Butch Femme Planet  

Go Back   Butch Femme Planet > POLITICS, CULTURE, NEWS, MEDIA > Politics And Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-08-2019, 06:27 PM   #61
BullDog
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Dominant Stone Butch Daddy
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: .
Posts: 5,203
Thanks: 17,636
Thanked 22,003 Times in 4,302 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
BullDog Has the BEST ReputationBullDog Has the BEST ReputationBullDog Has the BEST ReputationBullDog Has the BEST ReputationBullDog Has the BEST ReputationBullDog Has the BEST ReputationBullDog Has the BEST ReputationBullDog Has the BEST ReputationBullDog Has the BEST ReputationBullDog Has the BEST ReputationBullDog Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Does anyone have any theories on why Burr subpoenaed Junior? I mean obviously Junior lied and should be questioned again but Burr has been a Trump supporter and Republican of course. Maybe get to him before the House does? Intriguing.
__________________
Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other.

- Rainer Maria Rilke
BullDog is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BullDog For This Useful Post:
Old 05-09-2019, 08:01 PM   #62
Kätzchen
~*~*~*~*~

How Do You Identify?:
Femme
 
Kätzchen's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nascent skies
Posts: 13,773
Thanks: 37,428
Thanked 28,345 Times in 8,765 Posts
Rep Power: 21474860
Kätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST Reputation
Default Exhibit A & B: Two articles about Nepotism in T^^^p-land (...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BullDog View Post
Does anyone have any theories on why Burr subpoenaed Junior? I mean obviously Junior lied and should be questioned again but Burr has been a Trump supporter and Republican of course. Maybe get to him before the House does? Intriguing.
Not sure, but I've always wondered why it seems like T***p is not being held accountable for the massive, in-your-face practice of Nepotism. Which to me, if any other organization or commanding officer of an organization was found to be sh*t deep in Nepotism, they'd be ousted, tried and convicted and be serving time in jail (massive punitive fines, included).

In fact, I have come across news articles by journalists who have been reporting concerns about this very type of thing, by the T***p administration: Nepotism.

Nepotism has a legal definition: "Nepotism means the act of hiring, promoting, or advancing a family member in state government or recommending the hiring, promotion, or advancement of a family member in state government, including initial appointment and transfer to other positions in state government. Laws forbid nepotism in the executive branch."

(definition & citation source: Nepotism Restrictions for State Legislators
http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/...trictions.aspx)



Here's an interesting recent article published by Vanity Fair:

How Congress Is Tightening The Trap Around The Trump Kids
(March 21st, 2019; author: Abigail Tracy).


And, here is another article, by NPR, which talks about Nepotism being passed into law by Congress, back in 1967, during the Kennedy era:

NPR: Anti-Nepotism Laws (…..) (sadly, it was published back in 2016, but it brings to front and center, Nepotism practices by T***p, and BTW, it's still a red hot button issue which needs to be publicly addressed. Jared & Ivanka, Don Jr, TP, Sr. etc ).
__________________
Kätzchen
Kätzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Kätzchen For This Useful Post:
Old 05-10-2019, 07:19 AM   #63
dark_crystal
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
jenny
Preferred Pronoun?:
babygirl
Relationship Status:
First Lady of the United SMH
 
dark_crystal's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,387
Thanks: 1,500
Thanked 26,405 Times in 4,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
dark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Mother Jones: Michael Cohen Fixed Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Problem. Then the Evangelical Leader Went to Bat for Trump.
Donald Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer helped line up a crucial endorsement for his boss on the eve of the Iowa caucuses in 2016, securing the support of prominent evangelical Jerry Falwell Jr. According to Reuters, Falwell’s endorsement came months after Cohen had done him a very big solid: Cohen helped Falwell and his wife prevent racy “personal” photos from becoming public.

Cohen, who reported to prison earlier this week to serve a three-year sentence for federal campaign violations and lying to Congress, told comedian Tom Arnold, who surreptitiously recorded the conversation on March 25, that he had prevented someone with compromising photos of the Falwells from releasing them to the public.

Before Falwell officially endorsed Trump, he was featured in a 60-second radio advertisement from Trump’s campaign. Falwell made an appeal to evangelical voters, who were expected to vote for Ted Cruz, by comparing Trump to his father, popular conservative televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr., who founded Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the world. “I see a lot of parallels between my father and Donald Trump,” Falwell says in the ad, which used audio from Falwell’s introduction of Trump at a rally at Liberty University. “He speaks the truth publicly, even if it is uncomfortable for people to hear.”

Falwell continued to support Trump even after the leak of his lewd comments about women in a tape from Access Hollywood, blaming the leak on a conspiracy to harm the Republican candidate. Although he called Trump’s comments “reprehensible,” he did not rescind his endorsement, saying, “We’re all sinners, every one of us. We’ve all done things we wish we hadn’t.”

Falwell has continued to stick by the president in office, even after Trump called white supremacists “very fine people,” and after he began separating children from their parents at the US–Mexico border. In an interview with the Washington Post published on Jan. 1, 2019, Falwell said of Trump, “I can’t imagine him doing anything that’s not good for the country.”

Just this week, Falwell tweeted that Trump should have two years added to his term as “reparations” for Robert Mueller’s investigation.
i know Falwell's shittiness is no suprise to anyone but i am still kinda sick over this, as an Evangelical-adjacent.

Trump never would have won without people like my family. My family are smart, decent people, except for two, and they were extremely happy with Cruz (the "except for two" are actually friends with him and personally delivered Montgomery County to him in his original Senate campaign)

They were all hold-your-nose Trump voters, and i believe they are sincere Christians. They put their trust in their leaders and are now implicated in the family separations, which horrify them, especially my dad, who knows about being an orphan.

To find out now that the leader their leaders trusted acted so cynically, and associated their Lord-- not just their church, but their Lord-- with atrocities that may very well hasten the deaths of millions of people-- all to cover up his likely bisexuality-- just offends me to my core.

I mean, i don't really know day-to-day what my religion is, but even seeing Jesus as a strictly historical figure, it is crazy-making how boldly people warp his legacy and turn it to purposes that would devastate him if he knew. Like, just as a fan and not necessarily a born-again or even a full believer, i still want to be shouting scriptures at these people all day every day, because they are doing the opposite of everything they claim to support.

Like, i understand my parents are adults with their own free will, but they were indoctrinated into obedience and conformity at an age when they were defenseless against indoctrination. My issue is that this obedience and conformity would not be dangerous if their leaders were faithful to the the red-letter (words of Christ) parts of the Bible, which very specifically forbid hypocrisy ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-NINE TIMES.

But, like, if the Lamb sent to save the world becomes the banner under which the world is destroyed, that is also in line with scripture-- not with the red letters, but with the end times prophecies, which are largely outside the red letters, but which are actually far more popular among Christians?

I guess it is the irony of it all that i can't get past.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dark_crystal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dark_crystal For This Useful Post:
Old 05-11-2019, 08:22 AM   #64
Kätzchen
~*~*~*~*~

How Do You Identify?:
Femme
 
Kätzchen's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nascent skies
Posts: 13,773
Thanks: 37,428
Thanked 28,345 Times in 8,765 Posts
Rep Power: 21474860
Kätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST Reputation
Unhappy In my own opinion: Democracy vs Dictatorship

On my mind, is how certain legislators in Washington, DC have been saying that our country's crisis is an Constitutional Crisis and I think it is, yet I wish they'd just come out and call it for what it is: That we are witnessing with our own eyes is over 200 years of American Democracy inverting and imploding into an outright explosion of an American Dictatorship.

Democracy is built upon the idea that stipulates that government is a rule ordered by The People and For The People: which means that people choose to how to discuss and implement how society is ordered by the Will of The People. It's a People Choice Model of social order: rule by the people, laws created by and for the people, toleration of all people and not blindly ignoring or segregating people or pitting sectors of people against other people (s). All this to say, that when social order is centered around the will and good of and for the people, then people have a say in what happens, etc. Democracy is a form of rule which is ordered around putting the will and good of the people first.

A Dictatorship is centered upon the idea that one person has absolute power, complete power over a country. Rule by one is commonly known as an dictatorship. A dictator typically up-ends democratic order by up-ending all former democratic methods of social ordering, so that the only order left is the only order they intend to exert upon the people. Dictator's typically remove all ways that anyone can interfere with their process of order, which is order centered upon their will, not the will of the people. Dictators typically appoint their own so-called forms of 'justice' and 'judges' and do so, so that they can re-frame social and legal order so that no one can interfere with their method of rule or process. In a dictatorship, laws favor the dictator, not the people. In a dictatorship, the rights of the people are stripped; same for the economy, too, because the economy is stripped to serve an dictator's purpose -- not for the greater good of the people. Personal freedoms and liberties vanish under a dictatorship.

In short: A dictatorship is one ruler who has absolute power to rule over a Country, or a State. Law and framing of law is reframed to rest in the hands of the dictator, who makes fast decisions -- usually not in the interest of the people, but in their own interest, with no regard for the people or humanity itself. Personal freedoms and personal liabilities are sacrificed in a dictatorship, because an dictatorship serves itself first, with no care or regard or respect for the people.

Democracy is For The People, By The People and Of The People. Power is shared by the people. Decisions are made by and for and of the people in slow ways because democratic process requires thoughtful process with care and respect for others, not just one. Justice in an democracy is safeguarded and preserved; not tossed out or changed or dismantled or upended like one sees in an dictatorship.


If the constitution is created to protect the will of the people, then it is entirely possible to say that American's have an Constitutional Crisis of epic magnitude on hand. Because what I see is the rise of an American Dictator; and a Congress elected by the People, in an outright war against that Dictator, to preserve what is left of Democracy in America.
__________________
Kätzchen
Kätzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kätzchen For This Useful Post:
Old 05-15-2019, 05:45 AM   #65
dark_crystal
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
jenny
Preferred Pronoun?:
babygirl
Relationship Status:
First Lady of the United SMH
 
dark_crystal's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,387
Thanks: 1,500
Thanked 26,405 Times in 4,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
dark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputation
Default

One discussion that has emerged this week, as we watch women's rights be dismantled in Georgia and Alabama, is the hypocrisy pro-lifers sometimes have about fertility clinics (i say "sometimes" because there has been some protest of the destruction of leftover IVF embryos, and the pro-lifers fought hard against stem cells, plus there was the whole George W. Bush snowflake-baby photo op.)

Despite these caveats, it remains the case that you are more likely to see protesters outside planned parenthood than at the IVF place.

When we were tweeting about this over the weekend, my reply was "Because there’s no sex involved. No “sluts” to punish. Doctors created those embryos and lots of the doctors are men doing capitalism"

THEN, last night, I saw this, from a reporter who is covering the legislature's debate in Georgia:

@lyman_brian, reporter for Montgomery Advertiser, on Twitter
Chambliss, responding to the IVF argument from Smitherman, cites a part of the bill that says it applies to a pregnant woman. "The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant."

(I wish there was more than a tweet from a reporter, like an actual news article, but "Bryan Lyman" is identified by the paper as covering the legislature, and the Montgomery Advertiser is a venerable paper with a 190-year history)

So, yeah. Someone said the quiet part loud. Life does not begin at conception unless that conception happens through sex. It is not about life, it is about sex.

It is about punishing women for having sex, which is STILL fucked up because they ALSO punish women for saying "no" to sex.

Like, men never stop trying to get you to have sex, and are total psychos when you resist, then they also want to go psycho on the women who do give in and give them what they want?

It just does not make sense. Like, the logical answer is that they are not penalizing women for having sex, they are penalizing women for having sex without giving up their independence. Like, what they are mad at is that women have sex with them but do not become their property by doing so?

That is the only thing that makes sense, BUT, they do not want all of that property. A man is going to seek sex from exponentially more women than he can afford to support. They seek sex from women they would never consider supporting, and they are especially not going to support all of those kids.

Men want LOTS of partners, but they are only going to take responsibility for one, then they want to limit the options of the non-primary partners who have to take responsibility for the results of their insistence on having lots of partners.

It's money, isn't it? Men want a variety of partners, but they would be broke if they had to support them. Best way to avoid that is to put women who could make claims on them in jail.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dark_crystal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dark_crystal For This Useful Post:
Old 05-16-2019, 06:59 AM   #66
dark_crystal
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
jenny
Preferred Pronoun?:
babygirl
Relationship Status:
First Lady of the United SMH
 
dark_crystal's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,387
Thanks: 1,500
Thanked 26,405 Times in 4,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
dark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputation
Default Still ranting about Christian hypocrites

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_crystal View Post
Men want LOTS of partners, but they are only going to take responsibility for one, then they want to limit the options of the non-primary partners who have to take responsibility for the results of their insistence on having lots of partners.

It's money, isn't it? Men want a variety of partners, but they would be broke if they had to support them. Best way to avoid that is to put women who could make claims on them in jail.
We now live within a Christianity that places the fight against various kinds of sex above any other fight, although Jesus himself seems to have prized humility above all virtues and deplored hypocrisy among all sins.

One thing he did not spend much time on was any kind of sex. Christians need to leave sex alone. Even if fornication and homsexuality were wrong, their concern with these issues should not extend any further than His did. He mentioned sex twice. He mentioned hypocrisy in 159 verses, and humility in 254--more than any other topic. What would really be the consequences of laying the "biblical" sexual rhetoric on the ground and just backing away? What if they fought hypocrisy and promoted humility instead of fighting promiscuity and promoting heterosexual monogamy?

They do not do this because promoting humility and fighting hypocrisy threatens wealth, while fighting promiscuity and promoting marriage preserves wealth. The Red Letters contain 122 verses against materialism, but humans cannot resist it, so they find a scriptural justification for its continual pursuit. If our culture says that supporting one’s family is a Christian man’s highest calling, this provides an excuse to build wealth.

Pro-life ethics are actually pro-wealth ethics. Family planning gets women out of the home and puts them in competition with men, meaning the wealth pie gets cut into smaller slices. If the women are kept home and the man is encouraged to prove his virtue through how well she is kept, that is a license to ignore everything Jesus said about camels and the eyes of needles.

The thing that prevented me from seeing this for awhile is the fact that men are not capable of monogamy. Like, don’t they see that outlawing abortion means they are all about to get a lot more kids? And that's expensive? I now think 25% of your income is less expensive than economically competing with women. Child support is a loss leader for men.

Further, if supporting one family is virtuous, supporting multiple families can also, eventually, become virtuous. From there it’s a short step to polygamy, which takes even more women out of economic competition AND eliminates the need to pay child support to the state-- if all your co-parents are your legal wives and live in your home, you can dole out money as you see fit.

I saw this tweet last night (@willwilkinson):
The claim that abortion is murder implies that the conditions for women's social, political & economic equality come at an intolerable moral cost. It's no accident this view got traction with conservative Protestants as institutionalized gender hierarchy started to break down.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dark_crystal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dark_crystal For This Useful Post:
Old 05-17-2019, 12:03 AM   #67
homoe
Practically Lives Here

How Do You Identify?:
butch
Relationship Status:
...
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PNW
Posts: 35,512
Thanks: 18,683
Thanked 29,801 Times in 13,178 Posts
Rep Power: 21474882
homoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Susan Collins has faith Kavanaugh won't uphold Alabama abortion law



I'm thinking Susan Collins must be living in a fool's paradise if she really believes this..........
homoe is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to homoe For This Useful Post:
Old 05-17-2019, 05:09 PM   #68
homoe
Practically Lives Here

How Do You Identify?:
butch
Relationship Status:
...
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PNW
Posts: 35,512
Thanks: 18,683
Thanked 29,801 Times in 13,178 Posts
Rep Power: 21474882
homoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homoe View Post
Susan Collins has faith Kavanaugh won't uphold Alabama abortion law



I'm thinking Susan Collins must be living in a fool's paradise if she really believes this..........

I suggest all the females who voted in favor of Kavanaugh pay attention as well, after all, you's are all up for re-election at some point...
homoe is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to homoe For This Useful Post:
Old 05-18-2019, 10:14 AM   #69
dark_crystal
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
jenny
Preferred Pronoun?:
babygirl
Relationship Status:
First Lady of the United SMH
 
dark_crystal's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,387
Thanks: 1,500
Thanked 26,405 Times in 4,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
dark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputationdark_crystal Has the BEST Reputation
Default

"Australia's unexpected election result is being compared to Brexit and the 2016 US election"
Australia’s Liberal-National Coalition government has returned to power in the 2019 federal election, despite polls consistently predicting victory for the opposition Labor Party. The most surprising result for Labor came from the state of Queensland. Now, many people are comparing the shock result to the 2016 US election and the UK's Brexit referendum, which both defied opinion polls
‘Complete shock’: Australia’s prime minister holds onto power, defying election predictions
The reelection of Morrison’s government will mean that Australia was be much less ambitious in cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. It will also be firmly supportive of U.S.-led efforts to curtain the influence of China and blocking Chinese technology giant Huawei from government contracts.

Morrison was one of the architects of Australia’s tough approach on asylum seekers, which has confined thousands to Pacific Island camps, and is expected to continue with the approach that has been condemned by human rights groups around the world.
This is very bad. All of the biggest nations are in the grip of authoritarians now. We kind of have to hope China fixes climate change unilaterally for its own interests bc US, Australia, and Russia(?*) are not on-board
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dark_crystal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dark_crystal For This Useful Post:
Old 09-01-2019, 09:02 AM   #70
Kätzchen
~*~*~*~*~

How Do You Identify?:
Femme
 
Kätzchen's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nascent skies
Posts: 13,773
Thanks: 37,428
Thanked 28,345 Times in 8,765 Posts
Rep Power: 21474860
Kätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST Reputation
Default

I read an news article the other day where certain judges have decided that it's okay to "sue the government" for particular social grievances or legal offenses. I'm not sure that this is a good thing, for particular reasons: A) the current occupant of the WH is known for their penchant for filing suit against any entity they can, to not only clog up the legal system, but to recoup $$$ they lost due to X, Y or Z reasons. Which, if this type of tom-foolery is allowed by the newer 45-appointed judges, then what comes next? 45 suing the government's already taxed-to-the-f^cking-hilt tax base of the poorest of poor and those who obviously cannot afford to be taxed anymore than they already are? Especially if 45-s stupid Florida resort (mara-Tax-0) files for FEMA help or is allowed to collect hidden tax dollars off the backs of the poor to keep that hunk of law-breaking pile of crap from being blown off the map, as a result of hurricane/weather/climate change they obviously deny exists or that their party of politics refuses to acknowledge as in need of being addressed with expediency?

How long will it take for the American public to absolutely hold the current occupants of the WH and GOP accountable for the social injustice they impose upon the largest majority of the so-called American tax base and put a giant big ole flag of "your behavior and decisions are NOT acceptable by any standard around the globe?"

That is exactly what was on my mind, the other night.
__________________
Kätzchen
Kätzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Kätzchen For This Useful Post:
Old 09-01-2019, 05:57 PM   #71
C0LLETTE
Practically Lives Here

How Do You Identify?:
Depends on the day.
Preferred Pronoun?:
"I" and "we"
Relationship Status:
Very good. Thank you for asking.
 
C0LLETTE's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 11,135
Thanks: 15,750
Thanked 14,595 Times in 4,091 Posts
Rep Power: 21474855
C0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Just read this and think it's a great idea:

Globe and Mail Editorial Sept 1, 2019

( DENMARK COULD BUY USA )

Mr. Trump could improve the life of his own citizens if he switched his thinking and pulled off the greatest real estate transaction since Tutankhamun put a down payment on his burial plot – selling the United States to Denmark.

For starters, the sale would immediately accomplish Mr. Trump’s goal of draining the swamp in Washington. There is no swamp in Copenhagen, just a little mermaid sitting on a rock.

The sale would also free Americans from the partisanship that has paralyzed Congress. Things would get done in Copenhagen. Everyone would have health care, crime would fall, and Americans’ quality of life would rise to the top of global rankings.

Pulling off the deal would also confirm Mr. Trump’s skills as a negotiator. His work would be cut out for him. The United States is a real fixer-upper at the moment, with clashing interiors and limited curb appeal. The Danes might see all the work that needs to be done and go for something with a little more pride of ownership, such as Luxembourg or Greece.

The best selling point Mr. Trump could offer the Danes, other than the opportunity to show up Norway, would be price. If he continues his tariff war with China long enough, he can get the asking down to the low eight figures, which would make it awfully hard for Denmark to walk away.

He could also effectively dangle competing offers in the face the Danes. They will be aware that Mr. Trump has a hard time saying no to Russia, and will move quickly if they think Moscow is preparing a bully bid.

In all of this, there is an opening for Canada. After all, Copenhagen will need money to get its new property up to code; Ottawa should quietly negotiate the purchase of Greenland to coincide with the closing of the U.S. deal.

We’re good for it, Denmark."
__________________
_____________________________________


"Verba volant, scripta manent."

Spoken words fly away, written words remain.
C0LLETTE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to C0LLETTE For This Useful Post:
Old 09-07-2019, 11:18 AM   #72
Kätzchen
~*~*~*~*~

How Do You Identify?:
Femme
 
Kätzchen's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nascent skies
Posts: 13,773
Thanks: 37,428
Thanked 28,345 Times in 8,765 Posts
Rep Power: 21474860
Kätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Are any of you like me, tired of having to read between the lines?

Did any of you see that little jarring news story about how the GOP plans to not have any primaries, because in their warped universe they think it shows 'support for T^^^P'?

Did any of you become deeply disturbed by the follow-up PSA about how those good ole white boy GOP senators might retire instead of seeking another term to fuck up America consistently like they've done for nearly a generation of time?

It pissed me the hell off. Reading all those not-so-clever PSA's this week.

Who wants to support their so-called 'retirement' (said no one, who can't see chipping in to their TAX PAYER FUNDED Retirement PLAN as the sanest thing to do EVER)????

Talk about a major WTF, blow-your-last-gasket, on your last nerve, moment.

F^ckin' A-holes.

No wonder they don't wanna hold primaries. Not surprising at all.

Especially since they've taken great care to use sharpie markers with the sharpie marker toddler-personality that is ruining our country and sinking us faster than the Titanic sank itself.

When will justice be served?

When will they and the long standing GOP do the perp walk and be held accountable for their own ever lasting version of hell inflicted on not only our society but societies around the world?

When will they be punished for the horrible crimes they commit in unbridled 'transparency' speeds in mind-numbing broad daylight?
__________________
Kätzchen
Kätzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kätzchen For This Useful Post:
Old 09-07-2019, 02:01 PM   #73
Apocalipstic
Pink Confection

How Do You Identify?:
Femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She, Her, Ma'am
Relationship Status:
Under Construction :)
 
Apocalipstic's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Nashville
Posts: 4,259
Thanks: 17,152
Thanked 11,354 Times in 2,836 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
Apocalipstic Has the BEST ReputationApocalipstic Has the BEST ReputationApocalipstic Has the BEST ReputationApocalipstic Has the BEST ReputationApocalipstic Has the BEST ReputationApocalipstic Has the BEST ReputationApocalipstic Has the BEST ReputationApocalipstic Has the BEST ReputationApocalipstic Has the BEST ReputationApocalipstic Has the BEST ReputationApocalipstic Has the BEST Reputation
Default

They are blocking him from being "primaried"
They are blocking everything they can
Wearing down every safeguard we have in place
Eroding Freedom
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Apocalipstic is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Apocalipstic For This Useful Post:
Old 09-24-2019, 03:40 PM   #74
~ocean
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
femme *blows a kiss off my finger tips **
Preferred Pronoun?:
~ hey girl ~
Relationship Status:
~ single & content ~
 
~ocean's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Massachusetts ~coastal
Posts: 7,707
Thanks: 21,861
Thanked 15,550 Times in 4,584 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
~ocean Has the BEST Reputation~ocean Has the BEST Reputation~ocean Has the BEST Reputation~ocean Has the BEST Reputation~ocean Has the BEST Reputation~ocean Has the BEST Reputation~ocean Has the BEST Reputation~ocean Has the BEST Reputation~ocean Has the BEST Reputation~ocean Has the BEST Reputation~ocean Has the BEST Reputation
Default

TRUMP ~ YOUR FIRED ~
__________________
~ Always, ocean
~ocean is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ~ocean For This Useful Post:
Old 10-03-2019, 10:19 PM   #75
Kätzchen
~*~*~*~*~

How Do You Identify?:
Femme
 
Kätzchen's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nascent skies
Posts: 13,773
Thanks: 37,428
Thanked 28,345 Times in 8,765 Posts
Rep Power: 21474860
Kätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST ReputationKätzchen Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Did anyone read George T. Conway's outstanding Op-Ed, in The Atlantic, today?


Here is a link to it, if you would like to read it.

~~~~~>>>>>> LINK
__________________
Kätzchen
Kätzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kätzchen For This Useful Post:
Old 10-06-2019, 06:54 AM   #76
Orema
Superlative Soul Sister

How Do You Identify?:
Lesbian Stone Femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She, her
Relationship Status:
On hiatus
 
Orema's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Cottage of Content
Posts: 11,062
Thanks: 36,037
Thanked 27,906 Times in 6,875 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Orema Has the BEST ReputationOrema Has the BEST ReputationOrema Has the BEST ReputationOrema Has the BEST ReputationOrema Has the BEST ReputationOrema Has the BEST ReputationOrema Has the BEST ReputationOrema Has the BEST ReputationOrema Has the BEST ReputationOrema Has the BEST ReputationOrema Has the BEST Reputation
Default Watch Out, America — The Supreme Court Is Back in Session

Watch Out, America — The Supreme Court Is Back in Session
And conservatives could be the big winners.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/o...gtype=Homepage

By The New York Times Editorial Board
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.



CreditCreditIllustration by The New York Times; Photograph by Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

On Monday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing cases in its first complete term since the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, and the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, gave the court a newly emboldened right-wing majority.

The current five-member bloc has already started overturning decades-old precedents and remaking the law in ways that align remarkably well with conservative policy preferences.

The new term offers no shortage of opportunities for the conservative justices to block or roll back rights for certain groups — for example, women, L.G.B.T. people and undocumented immigrants brought to America as children — while bolstering rights for others, like gun owners and those who would knock down the crumbling wall between church and state.

In one of the most hotly anticipated cases, to be argued Tuesday, the justices will consider whether employers may fire employees for being gay or transgender.

The arguments will cover three separate cases — two involving gay men who said they were fired because of their sexual orientation and one involving a transgender woman who was fired after telling her employer that she was transitioning from male to female.

Such discrimination is a daily fact of life for gay, lesbian and transgender people across the country. Some states have laws barring it, but most don’t. For people in states without their own legal protections, the only hope is federal law — specifically, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars employers from firing, harassing or discriminating against an employee “because of” that person’s “sex.” The plaintiffs in these three cases argue that the plain language of Title VII applies to them, because they would not have been fired but for their sex — after all, if the gay men had been women, their attraction to men would not have been an issue for their employers.

The transgender woman before the court, Aimee Stephens, also argues that she was fired because she did not fit the stereotype of how a person assigned male at birth is expected to dress and act. This violates a 1989 Supreme Court ruling that Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes.

The employers in these cases, with the backing of the Trump administration, say the civil rights law provides no protection to the plaintiffs, because when it was passed in the 1960s, no one imagined that it would apply to sexual orientation or gender identity. That’s true — many L.G.B.T. Americans were closeted at the time, and they faced severe consequences for standing up for their equality in public. But what lawmakers might have thought more than 50 years ago is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is what the law they passed actually says.

Cases like this are why the makeup of the Supreme Court matters so much. If Justice Kennedy were still in his seat, it’s a fair bet that the plaintiffs would come out on top. Justice Kennedy wrote all of the major gay-rights opinions of the court, including Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which upheld a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Still, this should be an easy case for the conservatives, who regularly profess their allegiance to the plain language of laws. If they are nevertheless inclined to read that language narrowly, they might heed the words of their hero, Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion for a unanimous court in 1998 that Title VII applies to cases involving harassment between members of the same sex. While Congress may not have been picturing such incidents in 1964, Justice Scalia wrote, “statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.”

This term, the court also will hear a challenge to President Trump’s decision in 2017 to reverse President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive order protecting undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children — the roughly 700,000 young men and women known as Dreamers.

Mr. Obama implemented the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, as a way to protect some of the most vulnerable undocumented immigrants in the nation, and he did it only after Congress repeatedly failed to pass any meaningful immigration reform. Mr. Obama claimed that he was using well-established presidential discretion to decide how to enforce immigration laws and to prioritize the deportation of certain people and not others, like the Dreamers.

This put the Trump administration in a bind. On the one hand, Mr. Trump rose to power on an anti-immigrant platform, and his supporters are hungry to see him carry that out. (He’s also eager to erase every accomplishment of Mr. Obama’s.) On the other hand, the Dreamers are a sympathetic group of young people, as Mr. Trump has acknowledged, and Americans broadly support their being able to stay in the only country that many of them have ever really known.

Had Mr. Trump simply said that he was rescinding DACA because he did not think it was a wise policy, he would have been on firmer legal ground. But because he was afraid of taking responsibility for destroying the Dreamers’ lives, Mr. Trump is trying to pass the job off to the Supreme Court by arguing that DACA was an illegal exercise of authority from the start.

That’s simply wrong — not to mention suspicious coming from an administration that claims to have broad authority in other immigration contexts. It also makes the case harder for Mr. Trump at the Supreme Court because he did not adequately explain his reasoning, as is required when reversing a previous administration’s position. When the justices hear this case in November, they ought to tell the president that if he wants to kill off a popular program, he’ll need to look the American people in the eye and own it.

The way the justices handle two other high-profile cases — on guns and abortion — could reveal just how far and fast the court’s new conservative majority is willing to go to implement its vision for America.

In January, the justices agreed to hear a gun-rights case for the first time in a decade. The lawsuit is a challenge to a New York City law limiting gun owners’ ability to transport guns outside their home. With five justices who are solidly in favor of gun owners’ rights, the outcome would seem nearly preordained.

It might not be, however. After the court agreed to hear the case, New York City threw out the challenged law. Normally, this means that the case is, in legal jargon, moot: The plaintiffs got what they were asking for, so there’s no longer any dispute for a court to resolve.

But once again, court personnel matters. If Justice Kennedy were still on the bench, there’s a good chance that the court would not have taken this case at all. It’s a different story with Justice Kavanaugh, whose work as a federal appeals court judge suggests he is even more protective of the Second Amendment than was Justice Scalia, who wrote the landmark 2008 ruling that guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Last but not least is abortion rights — in the form of the first case involving the perennial hot-button issue to reach the Supreme Court since President Trump’s two nominees were confirmed. On Friday, the justices agreed to hear a case out of Louisiana, which enacted a law in 2014 requiring that doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the terminations are performed.

Wait, you might be thinking: Isn’t this the same issue the court decided just three years ago, when it struck down parts of a nearly identical law in Texas as a sham policy intended to make it much more difficult for a woman to exercise her constitutional right to choose? Yes, it is. In that 2016 case, Justice Kennedy joined the court’s four liberals to strike down parts of the Texas law. This should have been enough to keep the Louisiana case from getting anywhere near the Supreme Court. But the notoriously conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Louisiana law anyway, and for a simple reason: With Justice Kennedy gone, the anti-abortion crusaders and their sympathizers on the federal bench feel that their moment has finally arrived.

They are right. Even if the court reverses the Fifth Circuit and prevents the Louisiana law from taking effect, as it clearly should, there are now five Supreme Court justices who are hostile to women’s reproductive rights. And even though an enduring majority of Americans support keeping abortion legal, the path to overturning Roe v. Wade — the conservative movement’s single biggest target over the past half century — is clearer than ever.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/o...gtype=Homepage
Orema is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Orema For This Useful Post:
Old 10-12-2019, 07:20 AM   #77
homoe
Practically Lives Here

How Do You Identify?:
butch
Relationship Status:
...
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PNW
Posts: 35,512
Thanks: 18,683
Thanked 29,801 Times in 13,178 Posts
Rep Power: 21474882
homoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputationhomoe Has the BEST Reputation
Default

~~~
I can hardly wait to see that smirk on Mike Pompeo face wiped off!
homoe is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to homoe For This Useful Post:
Old 10-16-2019, 12:34 AM   #78
charley
Timed Out - Permanent

How Do You Identify?:
gentle stonebutch [vanilla]
Relationship Status:
single
 
charley's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: canada
Posts: 497
Thanks: 906
Thanked 1,199 Times in 422 Posts
Rep Power: 0
charley Has the BEST Reputationcharley Has the BEST Reputationcharley Has the BEST Reputationcharley Has the BEST Reputationcharley Has the BEST Reputationcharley Has the BEST Reputationcharley Has the BEST Reputationcharley Has the BEST Reputationcharley Has the BEST Reputationcharley Has the BEST Reputationcharley Has the BEST Reputation
Cool Canadian Election

Watching a lot of news on CBC News Network, re: upcoming Canadian election (Oct. 21)

all those cookie-cutter houses in Ontario... families of 4 and the Conservative Scheer leader making a play for all "families of 4", offering them "candies" in terms of tax breaks, and whether they will buy into his offer - I have never been a part of the "family of 4" - ya know, the white picket fence... and the dachshund, like a cousin, yadayadayada, and whether they realize how many services will be cut if he wins.

To what extent do Conservatives realize that in Canada, "Solo dwellers represented 14% of the population aged 15 and over living in private households in 2016"?

Wondering to what extent Canadians, in general, are asking themselves: "what's in it for me?"... and whether more of them are into "me" rather than "us"...

In Quebec, the very popular Bloc Quebecois, is running mainly on the merits of Bill 21:

"The bill, since made law, bans public workers in positions of "authority" from wearing religious symbols, specifically while they are on duty. According to the text of the bill, the laicity of the state is defined by a neutral religious stance, keeping state and religious affairs apart, as well as promoting equality and freedom of conscience and religion among citizens..."

Hence, there, no wearing of religious clothing which covers the face, such as the niqab... for such people in "authority"...

Oh, and how I like Elizabeth May of the Green Party, who apart from her wonderful stance on climate change, also has stated how Canada is "awash" in systemic racism... which I have found to be quite true.

And, how all the major candidates seem to be using the bizarre advertising tactic of being surrounded by supporters while being interviewed, just like in the States... ugh!

---

Margaret Atwood (who along with Bernardine Evaristo) share a win for Booker Prize (Literature). Atwood said she was surprised because she would have considered herself "too elderly" to win, adding that she doesn't need the attention.



"It would have been quite embarrassing for me, a good Canadian, because we don't do famous. We think it's in bad taste," Atwood said.

charley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2019, 01:08 PM   #79
kittygrrl
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
hermit crab
Preferred Pronoun?:
her
 
kittygrrl's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: in a tide pool
Posts: 7,423
Thanks: 20,262
Thanked 18,970 Times in 5,557 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
kittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputation
Default

I watched the Debate last night. I'm looking for something but i can't put my finger on it...whatever it is, I did not see it last night
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Black Lives Matter
kittygrrl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2019, 05:04 PM   #80
C0LLETTE
Practically Lives Here

How Do You Identify?:
Depends on the day.
Preferred Pronoun?:
"I" and "we"
Relationship Status:
Very good. Thank you for asking.
 
C0LLETTE's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 11,135
Thanks: 15,750
Thanked 14,595 Times in 4,091 Posts
Rep Power: 21474855
C0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST ReputationC0LLETTE Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalipstic View Post
They are blocking him from being "primaried"
They are blocking everything they can
Wearing down every safeguard we have in place
Eroding Freedom
I just love the word "primaried".
__________________
_____________________________________


"Verba volant, scripta manent."

Spoken words fly away, written words remain.
C0LLETTE is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:32 AM.


ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018