In article <tjuhjh$184b5$1@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

> President Joe Biden claimed on Tuesday that he spoke with the doctor who
> invented insulin-- a doctor who was so selfless that he refused to patent the
> drug and profit from its use-- but Dr. Frederick Banting died nearly two
> years before the president was born.

After having developed the first insulin in 1922.

Biden really is the Forest Gump of our times, isn't he? He's talked to
every major figure or been at nearly every major event of the 20th
century. Even ones that occurred before his birth. Even Forest didn't
manage that!

> President Biden spoke about what his administration had been doing to lower
> health care costs for American families, touting his efforts to specifically
> bring down the cost to consumers for prescription drugs like insulin-- and he
> claimed to have spoken with the doctor who invented it.
>
> "How many of you know somebody with diabetes? Needs insulin?" Biden asked as
> he paced back and forth behind the lectern. "Well, guess what? And... when we
> ... when Debbie and I passed this law, it included everybody-- not just
> seniors."
>
> "And so, what happened was, we said okay, you know how much it costs to make
> that insulin drug for diabetes? Cost," Biden continued. "It was invented by a
> man who did not patent it because he wanted it available for everyone. I
> spoke to him, okay?"
>
> But Dr. Frederick Banting, who was one of the doctors who discovered insulin
> in 1921-- refused to put his name on the patent-- passed away in February of
> 1941. Joe Biden was not even born until November of 1942-- some 21 months
> later.

None of this matters. He's fine. Trust us.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 13:23:27 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <tjuhjh$184b5$1@dont-email.me>,
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> President Joe Biden claimed on Tuesday that he spoke with the doctor who
>> invented insulin-- a doctor who was so selfless that he refused to patent the
>> drug and profit from its use-- but Dr. Frederick Banting died nearly two
>> years before the president was born.
>
>After having developed the first insulin in 1922.

Along with two other men, both of whom were alive during Biden's life
and whom he may have talked to. The first insulin patent application
was in the name of James Collip, a Ph.D. biochemist, and Charles Best,
a medical student. Best died in 1979 and Collip in 1965.

>Biden really is the Forest Gump of our times, isn't he? He's talked to
>every major figure or been at nearly every major event of the 20th
>century. Even ones that occurred before his birth. Even Forest didn't
>manage that!
>
>> President Biden spoke about what his administration had been doing to lower
>> health care costs for American families, touting his efforts to specifically
>> bring down the cost to consumers for prescription drugs like insulin-- and he
>> claimed to have spoken with the doctor who invented it.
>>
>> "How many of you know somebody with diabetes? Needs insulin?" Biden asked as
>> he paced back and forth behind the lectern. "Well, guess what? And... when we
>> ... when Debbie and I passed this law, it included everybody-- not just
>> seniors."
>>
>> "And so, what happened was, we said okay, you know how much it costs to make
>> that insulin drug for diabetes? Cost," Biden continued. "It was invented by a
>> man who did not patent it because he wanted it available for everyone. I
>> spoke to him, okay?"
>>
>> But Dr. Frederick Banting, who was one of the doctors who discovered insulin
>> in 1921-- refused to put his name on the patent-- passed away in February of
>> 1941. Joe Biden was not even born until November of 1942-- some 21 months
>> later.
>
>None of this matters. He's fine. Trust us.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 04:48:06 +0000 (UTC),
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
>> language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.
>
>Pot, kettle, black. Fifteen seconds of googling could have put you
>right about that word, but the temptation to throw undeserved mud at a
>figure on the left was too much for you.

Hardly - I've read lots of material by "leftists" who make good points
and present their views clearly with good use of the language.

Abrams isn't one of those - and I DID watch her video on election
fraud in 2020 and while she had some interesting points don't think
she had the extraordinary evidence to back up her extraordinary
claims.

There are plenty of left wingers out there who are not nutbars -
plenty of right wingers too, but I tend not to take seriously those
who are and which camp Abrams belongs in is quite clear.

I assure you she's NOT somebody from the other end of the continent
who I've vaguely heard of and am shooting from the hip about. I don't
pretend to know everything about everybody in US politics but she is
one I >have< listened to at some length and think she manages to out
looney Trump.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC),
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
>(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
>"statute" when he said "amendment."
>
>It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
>strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
>century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.

As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
they ought not to be swimming in.

"States rights" was a term used a LOT by pre-1960 Democratic party
politicians in the deep South to keep black people down so it is
highly ironic that the argument is being used at so much length in
this matter.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 23:07:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>At the very least, if abortion is treated as an interstate matter
>without an over-the-top interpretation of the Commerce Clause, such as
>protecting the right to travel to outside your home state in order to
>secure an abortion, then even this Supreme Court wouldn't rule that to
>be unconstitutional.
>
>>Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
>>shouldn't be legislation.
>
>That's not how it works since FDR.

Since when have American judges denied the right of Americans to cross
states lines for any cause other than committing a crime?

On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 15:47:57 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>“How many of you know somebody with diabetes? Needs insulin?” Biden asked as
>he paced back and forth behind the lectern. “Well, guess what? And … when we
>… when Debbie and I passed this law, it included everybody — not just
>seniors.”
>
>“And so, what happened was, we said okay, you know how much it costs to make
>that insulin drug for diabetes? Cost,” Biden continued. “It was invented by a
>man who did not patent it because he wanted it available for everyone. I
>spoke to him, okay?”
>
>But Dr. Frederick Banting, who was one of the doctors who discovered insulin
>in 1921 — refused to put his name on the patent — passed away in February of
>1941. Joe Biden was not even born until November of 1942 — some 21 months
>later.
>
>Banting received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 1923 following
>his discovery. His assistant, Dr. Charles Best, was a medical student at the
>time and assisted with the discovery. He did put his name on the patent,
>along with Dr. James Bertram Collip, who helped refine it, but the two sold
>the patent to the University of Toronto for $1.
>
One presumes you know what country that discover and all the other
items you mention were done. Hint: it wasin't in the United States of
America.

Incidentally Banting wasn't ONE of the discoverers he was THE PRIMARY
discoverer and the others named were his assistants.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC), Micky DuPree wrote:

>>From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
>>(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
>>"statute" when he said "amendment."

>>It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
>>strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
>>century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.

Aren't you going to smack DuPree around for misstating Calvinism? It's
religious, clearly, but both the Catholic Church and many Protestant
denominations oppose abortion so what the hell does that have to do with
Calvinism?

>As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
>on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
>ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
>they ought not to be swimming in.

Congress can write a law protecting interstate aspects of abortion, such
as the right to travel outside one's home state for a medical procedure.
Anything that isn't strictly interstate will likely be found
unconstitutional by the current Supreme Court.

>"States rights" was a term used a LOT by pre-1960 Democratic party
>politicians in the deep South to keep black people down so it is
>highly ironic that the argument is being used at so much length in
>this matter.

Uh, the 19th century and counter-Reconstructionism and failure of
federal courts to implement much of the 14th Amendment? The 14th
Amendment eliminated certain aspects of federalism when it came to
individual liberty and specific civil rights. But unless the word
"liberty" in the 14th Amendment had to do with abortion in the Dobbs
decision, there's no longer federal protection.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 23:07:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>At the very least, if abortion is treated as an interstate matter
>>without an over-the-top interpretation of the Commerce Clause, such as
>>protecting the right to travel to outside your home state in order to
>>secure an abortion, then even this Supreme Court wouldn't rule that to
>>be unconstitutional.

>>>Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
>>>shouldn't be legislation.

>>That's not how it works since FDR.

>Since when have American judges denied the right of Americans to cross
>states lines for any cause other than committing a crime?

The Mann Act has never been found to be unconstitutional, even though
the underlying crimes aren't necessarily criminal acts till one has left
the sttae in question for the purpose of conduct that's not necessarily
a crime without having left the state.

I'm sure there are other federal laws like that as well. Congress and
state legislatures are allowed to have conflicting views on what
behavior is criminal if the federal government has the ability to assert
jurisdiction.

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 5:06:22 AM UTC-5, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tuberville, MTG, Herschel, Boebert, John Kennedy, Gohmert, Scalise,
> Blackburn--the list goes on and on. Then there's the likes of Larry
> Craig, Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Denny Hastert, and numerous other sexual
> perverts that aren't as stupid, just disgustingly perverted. Why would
> anyone want to belong to a party filled with stupid assholes like this?
> The obvious answer is you'd have to be a stupid asshole yourself.

How can you mention Hastert and forget his buddy Henry Hyde and his dupage County six seconds green light traffic signals???

Taliban leader Haibatullah Akhundzada has plans for harsh Sharia law in
Afghanistan, including public amputations and stoning, the BBC reports.

The Taliban had implemented harsh Sharia law in the 1990s when they took
over in Afghanistan, but promised after the United States withdrew in
2021 that they would offer �amnesty for all.�

�His Highness Amir al-Mu�minin in a meeting with the judges: Examine the
files of thieves, kidnappers and seditionists carefully. Those files in
which all the Shariah conditions of Hadd and Qisas are fulfilled, you
are obliged to implement Hadd and Qisas,� Taliban spokesman Zabihullah
Mujahid tweeted on Sunday.

Women were banned from visiting parks in Kabul, Afghanistan�s capital,
last week.

At the beginning of September 2021, just a few weeks after the U.S.
pullout, Joe Biden�s administration praised the Taliban, calling them
�businesslike and professional.�

�The Taliban have been cooperative in facilitating the departure of
American citizens and lawful permanent residents on charter flights from
HKIA,� the administration claimed in a statement after some American
citizens were finally evacuated out of Afghanistan after being left
there. �They have shown flexibility, and they have been businesslike and
professional in our dealings with them in this effort. This is a
positive first step.�

�We will continue these efforts to facilitate the safe and orderly
travel of American citizens, lawful permanent residents, and Afghans who
worked for us and wish to leave Afghanistan,� the statement continued.
�Because there is an ongoing terrorist threat to operations of this
nature, we will not be sharing details of these efforts before people
are safely out of the country.�

Prior to that, at the end of August, former White House Press Secretary
Jen Psaki pointed reporters to Secretary of State Antony Blinken�s
remarks, then boasted, �We have enormous leverage over the Taliban.�

The State Department wrote in 2001 regarding the Taliban�s history with
women when they ruled Afghanistan between 1996-2001:

Under Taliban rule, women were given only the most rudimentary
access to health care and medical care, thereby endangering the
health of women, and in turn, their families. In most hospitals,
male physicians could only examine a female patient if she were
fully clothed, ruling out the possibility of meaningful
diagnosis and treatment. These Taliban regulations led to a
lack of adequate medical care for women and contributed to
increased suffering and higher mortality rates. �

In May 2001, the Taliban raided and temporarily closed a
foreign-funded hospital in Kabul because male and female staff
allegedly mixed in the dining room and operating wards. It is
significant to note that approximately 70% of health services
had been provided by international relief organizations �
further highlighting the Taliban�s general disregard for the
welfare of the Afghan people.

--
Let's go Brandon!

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) seemed confused about her own past
statements in an interview about her future on Tuesday.

The 89-year-old Feinstein was the prime candidate to become President
Pro Tempore of the Senate, third in the line of succession to the
presidency after the vice president and speaker of the house. But
Feinstein already stated publicly that she will not seek the position.
She seemed to forget that in an interview with Insider Magazine, and had
to be reminded of the statement by a staffer.

�Well, I haven�t thought about it, but I�ll let you know when I do,�
Feinstein told Insider�s Bryan Metzger. �I just got back, I�ve had a lot
of issues.�

�[She has] told a few reporters in the past that she�s not thought about
it, and has no intention of seeking the position,� one of Feinstein�s
aides cut in, before turning to the Senator. �That�s what you�ve told
reporters,� the aide said.

�I don�t know what you�re saying,� Feinstein told the staffer.

�This is about the Senate pro tem position,� he replied.

�Well, I haven�t said anything about it, that I know of,� she insisted.

�You were asked about it over the break, and you put out a statement
saying that you had no intention of running for it,� he reminded her.

�Okay, well then, I guess it�s out,� she concluded.

Feinstein told The Washington Post in October that she was not seeking
the position. �I�ve never thought about being the president pro tempore
and I have no interest in it at this time,� she said in a statement to
the paper. Feinstein also lost her husband, private equity investor and
former University of California regent Richard Blum, in February.
Feinstein cited her husband�s death as the reason she did not want to
accept the job.

Rumors have been swirling since earlier this year about Feinstein�s
mental fitness to serve in office. A Congressional Democrat told the San
Francisco Chronicle in April that Feinstein repeatedly engaged in
similar lines of small talk, and the lawmaker had to reintroduce himself
several times. Multiple senators, staffers, and the member of Congress
said that Feinstein�s memory was rapidly deteriorating, and that she
needed her staff to do much of the work.

In her interview with Insider, Feinstein refused to answer whether she
was fit to serve as president pro tempore. �I�m just saying I haven�t
thought about it,� she said.

If Feinstein keeps her word and does not seek the position, Senator
Patty Murray (D-WA) would most likely accept the post. Murray was
elected in 1992, the same year as Feinstein.

Meanwhile on the Republican side, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) announced
his intention to challenge Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for
leadership of the Republican conference. �Republican voters expect and
deserve to know our plan to promote and advance conservative values,�
Scott said in a note to colleagues obtained by The Daily Wire. �We need
to listen to their calls for action and start governing in Washington
like we campaign back at home.

�They are begging us to tell them what we will do when we are in charge.
Unfortunately, we have continued to elect leadership who refuses to do
that and elicits attacks on anyone that does. That is clearly not
working and it�s time for bold change. The voters are demanding it,� he
added.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 15:39:17 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC), Micky DuPree wrote:
>>"States rights" was a term used a LOT by pre-1960 Democratic party
>>politicians in the deep South to keep black people down so it is
>>highly ironic that the argument is being used at so much length in
>>this matter.
>
>Uh, the 19th century and counter-Reconstructionism and failure of
>federal courts to implement much of the 14th Amendment? The 14th
>Amendment eliminated certain aspects of federalism when it came to
>individual liberty and specific civil rights. But unless the word
>"liberty" in the 14th Amendment had to do with abortion in the Dobbs
>decision, there's no longer federal protection.

You have a point. Whatever happened in the first twenty years after
the Civil War didn't have a whole lot to do with abortion.

Would you accept that the Confederacy lost the war but won the peace?

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 15:42:56 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 23:07:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>Since when have American judges denied the right of Americans to cross
>>states lines for any cause other than committing a crime?
>
>The Mann Act has never been found to be unconstitutional, even though
>the underlying crimes aren't necessarily criminal acts till one has left
>the sttae in question for the purpose of conduct that's not necessarily
>a crime without having left the state.
>
>I'm sure there are other federal laws like that as well. Congress and
>state legislatures are allowed to have conflicting views on what
>behavior is criminal if the federal government has the ability to assert
>jurisdiction.

The federal government has the right to ASSERT anything they like.

(Nobody's suggesting that's changing any time soon!)

Having their view of things upheld by the courts (including the
SCOTUS) is a totally different matter.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 12:26:24 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>At the beginning of September 2021, just a few weeks after the U.S.
>pullout, Joe Biden’s administration praised the Taliban, calling them
>“businesslike and professional.”
>
>“The Taliban have been cooperative in facilitating the departure of
>American citizens and lawful permanent residents on charter flights from
>HKIA,” the administration claimed in a statement after some American
>citizens were finally evacuated out of Afghanistan after being left
>there. “They have shown flexibility, and they have been businesslike and
>professional in our dealings with them in this effort. This is a
>positive first step.”
>
>“We will continue these efforts to facilitate the safe and orderly
>travel of American citizens, lawful permanent residents, and Afghans who
>worked for us and wish to leave Afghanistan,” the statement continued.
>“Because there is an ongoing terrorist threat to operations of this
>nature, we will not be sharing details of these efforts before people
>are safely out of the country.”

Which is the complete opposite of what Canada encountered when trying
to evacuate the Afghans who had served as translators for the Canadian
forces there.

If memory serves it was something like 3000 or so left behind (not
sure if that included families or not) nor any statistics indicating
how many of these either made it out to other countries or are even
still alive.

Rhino can you recall the figure?

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Sat, 12 Nov 2022 15:42:56 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>>>Since when have American judges denied the right of Americans to cross
>>>states lines for any cause other than committing a crime?

>>The Mann Act has never been found to be unconstitutional, even though
>>the underlying crimes aren't necessarily criminal acts till one has left
>>the sttae in question for the purpose of conduct that's not necessarily
>>a crime without having left the state.

>>I'm sure there are other federal laws like that as well. Congress and
>>state legislatures are allowed to have conflicting views on what
>>behavior is criminal if the federal government has the ability to assert
>>jurisdiction.

>The federal government has the right to ASSERT anything they like.

>(Nobody's suggesting that's changing any time soon!)

>Having their view of things upheld by the courts (including the
>SCOTUS) is a totally different matter.

I am discussing assertion of federal jurisdiction as limited by federal
courts. No, the federal government cannot assert anything it likes if it
has been barred from doing so by federal courts.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) claimed that if reparations for
slavery had been implemented, that might have helped to contain the
spread of COVID during the recent global pandemic.

Jackson Lee took to the House floor on Thursday to rally support for
H.R. 40, a bill that would establish a congressional commission to study
the potential cost and impact of reparations.

Noting that COVID infection rates among minority communities had
initially appeared to be greater than among white Americans or the
population at large, Jackson Lee cited a Harvard Medical School study
that said living conditions � and work environments in the African
American community were more conducive to the virus� rapid spread.

WATCH:

REP. JACKSON LEE: "Reparations for African-Americans could
have cut COVID-19 transmission and infection rates both among
blacks and the population at large."
pic.twitter.com/GpgKBr2AHf

� Breaking911 (@Breaking911) November 17, 2022

�There is no doubt we have been impacted, that DNA in the trajectory of
slavery to today. For example, COVID. Black African Americans have
gotten COVID at a rate of nearly 1.5 times higher than that of white
people, or hospitalized at a rate of nearly four times higher and three
times likely to die. COVID hit us very desperately,� Jackson Lee began.

She explained that reparations could have moved the needle among African
Americans by decreasing the wealth gap and allowing more people to
access better health care, better education, and potentially less
crowded living conditions.

�Reparations for African Americans could have cut COVID-19 transmission
and infection rates both among blacks and the population at large,� the
Texas Congresswoman continued. �Reparations are curative, they�re not
punishment. The analysis continued to look at data throughout the
nation.�

�Wealth is more strongly associated with familial or individual well-
being,� said study co-author William Darity, the Samuel DuBois Cook
Distinguished Professor of Public Policy at Duke University and a Lancet
reparations commissioner. He explained that black Americans have a much
lower average net worth than white Americans, adding, �This dramatically
restricts the ability of Black Americans to survive and thrive.�

While Jackson Lee�s initial data was correct � black Americans did see
higher infection, hospitalization, and death rates in the early months
of the pandemic � more recent data show that death rates across racial
demographics eventually evened out. As of October, the death rate among
white Americans � according to data evaluated by The Washington Post �
had �eclipsed� that of other groups.

--
Let' go Brandon!

weberm@polaris.net wrote:

>Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) claimed that if reparations for
>slavery had been implemented, that might have helped to contain the
>spread of COVID during the recent global pandemic.

Why? Would your diseased people have taken all the money and moved back
to Africa without infecting their betters?

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 04:48:06 +0000 (UTC),
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>> Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
>>> language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.
>>
>> Pot, kettle, black. Fifteen seconds of googling could have put you
>> right about that word, but the temptation to throw undeserved mud at
>> a figure on the left was too much for you.
>
> Hardly - I've read lots of material by "leftists" who make good points
> and present their views clearly with good use of the language.

You're making a different point now, and avoiding the mistake you made.
'Reductive' is a word. Abrams was right in her usage of it. You were
wrong when you claimed it wasn't a word.

> I assure you she's NOT somebody from the other end of the continent
> who I've vaguely heard of and am shooting from the hip about. I don't
> pretend to know everything about everybody in US politics but she is
> one I >have< listened to at some length and think she manages to out
> looney Trump.

She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)

-Micky

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC),
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the
>> interpretation (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect
>> that shawn meant "statute" when he said "amendment."
>>
>> It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
>> strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
>> century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
>
> As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
> on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
> ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
> they ought not to be swimming in.

As I understand it, the SCOTUS decision was that in the absence of a
federal statute protecting abortion, the determination of abortion
rights or abortion prohibitions devolved to the states. But if Congress
did pass such a law, then that would supersede state laws (until, of
course, there was a challenge by red states that would proceed to the
SCOTUS again).

> "States rights" was a term used a LOT by pre-1960 Democratic party
> politicians in the deep South to keep black people down so it is
> highly ironic that the argument is being used at so much length in
> this matter.

Not so ironic. It's the heirs to the Dixiecrats (some of whom are still
alive) that are using Republican state legislatures, funded and aimed by
such guiding lights as ALEC, who have been waiting to pounce on the
overturning of _Roe_ to enshrine abortion prohibitions in state law.

But face it: it's not a position that can stand forever. If you're
going to claim that a fetus has inalienable human rights just like a
born, breathing human, then it's not something that those who believe it
are going to let stand as a states' rights issue, not while they have a
supermajority of SCOTUS justices who either are practicing Catholics or
who were at least raised Catholic.

-Micky

In article <tluo58$kaa$1@pcls7.std.com>,
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC),
> > MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
> >> From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the
> >> interpretation (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect
> >> that shawn meant "statute" when he said "amendment."
> >>
> >> It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
> >> strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
> >> century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
> >
> > As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
> > on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
> > ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
> > they ought not to be swimming in.
>
> As I understand it, the SCOTUS decision was that in the absence of a
> federal statute protecting abortion, the determination of abortion
> rights or abortion prohibitions devolved to the states. But if Congress
> did pass such a law, then that would supersede state laws (until, of
> course, there was a challenge by red states that would proceed to the
> SCOTUS again).

COngress can only legislate over matters its been given jurisdiction
over by Article I, Section 8. Since abortion isn't on that list, even a
federal statute would be constitutionally unsound.

The only way to (legitimately) give the federal government jurisdiction
over abortion would be to amend the Constitution accordingly.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
>That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
>if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
>maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
>have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)

No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
calls voter suppression.

To me I think it's the height of idiocy that states are allowed to set
their own rules for a federal election but then I'm a Canadian and
you're an American and there are historical reasons for each
countries' election practices.

Despite the fact that I'm a long standing 'reality TV buff' (to the
point of seeking out and watching foreign Survivors and Big Brothers)
I still can't believe I watched 3 seasons of the Apprentice since
while I'd heard of him before that show (I also used to watch pro
wrestling but gave it up over how the WWF/WWE folks abused their
female "managers") it wasn't in good terms.

I have saved the Photoshopped picture of Queen Elizabeth wearing a red
hat saying "Make American Great <small type) Britain (end small type)
again!". It's one of my favorites in fact.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 04:13:28 +0000 (UTC),
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>Not so ironic. It's the heirs to the Dixiecrats (some of whom are still
>alive) that are using Republican state legislatures, funded and aimed by
>such guiding lights as ALEC, who have been waiting to pounce on the
>overturning of _Roe_ to enshrine abortion prohibitions in state law.

No no no - the Dixiecrats WEREN'T Republicans - they were definitely
Democrats who rejected the racial equality provisions introduced by
Democrat presidents like Truman, JFK and LBJ. There's no way you can
link them to the GOP.

If you want to damn Nixon for anything he should be damned far more
for his "Southern Strategy" than his relatively small part in
Watergate which while terrible wasn't as terrible as the Southern
Strategy which hurt his party more than it helped it and especially in
the way it legitimized people like Wallace and Farbus and their ilk.

1968 was one of the closest US elections in history (while 1972 was
one of the greatest landslides) and while it's possible NOT making
Nixon's devil's deal with that crew RMN wouldn't have won in 68, it
set the GOP on a very bad path.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:22:49 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
>MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>>She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
>>That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
>>if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
>>maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
>>have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
>
>No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
>calls voter suppression.

Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
Republicans. So it was reasonable that a Democrat candidate would call
out those changes. When even the national Republican committee joins
in support of their lawsuit to keep Saturday voting off the table in
this runoff it becomes plain that this change was more about limiting
voter options than any risk of voter shenanigans.

>To me I think it's the height of idiocy that states are allowed to set
>their own rules for a federal election but then I'm a Canadian and
>you're an American and there are historical reasons for each
>countries' election practices.
>
>Despite the fact that I'm a long standing 'reality TV buff' (to the
>point of seeking out and watching foreign Survivors and Big Brothers)
>I still can't believe I watched 3 seasons of the Apprentice since
>while I'd heard of him before that show (I also used to watch pro
>wrestling but gave it up over how the WWF/WWE folks abused their
>female "managers") it wasn't in good terms.

I would have to say that THE APPRENTICE went a long way to helping
Trump get elected as before that he would have been seen as just
another New York elite.
>I have saved the Photoshopped picture of Queen Elizabeth wearing a red
>hat saying "Make American Great <small type) Britain (end small type)
>again!". It's one of my favorites in fact.

In article <hs78ohhu9bdjb6oth0kf77m9kggjd1i4nl@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:22:49 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
> >MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
> >
> >>She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
> >>That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
> >>if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
> >>maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
> >>have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
> >
> >No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
> >calls voter suppression.
>
>
> Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
> our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
> Republicans.

Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?

On 11/27/2022 10:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <hs78ohhu9bdjb6oth0kf77m9kggjd1i4nl@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:22:49 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
>>> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>>
>>>> She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
>>>> That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
>>>> if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
>>>> maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
>>>> have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
>>>
>>> No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
>>> calls voter suppression.
>>
>>
>> Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
>> our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
>> Republicans.
>
> Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
> not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?

Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.