300 Million on the legal poor black and brown American citizens of Chicago INSTEAD of gving all that money to Illegals???

It's a good question, but we all already know the answer.

Watching the Olympics, I am struck by the enthusiasm for the flag and for the USA. After years of watching our athletes and citizens burn the flag and/or kneel for the anthem, it is refreshing to see the athletes reach for the flag after their events, and to see the athletes and spectators alike displaying the flag and chanting USA! USA!

The nationalistic fervor seems to be universal, even encompassing left wing celebrities and athletes with a previous history of kneeling.


I can think of nothing that would make me prouder than to hear my national anthem played in honor of one of my achievements.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/v...738&ei=120


https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/o...aba2&ei=45

I keep hearing Harris and her ilk complaining about the SCOTUS finding that the principle found in RvW in 1973 and returned to the states in 2022 after 51 years was somehow a miscarriage of justice, at least in part because it had been the law of the land for 51 years.

These same people, including Harris, never seem to remember that that "separate but equal" was the law of the land for 58 years, 1896-1954. I have heard nary a peep that this principle was sacrosanct due to its long tenure.

But then, consistency is not a liberal strength, nor is logic.

(08-01-2024 05:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I keep hearing Harris and her ilk complaining about the SCOTUS finding that the principle found in RvW in 1973 and returned to the states in 2022 after 51 years was somehow a miscarriage of justice, at least in part because it had been the law of the land for 51 years.

These same people, including Harris, never seem to remember that that "separate but equal" was the law of the land for 58 years, 1896-1954. I have heard nary a peep that this principle was sacrosanct due to its long tenure.

But then, consistency is not a liberal strength, nor is logic.

They have an opening because of the really rank idiotic 'abortion' regimes put into place in red states by red legislatures in the wake of RvWs rollback. Texas being at the forefront. And yes, that situation is a very ripe target.

That line above is the base level easiest way to highlight that issue in a generalized manner. And unfortunately for the nothing but red folk, it resonates. Notwithstanding your angst over your example.

(08-01-2024 05:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I keep hearing Harris and her ilk complaining about the SCOTUS finding that the principle found in RvW in 1973 and returned to the states in 2022 after 51 years was somehow a miscarriage of justice, at least in part because it had been the law of the land for 51 years.

These same people, including Harris, never seem to remember that that "separate but equal" was the law of the land for 58 years, 1896-1954. I have heard nary a peep that this principle was sacrosanct due to its long tenure.

But then, consistency is not a liberal strength, nor is logic.

There is some rancor over most (if not all) conservative Justices publicly stating that Roe was “super precedent” during their confirmation hearings.

Also, as Tanq said, the narrative that many liberals were told was false (that “returning this issue to the states” was just code for severely restricting abortion access), has turned out to be true.

(08-01-2024 06:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I keep hearing Harris and her ilk complaining about the SCOTUS finding that the principle found in RvW in 1973 and returned to the states in 2022 after 51 years was somehow a miscarriage of justice, at least in part because it had been the law of the land for 51 years.

These same people, including Harris, never seem to remember that that "separate but equal" was the law of the land for 58 years, 1896-1954. I have heard nary a peep that this principle was sacrosanct due to its long tenure.

But then, consistency is not a liberal strength, nor is logic.

They have an opening because of the really rank idiotic 'abortion' regimes put into place in red states by red legislatures in the wake of RvWs rollback. Texas being at the forefront. And yes, that situation is a very ripe target.

That line above is the base level easiest way to highlight that issue in a generalized manner. And unfortunately for the nothing but red folk, it resonates. Notwithstanding your angst over your example.

Your angst over my angst notwithstanding, I said here on this forum that that it would take a couple of years for the states to deal with it. What I didn't figure with was that a couple of years would put us smack dad in an election year and parties would be looking for issues.

And yet I hear sound bites of Kamala sounding the alarm over the supposed national ban that Trump supposedly wants to institute. Bad enough they are allowed to lie by the MSM, but then they add this crap about it being a "long held" (51 years) constitutional right. No wonder the Dems in their angst asked every candidate about it being safe from challenge, as though it was freedom of speech. No candidate said they would vote to overturn it - and none did - the Dems forgot to ask if they would vote to return the issue to the states.

I was in my late twenties when RvW was adjudicated. I had a wife, three kids, a business and a mortgage, so, other things were more important to me than RvW. I saw life before, and I have seen it afterward. Can't say I am an all out fan of either approach.

It will eventually shake out, with some states more restrictive and some less so. But for 2024, it makes a good issue, especially when purposively misstated as the Nazi dictator wants a national ban on a right his SCOTUS minions stole from us.

(08-01-2024 07:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, as Tanq said, the narrative that many liberals were told was false (that “returning this issue to the states” was just code for severely restricting abortion access), has turned out to be true.

I would have reached the same decision that the court did in Dobbs without overtutning Roe v. Wade. My reasoning would be that RvW allows for reasonable regulation by the states, and the Mississippi law was a reasonable regulation.

(08-01-2024 08:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 07:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, as Tanq said, the narrative that many liberals were told was false (that “returning this issue to the states” was just code for severely restricting abortion access), has turned out to be true.

I would have reached the same decision that the court did in Dobbs without overtutning Roe v. Wade. My reasoning would be that RvW allows for reasonable regulation by the states, and the Mississippi law was a reasonable regulation.

RvW (which actually *had* effectively been overturned by Casey and Webster) should have been overturned. It was a monstrosity in the legal sense. It (and those that followed it, like Webster) promoted a policy to a fundamental right, one without any basis in the Constitution.

And, on its face, the Mississippi regulation flew in the face of the Casey standard. The standard in Casey was *not* allowing 'reasonable regulation'. The standard was an undue burden standard, under which abortion restrictions would be unconstitutional when they were enacted for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."

To tap dance that the Miss law was *not* strictly "for the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus" would be to, well, tap dance. The Miss regulation was drafted deliberately, specifically, and explicitly to fly in the face of the Casey standard.

And perhaps Republicans are facing the backlash of the deep Red states who have clamped down on abortion. Bummer. They put those items into play. Own them.

(08-01-2024 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 06:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I keep hearing Harris and her ilk complaining about the SCOTUS finding that the principle found in RvW in 1973 and returned to the states in 2022 after 51 years was somehow a miscarriage of justice, at least in part because it had been the law of the land for 51 years.

These same people, including Harris, never seem to remember that that "separate but equal" was the law of the land for 58 years, 1896-1954. I have heard nary a peep that this principle was sacrosanct due to its long tenure.

But then, consistency is not a liberal strength, nor is logic.

They have an opening because of the really rank idiotic 'abortion' regimes put into place in red states by red legislatures in the wake of RvWs rollback. Texas being at the forefront. And yes, that situation is a very ripe target.

That line above is the base level easiest way to highlight that issue in a generalized manner. And unfortunately for the nothing but red folk, it resonates. Notwithstanding your angst over your example.

Your angst over my angst notwithstanding, I said here on this forum that that it would take a couple of years for the states to deal with it. What I didn't figure with was that a couple of years would put us smack dad in an election year and parties would be looking for issues.

And yet I hear sound bites of Kamala sounding the alarm over the supposed national ban that Trump supposedly wants to institute. Bad enough they are allowed to lie by the MSM, but then they add this crap about it being a "long held" (51 years) constitutional right. No wonder the Dems in their angst asked every candidate about it being safe from challenge, as though it was freedom of speech. No candidate said they would vote to overturn it - and none did - the Dems forgot to ask if they would vote to return the issue to the states.

I was in my late twenties when RvW was adjudicated. I had a wife, three kids, a business and a mortgage, so, other things were more important to me than RvW. I saw life before, and I have seen it afterward. Can't say I am an all out fan of either approach.

It will eventually shake out, with some states more restrictive and some less so. But for 2024, it makes a good issue, especially when purposively misstated as the Nazi dictator wants a national ban on a right his SCOTUS minions stole from us.

Well when you have it as an explicit goal of the party -- all the way until earlier this month when it was finally dropped (i.e. attempted to be hidden) -- to create a national ban on abortions, I suggest the republicans should cry a little bit more about that heat being applied to them.

They wanted the removal of the Casey / Roe regime -- they got it.

Most of their deep red state governments wanted to pass draconian versions of the issue -- they got that as well.

The national party has advocated broadly for a national ban.

Boo fing hoo for having to face the music for those decisions.

(08-01-2024 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 06:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I keep hearing Harris and her ilk complaining about the SCOTUS finding that the principle found in RvW in 1973 and returned to the states in 2022 after 51 years was somehow a miscarriage of justice, at least in part because it had been the law of the land for 51 years.

These same people, including Harris, never seem to remember that that "separate but equal" was the law of the land for 58 years, 1896-1954. I have heard nary a peep that this principle was sacrosanct due to its long tenure.

But then, consistency is not a liberal strength, nor is logic.

They have an opening because of the really rank idiotic 'abortion' regimes put into place in red states by red legislatures in the wake of RvWs rollback. Texas being at the forefront. And yes, that situation is a very ripe target.

That line above is the base level easiest way to highlight that issue in a generalized manner. And unfortunately for the nothing but red folk, it resonates. Notwithstanding your angst over your example.

Your angst over my angst notwithstanding, I said here on this forum that that it would take a couple of years for the states to deal with it. What I didn't figure with was that a couple of years would put us smack dad in an election year and parties would be looking for issues.

And yet I hear sound bites of Kamala sounding the alarm over the supposed national ban that Trump supposedly wants to institute. Bad enough they are allowed to lie by the MSM, but then they add this crap about it being a "long held" (51 years) constitutional right. No wonder the Dems in their angst asked every candidate about it being safe from challenge, as though it was freedom of speech. No candidate said they would vote to overturn it - and none did - the Dems forgot to ask if they would vote to return the issue to the states.

I was in my late twenties when RvW was adjudicated. I had a wife, three kids, a business and a mortgage, so, other things were more important to me than RvW. I saw life before, and I have seen it afterward. Can't say I am an all out fan of either approach.

It will eventually shake out, with some states more restrictive and some less so. But for 2024, it makes a good issue, especially when purposively misstated as the Nazi dictator wants a national ban on a right his SCOTUS minions stole from us.

Well when you have it as an explicit goal of the party -- all the way until earlier this month when it was finally dropped (i.e. attempted to be hidden) -- to create a national ban on abortions, I suggest the republicans should cry a little bit more about that heat being applied to them.

They wanted the removal of the Casey / Roe regime -- they got it.

Most of their deep red state governments wanted to pass draconian versions of the issue -- they got that as well.

The national party has advocated broadly for a national ban.

Boo fing hoo for having to face the music for those decisions.

i understand the motivation for a national ban. After it is the taking of a human life. But a national ban is not practical. Even a state ban is not practical.

A compromise will be reached - or 50 of them. In any case, no compromise is good enough for everybody, especially those who stand to gain from making it an issue, whether that be a far leftie or a far rightie.

(08-01-2024 07:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I keep hearing Harris and her ilk complaining about the SCOTUS finding that the principle found in RvW in 1973 and returned to the states in 2022 after 51 years was somehow a miscarriage of justice, at least in part because it had been the law of the land for 51 years.

These same people, including Harris, never seem to remember that that "separate but equal" was the law of the land for 58 years, 1896-1954. I have heard nary a peep that this principle was sacrosanct due to its long tenure.

But then, consistency is not a liberal strength, nor is logic.

There is some rancor over most (if not all) conservative Justices publicly stating that Roe was “super precedent” during their confirmation hearings.

Honestly, is there "rancor" by anyone other than moronic leftists?

When Senators make clear in advance that only certain answers are acceptable, else the nominee will get "Borked", then those are the answers they will get. It is the politicians (mostly on the left), not the judicial nominees, who have made the confirmation process both a charade and a mudpit.

How do you think Hugo Black would have testified if asked about Plessy v. Ferguson? He was a Klansman, for Pete's sake. He went on to be part of the 9-0 majority in Brown v. Board.

(08-01-2024 07:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, as Tanq said, the narrative that many liberals were told was false (that “returning this issue to the states” was just code for severely restricting abortion access), has turned out to be true.

Sorry, but that's what the Constitution allows -- just as it allows states to have severe restrictions on liquor, or drinking straws, or turning right on red, or anything else that is not a constitutional right.

I've been to places that don't allow plastic straws. I think the restriction is silly, and if it bothered me enough, I would stop going to those places. But I wouldn't whine incontinently about my constitutional rights being violated.

For the umpteenth time: dumb laws are not unconstitutional just because they are dumb. What is unconstitutional is making the Supreme Court (or any single entity) the unaccountable arbiter of what is dumb versus what is wise. The thick-headed refusal of leftists to grasp this fundamental fact is almost miraculous, as is their inanity in casting their thick-headedness as virtue.

Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

(08-01-2024 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  almost miraculous, as is their inanity in casting their thick-headedness as virtue.

(08-01-2024 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

Don't expect a response.

(08-01-2024 02:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

Don't expect a response.

See?

(08-01-2024 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 02:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Meanwhile, what severe restrictions have been adopted in New York, Massachusetts, California....?

Don't expect a response.

See?

lol

It is not surprising to some on this board that the real world and all it has to offer, can often get in the way of responding to a post within 24 hours.