My son texted me to let me know that State of the Union will likely talk about some of the work that my boy has been doing with his healthcare policy analysis and recommendations for the government.
âI've contributed in some part to things under "Taking on Big Pharma to Deliver Lower Prescription Drug Costs for Seniors and Families"â
Katie Britt's getting panned pretty heavily on Twitter. You said the was worse than Marco Rubio, Steeler. Someone else brought up Bobby Jindall. I didn't watch Britt when she aired but the clips on Twitter veer between cringey and LOL.
Gosh, Beaker, sorry you don't like Joe standing up to Putin. Maybe you prefer watching Trump blow Putin. As for the Dobbs decision, it's hard to understand how striking down Roe was upholding the Constitution after Roe stood for 50 years. But if you trust SC justices who openly lied about upholding Roe during their confirmation hearings and who are doing their level best to block Trump's trial for January 6, well that doesn't say much about you.
Katie Britt is telegenic but wow she laid on the batted-eye "empathy" with a trowel. Rachel Maddo noted that Britt was involved in the negotiations on the Senate's immigration bill but voted against it when Trump called for its rejection.
Mike Johnson looked so smail and sad behind Biden, like a naughty fourth grader sent to the principal's office again.
Mike Johnson is gonna be fired so fast for visibly, repeatedly, nodding in assent (it's clear - I watched it happen repeatedly, nonplussed) at many things that the President asserted. So different from the old stone-faced Republicans who would sit there daydreaming about which human right they'd try to remove next.
The folks who were disrespectful and shouted interruptions at him got smacked down rather well. Doesn't mesh with their doddering old man contention, so they better rethink that. He was loaded for bear - when extemporizing.
And Britt, like I said: the Republican rebuttal was taken straight from NextDoor, given by a high school junior fresh from "acting" class, complete with crocodile tears, a fake kitchen backdrop, repeated reminders that she's a mother, y'all, plenty of Southern grit when the script called for it, and heartbreaking "empathy" as she tells her tired old anecdotes.
It was so juvenile and simplistic that it takes the prize for "worst showing" from Little Marco.
And the Republican rebuttal was taken straight from NextDoor, given by a high school junior fresh from "acting" class, complete with crocodile tears, a fake kitchen backdrop, repeated reminders that she's a mother, y'all, and heartbreaking empathy.
Yes. Outstanding speech delivered with lots of fire and passion. So let's stop all the babbling about Joe losing it. Trump could never pull off anything similar. The contrast between the characters of the two men really stood out tonight.
Trumpers, btw, asked for more time to pay the $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll. Judge Kaplan denied that request. Apparently Trump is asking Elon Musk for financial help because he can't secure a bond to meet the payment to Carroll and the one to New York. What a billionaire.
Katie Britt is telegenic but wow she laid on the batted-eye "empathy" with a trowel. Rachel Maddo noted that Britt was involved in the negotiations on the Senate's immigration bill but voted against it when Trump called for its rejection.
Mike Johnson looked so smail and sad behind Biden, like a naughty fourth grader sent to the principal's office again.
Did Marjorie Taylor Greene get lost on her way to the State Fair? Will she make it in time to her late-night shift at Burger King?
And the Republican rebuttal was taken straight from NextDoor, given by a high school junior fresh from "acting" class, complete with crocodile tears, a fake kitchen backdrop, repeated reminders that she's a mother, y'all, and heartbreaking empathy.
This, I will agree with you on. Which comms idiot thought that putting a young, female Senator in a kitchen was a good idea? Utter fools. Totally own goal. Firings should be first thing in the morning.
Angry, jacked-up Joe Biden is the stuff of memes. So will be the facial expressions of the Speaker.
And the breathy emoting Republican response from Senator Katie Britt, in her kitchen ...?! ... holy Home Shopping Channel demo reel tryout. How did they let that happen?
And the Republican rebuttal was taken straight from NextDoor, given by a high school junior fresh from "acting" class, complete with crocodile tears, a fake kitchen backdrop, repeated reminders that she's a mother, y'all, and heartbreaking empathy.
My son texted me to let me know that State of the Union will likely talk about some of the work that my boy has been doing with his healthcare policy analysis and recommendations for the government.
âI've contributed in some part to things under "Taking on Big Pharma to Deliver Lower Prescription Drug Costs for Seniors and Families"â
Not at all where I was going or even thinking for that matter. The yet incomplete thought is that the Constitution does among other things, protects the citizens from untoward influences from the outside. The way things are done somewhere else shall not influence say, things like decisions made in our justice system. That our national sovereignty is about more than just our borders.
That the Constitution is a set of rules that also says how these rules can be changed. But that the beginning point of view will always come from the Founding with primary considerations made for those who are already here. Those who come later will adopt to the established ways and work within the system to get a consensus for change as opposed to change based upon mob rule.
This is very loosely put but I found that I had to make it clear that this was not about expressing any desire to keep anybody out.
Awwwww isn't that just precious? Kurtster twisting the merits of the Constitution to fit his myopic & xenophobic world view.
As I stated before, you really don't get any leeway to discuss the merits of the Constitution or your appreciation of it when you continue to support a clown who would seek to destroy it to benefit himself and put himself above it. And if destroy is too harsh a word... then at least significantly cripple it. Putin Jr.
That the Constitution is a set of rules that also says how these rules can be changed. But that the beginning point of view will always come from the Founding with primary considerations made for those who are already here.
...
Kurt, I appreciate the effort and think it's a worthwhile discussion.
Appreciating that statement, please take the following as a conversation over a few beers down the street. The challenge is friendly fire...
You commented on 2 things that I don't follow. "Those already here", for which you've been chastised quite a bit already, and flexibility.
The US was a colony at the beginning of the process we're reflecting on. Its focus was on loyalty and support, not jobs, homelessness, and drug trafficking. The colonies would have welcomed anyone, from anywhere, that professed allegiance and would support the separation from England. The notion of "here now" is a way to ring-fence British citizens into being "one of us". The perversion that somehow it was meant to focus solely on those already here is a twisted spin on the Dred Scott case, which concluded that anyone born in the colonies (including most notably slaves), was covered under "We the People". It was about including those (previously excluded) who were here, not excluding those who weren't.
Interpretation. Perspective. Flexibility.
This is where the Right puts itself in a box.
When you take the position that the Second Amendment was about personal freedom and not defending the country from the British, you must fall back on "what the founders intended" in favor of common sense in light of modern society. Rules can be changed? Really? You can't suggest that... the Second Amendment is religion, handed down by the Gods... and then suggest that everything else is "flexible". Anyone holding on to the 2nd amendment tightly will need to contort their arguments and positions in every way possible to work back toward "it's not what the founders intended". I agree with you, they would have intended flexibility. They would likely have a completely different view of immigration, guns, and just about everything else.
There is no way that the founders considered issues for a world where a private citizen owns a company that is working to take people to Mars. What they thought was incredible for the time, but the times have changed, and so must our application of the guiding principles upon which the country was founded. Principles are what matter.
The beauty about a rights-based system is that it allows a society to set a minimum of prescriptive behavior and maximises individual liberty.
To put it into plain text: as long as you don't go around violating the rights of your neighbours, they have no right to start telling you what to do.
("cut your hair, go to church, etc."). Or more extreme, if someone wants to change their gender, that is their right and it is none of your business as it doesn't violate any of your fundamental rights.
So if you properly understand the spirit behind the constitution you shouldn't be getting so upset about "untoward influences from outside" etc. It is sufficient just to protect basic inalienable rights as the US has always tried to do.
But from what I see coming out of the MAGA crowd, it is precisely these sorts of transgressions that they are peddling as being "American."
I would argue they are precisely the opposite.
Not at all where I was going or even thinking for that matter. The yet incomplete thought is that the Constitution does among other things, protects the citizens from untoward influences from the outside. The way things are done somewhere else shall not influence say, things like decisions made in our justice system. That our national sovereignty is about more than just our borders.
That the Constitution is a set of rules that also says how these rules can be changed. But that the beginning point of view will always come from the Founding with primary considerations made for those who are already here. Those who come later will adopt to the established ways and work within the system to get a consensus for change as opposed to change based upon mob rule.
This is very loosely put but I found that I had to make it clear that this was not about expressing any desire to keep anybody out.
..so, yes, pretty much indeed the direction you were going.
That there needs to be some form of arbitration goes without saying. And, yes, I welcome your opposition to mob rule.