Lipdrag

People see what they believe Even when the opposite is extremely visible. Right up until reality becomes undeniable. I am repeatedly amazed at the superhuman ability to deny reality by some of our fellow ordinary appearing humans.

Yes they did. Just like the Venezuelans went on a big socialist diet

Reality just won't play ball with fantasy concepts like "Let's make it more expensive and expect the customers to act the same." Reality sucks.

“Living life according to the dominant social norms of personal responsibility and virtue is not universally health‑promoting,” Geronimus wrote in a Harvard Public Health essay last year. “On the contrary: if you’re Black, working hard and playing by the rules can be part of what kills you.” " . . . Geronimus’ . . . , the concept she pioneered – “weathering” – . . . ideology that is now upending medicine and social policy" If her hypothesis is correct that practicing personal responsibility and virtue is killing blacks and browns then what is her proposed solution? Complete geographic resegregation? Shall we send everyone back? How does her hypothesis contend with the fact that men have a lower life expectancy than women? The Matriarchy is killing us?

Pro #1 - Not Hillary Clinton Pro #2 - Not Joe Biden Con - No apparent real guiding governing or philosophical principles.

Just pulled Walden off my shelf last night Was asleep before page 4. But I am going to make a go of it. I love the title But What if We're Wrong. The present day hubris about people of the past is shocking. If Walden can't hold my attention - probably - I may switch quickly. Edit: Whoa! I just read a review. The book has perspicacity. I need more of that in my life! “Full of intelligence and insights, as the author gleefully turns ideas upside down to better understand them. . . Replete with lots of nifty, whimsical footnotes, this clever, speculative book challenges our beliefs with jocularity and perspicacity.” —Kirkus (starred review)

The problem is the current guy is dumb and evil and corrupt to his core.

I propose a Constitutional Amendment. In addition to the following requirements to be eligible to be elected President: The 4 Requirements Are: To be a natural-born US citizen. To be a minimum age of 35 years old. To have been a resident of the United States for 14 years. To have not served for 2 terms previously as president. 5. Competent to stand trial. Otherwise the president might be unimpeachable!

The Biden joke is on us. It is on and all over all of us. The Dems pulled off a real live nationwide Weekend at Bernie's scam. Here's Biden, complete with his signature sunglasses. At least 74 million people detected the joke and tried to stop it. Now some of the rest are finally becoming aware that Bernie is not all there. Welcome to the Party, Pals.

Can't be. He's white. But he is analytical.

Stall camp graduates. Actually they are probably stall camp instructors from Michigan. Motto: We will take no shot before its (over)time. The Paul Masson of college wrestling:

Amine has looked miserable on the mat all year.

Amine does not act like it even started.

Dual National Championship. Let Kerkvliet and Starocci choose sides and let'r'rip.

Now Amine will try to make Lewan look dynamic.

I suspect that any grave turning has to do in response to the people that fail to apply the constitution at all - let alone apply it to modern and integrated circumstances. If modern integrateds want to change the constitution for modern integrated circumstances then let them amend it. Amending is the mechanism for applying the constitution to modern integratedness. Ignoring it like we've done since the early 1900's is not a valid way to apply it to modern integrated circumstances. What modern integrated circumstance is so urgent that it requires a Constitutional Amendment that can be passed? What article of the constitution blocks modern integrateds from life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

When an asylum judge has no cases on the docket then the next one gets to come in for a review. Easy peasy. Maybe stack them a bit. Case to review, on deck, in the hole, sort of thing. 3 deep is enough. Works for wrestling meets.

I don't consider legislators "leaders". They are representatives. Additionally, much more important than how we determine our representatives (i.e. democratically on a local basis) is that the representatives have very little authority and the government has very little business. This concept of limited government is the most important aspect of our government and it is one which we seem to have forgotten - or simply chose to ignore at an ever more egregious rate - over a century ago.

I have a slight disagreement with you here. No one is ensured a "say". The checks and balances are in place to ensure the government protects the rights of every individual (we are all a minority of 1). The right to be left alone, not to be infringed, mandated, etc. is the main point of the checks and balances and the whole idea of a limited government. Having a "say" is not as important as other people (even the majority) not having a "say" about me. summing it up - "I'm not the boss of you and you, even you ALL, are not the boss of me or anyone else."

Compromise between two parties: Party 1 is punching Party 2 once every 2 seconds. Party 2 says stop punching me. Compromise Proposal - Party 1 offers to punch Party 2 once every 4 seconds and calls Party 2 names for not accepting the obvious beneficence and logic of the compromise. Note - both parties agreed long ago that no punching would take place.

I think that many covers are better than the originals. Not in this case - Tracy Chapman's version is great. Luke Combs is very very good and I like it quite a bit. Examples of covers being better than the original from the top of my head: - Whitney Houston's "I will always love you". And I do like Dolly Parton's version - Five Finger Death Punch's "Blue on Black". Kenny Wayne Shepard plays in the official video. Great tribute. There are whole websites dedicated to this topic. It is fun to listen to both consecutively.

Or legislation making illegally entering the county illegal once you are illegal entrant number 5001. https://babylonbee.com/news/new-senate-anti-murder-bill-caps-murders-at-5000-per-day

And the 9 member supreme court is fully diversificated. Jews, Catholics, WASPS, Blacks, Latins, Jews (I know, it is a race and a religion), Men, Women. I do not know nor care if any of them are homosexual. I am a bit disturbed that one does not know if she is a woman or not without consulting a biologist. Not a single bit of that diversificatedness of the court members bears one whit on whether something is Constitutional or not.

Confession - I did not read the linked article. But here are my initial questions about the idea: 27 just listening to all the same cases does not seem to pare down the caseload. Therefore is the proposal to we split up the case load to 3 mini-courts of 9? Is caseload then random or based on area of the law - criminal, property, administrative, constitutional, etc? Is there the chance to go 'en banc" and have all 27 hear a case if it is appealed from the sub-set of the court? The constitutionality of a topic is not dependent upon the number of citizens so any argument that the court be expanded inline with population makes no sense. However, the case load topic is interesting.

If only we would never see them again. That would be the second best option. These turds are unflushable. They'll be back.