Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 3,001 through 3,030 (of 8,122 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rams tweets … 12/5-12/7 #134355
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: comics, jokes, one-shot memes, funny tweets, etc. #134337
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: Roe Vs. Wade looks like it could be coming to an end. #134335
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Congress cannot impose a speeding limit that applies uniformly across the country and it cannot-for the same constitutional reason-codify Roe v Wade uniformly across all states. We live in a Republic. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers of the U.S. Congress. It grants some powers exclusively to Congress, such as legislation regarding immigration, bankruptcy, and currency. It is limited and what not specified is left to the states. The article above is bogus.

    I saw somebody else on the internet say that such a law would also be overturned on the basis of conflict with the 10th amendment, and a brief glance at that amendment seemed to line up with that opinion, but I dunno anything.

    If what you say is true, then the 48 Dem senators are co-sponsoring a doomed bill just to be able to go back home and say they are co-sponsoring a bill, is that about right? Seems that would explain why it’s just sitting in a committee rather than being voted on, since they can use it for campaign purposes, but if they actually vote on it, the law is ultimately doomed anyway. Do you agree with that?

    And, in your opinion, is there any way to codify abortion rights without a constitutional amendment? Or are we doomed to fighting this out state-by-state forever?

    in reply to: Roe Vs. Wade looks like it could be coming to an end. #134316
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Congressional Dems Are Failing to Secure Abortion Rights
    BY
    DAVID SIROTA ANDREW PEREZ
    Democrats promised legislation to codify Roe v. Wade and preempt the Texas anti-abortion law, but they’ve chosen to leave it sitting with a congressional panel. The inaction of Democrats is unacceptable.

    The Supreme Court’s decision to let an extreme Texas anti-abortion law stand has touched off yet another round of outraged tweets, press releases, and declarations insinuating that while the situation is awful and while the court needs to be overhauled, there is nothing that can be done right now to halt America’s inexorable lurch toward the Republic of Gilead.

    This is, in a word, garbage — and it is garbage with a pernicious purpose.

    Yes, America needs presidents who appoint more sane Supreme Court justices over the next few decades. And yes, the initiatives to expand the court and time-limit judicial terms are important over the long haul. But as Texas empowers anti-abortion activists to become bounty hunters, something can be done in the here and now.

    Democrats in Washington control Congress and the White House, two branches of government that have the power to preempt not only the Texas law, but also stop any copycat anti-abortion laws that other Republican states now race to pass.

    This is something Democratic lawmakers can do today — this very minute — to protect women’s health. They don’t have to wait eighteen more days until their summer vacation is over, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, suggested Thursday. They can do it right now.

    And if they once again opt to cite filibuster rules they have the power to change or if they manufacture some other fake reason for inaction — then they are willfully choosing to take the side of the anti-abortion extremists.

    “No Matter Where She Lives”
    The reason the Democrats have the power to invalidate the Texas law goes back to the underpinnings of Roe v. Wade. That case legalizing abortion became the law of the land through court precedent — an inherently fragile state of affairs that has now allowed five unelected extremists on the Supreme Court to wake up one day and decide to ignore it. They can do so because Roe’s precedent has never been explicitly legislated as a federal statutory protection.

    Yes, you read that right: Since the Roe decision in 1973, Democrats in Washington have never bothered to codify the precedent as a federal law, even when they have held both houses of Congress and the presidency. (Though some Democratic states have passed their own abortion protections.)

    The same story has now unfolded during the first seven months of the Biden presidency, allowing Texas Republicans and Supreme Court extremists to take advantage of the negligence.

    Of course, Biden campaigned on a promise to pass such a federal law — and the good news is that he and his Democratic colleagues in Congress remain in a position to actually make that happen. There is already legislation introduced in Congress to do this. It is called the Women’s Health Protection Act, it already has 48 sponsors in the Senate, and its core precepts are wildly popular according to survey data.

    “[The bill] creates federal protections against state restrictions that fail to protect women’s health and intrude upon personal decision-making,” notes a description from the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “It promotes and protects a woman’s individual constitutional rights, no matter where she lives.”

    This legislation would use federal authority to invalidate anti-abortion state laws. It makes clear no “state government shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this act.”

    And yet as Republican legislators in states across the country have been passing laws to try to restrict abortion, Democrats didn’t even introduce the latest version of this bill until June, even though there have been versions of it going back to at least 2013. And then, after Democrats finally introduced it again, the legislation has been languishing in a committee — all while Democrats have been raising money off their promises to protect a woman’s right to choose.

    This bill doesn’t have to sit in a committee. Democrats can pass it — not next week, not next month, but today. Right now. And they could seek help from Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, who have both said they support Roe and who have both humiliated themselves by previously insisting that the Republican Supreme Court nominees they’ve approved would not overturn Roe.

    No Excuses
    The arguments against passing the Women’s Health Protection Act are pathetic.

    Biden promised it, and forty-eight Senate Democrats are sponsors of the legislation. Avoiding this confrontation in order to appease two Democratic holdouts — Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania — is unacceptable.

    Likewise, citing arcane filibuster rules as reason for Democrats to not even have this fight is equally ridiculous.

    At a time when Republican legislators and judges are laying waste to the rules protecting women’s health, a change in Senate rules is the absolute least that can be done. Citing the filibuster as some sort of undebatable law of nature or immovable object is as absurd and insulting as pretending an unelected, fireable parliamentary adviser is the reason America can’t get a $15 minimum wage. You have to be either a #TeamBlue zombie, a pundit on the take, or a gullible moron to accept such obvious bullshit.

    Now sure, codifying Roe in federal law may not be a permanent solution. A new statute could be challenged in the courts and ultimately be overturned by the same Supreme Court that just allowed the Texas law. Similarly, if Republicans win back Congress and the White House, they could repeal it. One galaxy brain pundit today seemed to argue that this future possibility is reason enough for Democrats to do nothing today.

    But this circular logic is a form of learned helplessness that depicts anything Democrats could do as futile just because GOP extremists might later try to dismantle it. This is not merely dumb, it is deliberate dishonesty designed to let Democrats continue raising money and running campaigns on promises to protect abortion rights while they’re not actually doing anything to deliver on those promises. It lets Democrats pretend that the only things they can do are just over the horizon — after you give them your volunteer time and your money to help them win the next election and keep their cushy jobs in Washington.

    You can try to come up with inane, unsubstantiated Rube-Goldberg-machine theories blaming Ralph Nader or Susan Sarandon or Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein or anyone else for Democrats losing winnable presidential races, which then led to the Republican Supreme Court appointees who allowed a Texas law to stand.

    This kind of fever dream may make Democratic partisans feel good about themselves and shirk responsibility, but here’s the thing: the Democratic Party already won the elections necessary to take control of the governmental bodies that make laws and then deliver on their legislative promises. They have the power to enact a law protecting a woman’s right to choose — and if they still refuse to do that in the face of the Texas insanity, then they are complicit in the Gilead-ification of America.

    in reply to: Stafford is crumbling….. Rich Eisen #134308
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I liked it better when everybody thought the Rams were the best team in the NFL.

    in reply to: comics, jokes, one-shot memes, funny tweets, etc. #134305
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: comics, jokes, one-shot memes, funny tweets, etc. #134296
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: comics, jokes, one-shot memes, funny tweets, etc. #134293
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: Rams tweets … 11/29 – 12/3 #134275
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Jordan Kyrou SZN@doubleayayron
    Just a fun reminder that the Buccaneers were 7 – 5 heading into December last season. Following some very questionable games and a division blowout.

    Lindsey Thiry@LindseyThiry
    Sean McVay admits they’re going through adversity and playing below standard, but pointed to the Atlanta Braves and even last season’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers as teams that won championships that hit bumps along the way.

    Yeah, not many people believe the season is lost.

    But… you know… the prototypical SB champion team doesn’t go 1-4 against teams with winning records.

    in reply to: what do you expect from the Jagz game #134274
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I dunno.

    They will win, but look only ‘pretty good’ doing so.

    in reply to: Rams Defense #134258
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Yeah, I saw that. He was very critical of the way the DC is using Jalen.

    I dunno.

    Thing is, whoever they assign Jalen to, the opposing QB is just
    gonna throw it to someone else. Its the other DBs who have
    to step up, and apparently they cant.

    But that’s what they did last year.

    And Williams was MUCH, MUCh better last year.

    Why?

    in reply to: Tom Tomorrow #134252
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: our reactions to the GB game #134221
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    The Rams looked like a wobbly 7-1. They weren’t convincing when they were winning. My hope at that time was that they would gel the second half of the season, and I s’pose there is still time, especially considering that nobody else has been consistently good, either (though a few teams have been more consistent than the Rams).

    At this point, I’m ready to sign the petition to find replacements for Morris and DeCamillis.

    I don’t know anything about coaching, but I know the Rams defense has taken a big step backwards, and that the Rams have failed to put any QBs in the dirt, even when up against OLs that are in shambles, like GB’s.

    And I will help Taylor Rapp find a bus schedule out of town, too.

    in reply to: comics, jokes, one-shot memes, funny tweets, etc. #134190
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: good stories #134177
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    The Story of Julie d’Aubigny: the French Opera-Singing Sword Fighter

    Jade Cuttle
    8 August 2018

    ‘La Maupin’ (Julie d’Aubigny) was a French bisexual opera-singing sword fighter from 17th-century France. Known as one of history’s greatest rascals, she led a life so wild – complete with duels, grave-robbing and burning convents – that she had to be pardoned by the king of France not once, but twice.

    Julie d’Aubigny was born in France around 1673. She was the only child to a secretary to King Louis XIV’s Master of Horse, Count d’Armagnac, one of France’s great nobles.

    After first living in the riding school at the Tuileries Palace in Paris, she then moved with the court to the opulent Palace of Versailles in 1682.

    While her father worked in King Louis XIV’s luxurious court, Julie d’Aubigny grew up in less-glamorous quarters, namely, the Great Stables (Grande Écurie).

    Julie d’Aubigny’s extraordinary talent for sword fighting ran in her blood, as her father was an accomplished swordsman who trained the court pages at Versailles.

    Julie excelled at fencing from a very early age and her father chose to educate his only child alongside the young boys. It was while training alongside the court pages that her love for dressing up as a boy first began.

    Notorious for embarking on romantic escapades, she soon ran away to Marseille with her fencing instructor, Séranne. After scraping a living between them from performing fencing demonstrations at fairs and in taverns, the love affair quickly fizzled out. But d’Aubigny’s love of fencing was a passion that would burn throughout her whole life.

    Julie d’Aubigny had to be pardoned by the king of France twice
    Julie d’Aubigny loved nothing better than a duel and she killed – or at least wounded – more than 10 men in doing so. The anti-duelling laws in France were becoming much more strict at the time, but d’Aubigny managed to win royal pardon on the grounds that the law at the time governed only men. These laws didn’t say anything about women, as the nation assumed women couldn’t possibly know how to fight. Julie d’Aubigny, however, continued to prove them wrong.

    D’Aubigny’s most notorious run-in with the law sounds so absurd that you could easily mistake it for a legend. But there’s a shocking truth to the seemingly unbelievable tale. After seducing a local merchant’s daughter, who was then sent to a convent to keep the pair apart, Julie d’Aubigny forged an incredible plan.

    It just so happened that a nun had passed away and so, d’Aubigny stole the dead body and placed it in her lover’s room before setting the whole convent on fire. This provided the necessary chaos to elope, though she was later charged with kidnapping, body snatching and arson, and was sentenced to death by fire.

    Not only was Julie d’Aubigny incredibly talented at sword fighting, but also at opera singing. She moved to Paris and used these opera skills to worm her way out of her death sentence.

    Julie enjoyed an affair with Gabriel-Vincent Thévenard, another singer, who auditioned for the Paris Opéra and was hired right away. Infatuated with his new love, he insisted that Julie be allowed to audition, to which the Opéra reluctantly obliged.

    After realizing just how talented she was, the Opéra helped persuade the king to lift the death sentence so that she could join them. One critic credited her with having ‘the most beautiful voice in the world’ and so naturally, the king agreed that her talent was worth saving.

    D’Aubigny’s performances on stage were hugely admired. She had a brilliant memory for music, performing under the stage name La Maupin from 1690 to 1694, and became quite a star.

    La Maupin may have been pardoned twice, but she didn’t stay out of trouble for long. She threatened to shoot the Duchess of Luxembourg, found herself in court for attacking her landlord and humiliated the popular Countess Marino to whom she was a maid by adorning the back of her hair with radishes before a ‘grand ball’.

    A later lover, the Elector of Bavaria, soon found d’Aubigny too intense after she stabbed herself on stage with a real dagger, offering her 40,000 francs on the condition that she leave him alone.

    Julie d’Aubigny ended her days heartbroken for Madame la Marquise de Florensac, the ‘most beautiful woman in France’, who died of a fever in 1705 when Julie was 31. D’Aubigny died in a convent in 1707 at the age of 33, according to some historical sources.

    However, there’s so much mystery surrounding this incredible life that we can’t know for sure which parts of the story are true. Even d’Aubigny’s birth date and place of birth are subject to speculation, as well as her real name.

    While her professional name was Mademoiselle Maupin, cheered by crowds as La Maupin, acquaintances addressed her as Émilie in their letters, while Thévenard called her Julia. She’s also been known as Madame de Maupin and Madeleine, though she is best known as Julie d’Aubigny.

    The Story of Julie d’Aubigny: the French Opera-Singing Sword Fighter

    in reply to: “most gutwrenching loss” #134172
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    That is the first time I’ve enjoyed listening to Skip.

    in reply to: setting up the GB game (us, media, twitter) #134171
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Rams are favored by a point I see.

    In Green Bay

    After coming off two consecutive losses in which the o-line got abused and Stafford looked lost.

    Huh.

    Aaron Donald has healthy ribs, and Aaron Rodgers is a shit biscuit.

    in reply to: Kyle Rittenhouse verdict #134154
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Zooey,

    Is the intro yours, or Gabbard’s comment on the quote?

    I hope she didn’t actually say it’s some kind of “proof” that American isn’t racist, and the system works.

    As you can tell, I’m not on twitter.

    I wrote the intro. She is the one who said that the outcome of the case shows that America is not a racist country.

    in reply to: Kyle Rittenhouse verdict #134145
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I knew it. I knew that the convictions of the Arbery killers would lead to people citing it as proof that the judicial system works. Of course it would.

    in reply to: Tom Tomorrow #134107
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: Kyle Rittenhouse verdict #134106
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: Kyle Rittenhouse verdict #134068
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I was talking to somebody whose takeaway was that it’s legal to show up armed, and offer defensive help to property owners, even without security guard training as long as they are an “independent militia member.” Which means…anybody with a gun, of course.

    So…yeah. Looks to a lot of people like a civil war just got a green light from the judicial system.

    It doesn’t look like Arbery’s killers will get off the hook, though, so all the white supremacists are going to be able to declare that the system works, and that racial discrimination doesn’t exist, etc.

    in reply to: comics, jokes, one-shot memes, funny tweets, etc. #134060
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: Rams tweets … 11/16 – 11/18 #134052
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Stafford’s has come back to the pack the last couple weeks, but by any statistical measure he’s still one of the top three QB’s in the league.

    Neither INT against the 9’ers was his fault. The first one was picked because OBJ quit on the route, and the second one bounced out of Higbee’s hands.

    ======

    Did OBJ ‘quit on the route’ or was he running a
    different/shallower route than stafford expected?

    I dunno.

    w
    v

    One of the blabber guys on TV said he quit, but I just don’t think that’s nearly as likely as the explanation that those two guys aren’t on the same page yet.

    And like you said, it was a punt. They were back inside their 10-yard line after that, and for them to turn that TO into 7 points is on the defense, ffs. The 9ers have 5 90-yard drives this season, and 2 of those were against the Rams. I mean… it was just disgusting.

    I don’t know how much it’s fair to blame Morris, but as of now, he reminds me more of Larry Marmie than Brandon Staley.

    in reply to: Rams tweets … 11/16 – 11/18 #134039
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I gave Goff 5 or 6 years.

    I’ll give Stafford a couple.

    I will say that I am less impressed than I hoped to be. Like Goff, he makes some WTF throws, and misses reads. And he has not “risen to the occasion” at any time. But I’m not ready to write him off, either. I think he’s better than Goff, but that margin of difference is more slender – so -far – than I expected.

    in reply to: Our reactions to the Rams at 9ers game #134022
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I am just disgusted.

    This is the most disgusted I’ve been since – I don’t know when.

    That beat down should have been the other way around, and I just don’t think there is an excuse for that. That game was over when the Rams botched the fake field goal. The Rams were done by HALFTIME in a game they HAD to have, against an opponent they should not have taken lightly, and which entered the game on its heels. And the Rams just got their asses kicked for the second week in a row.

    Just no excuse.

    in reply to: political tweets #133981
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    It’s been found to be okay…

    in reply to: Rams tweets … 11/14 #133979
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    WTF does “Modern Throwback” even mean? Is that last week’s jersey or something?

    in reply to: political tweets #133972
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    in reply to: Tom Tomorrow #133967
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

Viewing 30 posts - 3,001 through 3,030 (of 8,122 total)