A Friend wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:16:28 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>>>recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...

>>Isn't EVERY court decision "settled law" at least unless or until a
>>later court sets it aside? (usually by saying the first court
>>overlooked XYZ as a reason)

>"Settled law" connotes that said law is not open to serious challenge.

Or completely disruptive to modern life if overridden. It's still not a
legal concept.

>Roe v. Wade wasn't settled law. It was under constant attack until the
>antis got a Court and a case they could work with.

>Congress had almost 50 years to codify Roe v. Wade, but that bunch of
>cowards kept passing the buck to the courts. Now it's in the hands of
>the states.

Uh... domestic policy doesn't work like that. Anything Congress did
wouldn't have prevented a state from passing its own legislation.

Congress would have needed to find an exclusive area of legislation in
which it has final say so: Interstate commerce. So no state can prohibit
someone from travelling interstate for medical care nor attempt to
punish anyone who aids a person travelling for medical care. Or there
could have been a federally-funded family planning program. Or a general
health care bill of rights, maybe.

Even if what the Democrats were talking about could get passed into law,
you know the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional except for the
portions tied into specific Congressional law-making authority.

I don't even see how 14th Amendment works given that equal protection
doesn't cover it. The specific nature of biology of reproduction is
very much unequal in a way that laws cannot change.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 7/28/2022 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 12:32:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2022 2:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <W0AEK.743183$X_i.412644@fx18.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/28/2022 11:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <RqwEK.723577$JVi.44662@fx17.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from
>1975 and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite
>>>>>>>>>>>> interview of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed
>>>>>>>>>>>> "progressive"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
>>>>>>>>>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a
>frightened
>>>>>>>>>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being
>voiced above?
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've*
>seen burst
>>>>>>>>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is
>settled law"...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
>>>>>>>> Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law
>here and
>>>>>>>> we have to respect that."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once appointed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Asking nominees to 'promise' how they'll rule on cases before they're
>>>>>> confirmed is the actual offense to the Constitution here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, indeed, they didn't promise. They merely lied...
>>>>
>>>> No, they said it was a precedent and at the time they said it, it was a
>>>> precedent. Then a new case came before them and in light of new
>>>> arguments presented to the Court, a different decision was reached.
>>>
>>> Though I don't consider it likely that you actually believe that, I'm a
>>> bit disturbed by even the possibility that you might.
>>
>> It's a reasonable response to politicians insisting on putting jurists in
>> untenable and unethical positions by asking those inappropriate questions in
>> the first place.
>>
>Like by asking them to define a woman?

She shouldn't have ducked it. The judicial nominee is supposed to be
able to put your denser United States Senators in their place. She
should have specifically said she can't offer a LEGAL definition, but
she could have made broad, common sense comments about context, that
"woman" has a different meaning in college sports than in reproduction.

On 7/28/2022 10:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <SQHEK.547519$ssF.61664@fx14.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2022 8:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 4:02:21 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 12:32:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 2:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <W0AEK.743183$X_i.412644@fx18.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 11:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <RqwEK.723577$JVi.44662@fx17.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced
>>>>>>>>>>>> above? Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've*
>>>>>>>>>>>> seen burst recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade
>>>>>>>>>>>> is settled law"...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in
>>>>>>>>>>> Brown vs. Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy
>>>>>>>>>>> is the law here and we have to respect that."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once
>>>>>>>>>> appointed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Asking nominees to 'promise' how they'll rule on cases before
>>>>>>>>> they're confirmed is the actual offense to the Constitution here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, indeed, they didn't promise. They merely lied...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they said it was a precedent and at the time they said it, it was
>>>>>>> a precedent. Then a new case came before them and in light of new
>>>>>>> arguments presented to the Court, a different decision was reached.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Though I don't consider it likely that you actually believe that, I'm
>>>>>> a bit disturbed by even the possibility that you might.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a reasonable response to politicians insisting on putting jurists
>>>>> in untenable and unethical positions by asking those inappropriate
>>>>> questions in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>> Like by asking them to define a woman?
>>>
>>> That was a silly question. (And it was even sillier that Brown said she
>>> couldn't do it because she's not a biologist.) But it wasn't an unethical
>>> one because it wasn't asking her how she would rule on a legal issue
>>> before hearing arguments in a potential case.
>>
>> Did someone ask Kavanaugh how he'd rule on such an issue?
>
> No, but then Brown wasn't asked how she'd rule on such an issue, either
> because defining a woman isn't a request for a premature ruling on any
> legal issue.
>
> Brown wasn't asked a lot of the questions Kavanaugh was, either. She
> wasn't, for example, asked to explain teenage jokes in her high school
> yearbook.

So the GQP fucked that up too? Yeah, that tracks.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 03:33:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>On 7/28/2022 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 12:32:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2022 2:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <W0AEK.743183$X_i.412644@fx18.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 11:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <RqwEK.723577$JVi.44662@fx17.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from
>>1975 and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interview of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "progressive"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
>>>>>>>>>>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a
>>frightened
>>>>>>>>>>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being
>>voiced above?
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've*
>>seen burst
>>>>>>>>>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is
>>settled law"...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
>>>>>>>>> Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law
>>here and
>>>>>>>>> we have to respect that."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once appointed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Asking nominees to 'promise' how they'll rule on cases before they're
>>>>>>> confirmed is the actual offense to the Constitution here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, indeed, they didn't promise. They merely lied...
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they said it was a precedent and at the time they said it, it was a
>>>>> precedent. Then a new case came before them and in light of new
>>>>> arguments presented to the Court, a different decision was reached.
>>>>
>>>> Though I don't consider it likely that you actually believe that, I'm a
>>>> bit disturbed by even the possibility that you might.
>>>
>>> It's a reasonable response to politicians insisting on putting jurists in
>>> untenable and unethical positions by asking those inappropriate questions in
>>> the first place.
>>>
>>Like by asking them to define a woman?
>
>She shouldn't have ducked it. The judicial nominee is supposed to be
>able to put your denser United States Senators in their place. She
>should have specifically said she can't offer a LEGAL definition, but
>she could have made broad, common sense comments about context, that
>"woman" has a different meaning in college sports than in reproduction.

If she was going to duck the question she should have just plainly
stated that she wasn't going to play the game with the Senators by
trying to answer the question, but I do agree she would have been
better served by your answer. Simply that there is no one definition
that fits all situations.

On 2022-07-28 11:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>> difference between then and now is stark:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>
>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>
> Ok ok ok
>
> For one thing it's Johnny Carson. Even your biggest drunken idiot or
> drugged-out actor knew to behave on Carson's program.
>
> For another thing, it's Ronald Reagan, who knew everybody in Hollywood
> going back decades, given than he was a former actor and tv host.
>
> I thought you were going to show us a Face the Nation or Meet the Press
> clip from that era. This isn't representative of anything other than The
> Tonight Show.

Okay, that's fair. Maybe I should have tracked down something like one
of the Sunday morning political shows. Still, can you picture someone
like Colbert having Trump on his show and treating him with this kind of
respect? That would be a late-night host/politician parallel to the
Carson/Reagan conversation. I doubt anyone would seriously claim that
Trump would get treatment remotely resembling what Reagan got.

--
Rhino

On 2022-07-28 11:07 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>
>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>
>> Ok ok ok
>
>> For one thing it's Johnny Carson. Even your biggest drunken idiot or
>> drugged-out actor knew to behave on Carson's program.
>
>> For another thing, it's Ronald Reagan, who knew everybody in Hollywood
>> going back decades, given than he was a former actor and tv host.
>
>> I thought you were going to show us a Face the Nation or Meet the Press
>> clip from that era. This isn't representative of anything other than The
>> Tonight Show.
>
> That led me to Reagan's one liners: a box of index cards with jokes he'd
> written himself or borrowed from others.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7sP47e8tA
>
> Looks like a CBS News Sunday Morning segment.

CBS doesn't want foreigners watching that video. It beats me why; an old
interview with a long-dead politician doesn't sound like something that
would make them money....

--
Rhino

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 20:53:20 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>>Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>>>recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...

>>Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
>>Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law here and
>>we have to respect that."

><sarcasm on> <sarcasm off> I'm sure.

>I'm not really sure R v W was ever as 'settled' as that clunker.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was part of a long string of
counter-Reconstruction cases, an application of stare decisis over many
years. With Roe v. Wade, the list of prior cases it was based on was
much shorter.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>On 7/28/2022 3:03 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

>>>>Trotsky

>>>>You have aligned yourself to the party that denies reality and refuse to
>>>>admit to their crimes,

>>>LOL! Says the guy who is aligned with the party that can’t provide
>>>a definition for "woman"...

>>Can you define it ...in 25 assumptions or less?

>A woman is a female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

No

"woman" is always distinguished from "girl"

If we are discussing reproduction, then a "woman" is sexually mature.
Or maturity for some aspect of law, like marriage without parental consent.
or maturity in some organized practice like sports (women in college,
girls in high school).

All women are female but not all females are women.

>Just as a lioness is a female member of the species Panthera leo.

>And a cow is a female member of the species Bos taurus.

>And a mare is a female member of the species Equus ferus caballus.

>And a hormel is a female member of the species Haliaeetus leucocephalus.

Bald eagle? I tried to look that up but it's nothing but spam.

>And a hen is a female member of the species Gallus domesticus.

>And a doe is a female member of the species Odocoileus virginianus.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:

>>>>>>>I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>>>>>>difference between then and now is stark:

>>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]

>>>>>>>Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite
>>>>>>>interview of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed
>>>>>>>"progressive"?

>>>>>>Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?

>>>>>Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
>>>>>political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
>>>>>child scared of non-existent monsters.

>>>>Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>>>>recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...

>>>Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
>>>Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law here and
>>>we have to respect that."

>>Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once appointed?

>Asking nominees to 'promise' how they'll rule on cases before they're
>confirmed is the actual offense to the Constitution here.

Not that moviePig has ever heard of John Marshall Harlan, but he was the
son of a Kentucky family that held slaves and wasn't a Republican because
he opposed Reconstruction. There were still pro-Reconstruction Republicans
in the Senate when he was nominated by Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877. I
have no clue what his confirmation hearing was like but the opposition
to him was mainly due to his lack of experience in holding public office.

He ended up being the greatest civil libertarian who was ever on the
Supreme Court with the notable exception of his opinion that the Chinese
Exclusion Act of 1882 was constitutional.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On 2022-07-28 11:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>>difference between then and now is stark:

>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]

>>>Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>>of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?

>>Ok ok ok

>>For one thing it's Johnny Carson. Even your biggest drunken idiot or
>>drugged-out actor knew to behave on Carson's program.

>>For another thing, it's Ronald Reagan, who knew everybody in Hollywood
>>going back decades, given than he was a former actor and tv host.

>>I thought you were going to show us a Face the Nation or Meet the Press
>>clip from that era. This isn't representative of anything other than The
>>Tonight Show.

>Okay, that's fair. Maybe I should have tracked down something like one
>of the Sunday morning political shows. Still, can you picture someone
>like Colbert having Trump on his show and treating him with this kind of
>respect? That would be a late-night host/politician parallel to the
>Carson/Reagan conversation. I doubt anyone would seriously claim that
>Trump would get treatment remotely resembling what Reagan got.

Other than both men were nationally known for having been on television,
Trump and Reagan are not all that comparable. By the time of that
interview, Reagan had served two terms as governor of California.
Reagan's television persona was different than Trump's, genial host of
G.E. Theater for a decade, which was a dramatic anthology program in the
1950s and 1960s. At no point in Trump's television career did he play
"genial". Furthermore, Reagan slowly built a following outside
California within the Republican Party establishment. Trump was not
an experienced politician. Hell, he wasn't even a Republican. He ran for
the Republican nomination for president as a disrupter.

No, I cannot picture Trump in a comparable interview but his political
staffers wouldn't have set him up for anything like that either. It
wasn't Trump's brand.

As far as Colbert, well, A Friend pointed out the obvious about a month
ago. Viewership of late night television completely changed post Carson.
Middle-aged married couple in the age of Carson fell asleep to his show,
bt they aren't watching Colbert these days, except maybe the ones who
have liked Colbert since his Comedy Central days and have now aged into
middle age.

Late night shows are exploiting today's yout' by appealing to their
politics because older people don't watch late night.

On 2022-07-29 10:17 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-07-28 11:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>
>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>
>>> Ok ok ok
>
>>> For one thing it's Johnny Carson. Even your biggest drunken idiot or
>>> drugged-out actor knew to behave on Carson's program.
>
>>> For another thing, it's Ronald Reagan, who knew everybody in Hollywood
>>> going back decades, given than he was a former actor and tv host.
>
>>> I thought you were going to show us a Face the Nation or Meet the Press
>>> clip from that era. This isn't representative of anything other than The
>>> Tonight Show.
>
>> Okay, that's fair. Maybe I should have tracked down something like one
>> of the Sunday morning political shows. Still, can you picture someone
>> like Colbert having Trump on his show and treating him with this kind of
>> respect? That would be a late-night host/politician parallel to the
>> Carson/Reagan conversation. I doubt anyone would seriously claim that
>> Trump would get treatment remotely resembling what Reagan got.
>
> Other than both men were nationally known for having been on television,
> Trump and Reagan are not all that comparable. By the time of that
> interview, Reagan had served two terms as governor of California.
> Reagan's television persona was different than Trump's, genial host of
> G.E. Theater for a decade, which was a dramatic anthology program in the
> 1950s and 1960s. At no point in Trump's television career did he play
> "genial". Furthermore, Reagan slowly built a following outside
> California within the Republican Party establishment. Trump was not
> an experienced politician. Hell, he wasn't even a Republican. He ran for
> the Republican nomination for president as a disrupter.
>
> No, I cannot picture Trump in a comparable interview but his political
> staffers wouldn't have set him up for anything like that either. It
> wasn't Trump's brand.
>
> As far as Colbert, well, A Friend pointed out the obvious about a month
> ago. Viewership of late night television completely changed post Carson.
> Middle-aged married couple in the age of Carson fell asleep to his show,
> bt they aren't watching Colbert these days, except maybe the ones who
> have liked Colbert since his Comedy Central days and have now aged into
> middle age.
>
> Late night shows are exploiting today's yout' by appealing to their
> politics because older people don't watch late night.

Okay, so maybe it was an apples to oranges comparison. Still, I simply
don't see anywhere near the civility in politics today that used to be
the norm back in Reagan's day. I noticed how polarized and just plain
angry American politics was getting at least a decade ago and it's only
gotten worse - MUCH worse - since.

--
Rhino

On 7/28/2022 11:14 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:16:28 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
>
>> Isn't EVERY court decision "settled law" at least unless or until a
>> later court sets it aside? (usually by saying the first court
>> overlooked XYZ as a reason)
>
> We just had a discussion about this a few weeks ago in another thread,
> that moviePig couldn't be bothered to take notice of.
>
> Roe v. Wade was owed "stare decisis" because it was a clear opinion of
> the Court and how it interpreted the Constitution, and cited in
> subsequent decisions. "Settled law" was a phrase devoid of legal
> meaning.
>
> Not every opinion or action of the Supreme Court makes for useful
> precedent. It depends on how common the facts of similar cases are and
> how narrowly the opinion was decided.

Umm, the issue here is Kavanaugh's lie, not its legal enforceability.

On 7/28/2022 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <SQHEK.547519$ssF.61664@fx14.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2022 8:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 4:02:21 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 12:32:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 2:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <W0AEK.743183$X_i.412644@fx18.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 11:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <RqwEK.723577$JVi.44662@fx17.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced
>>>>>>>>>>>> above? Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've*
>>>>>>>>>>>> seen burst recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade
>>>>>>>>>>>> is settled law"...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in
>>>>>>>>>>> Brown vs. Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy
>>>>>>>>>>> is the law here and we have to respect that."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once
>>>>>>>>>> appointed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Asking nominees to 'promise' how they'll rule on cases before
>>>>>>>>> they're confirmed is the actual offense to the Constitution here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, indeed, they didn't promise. They merely lied...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they said it was a precedent and at the time they said it, it was
>>>>>>> a precedent. Then a new case came before them and in light of new
>>>>>>> arguments presented to the Court, a different decision was reached.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Though I don't consider it likely that you actually believe that, I'm
>>>>>> a bit disturbed by even the possibility that you might.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a reasonable response to politicians insisting on putting jurists
>>>>> in untenable and unethical positions by asking those inappropriate
>>>>> questions in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>> Like by asking them to define a woman?
>>>
>>> That was a silly question. (And it was even sillier that Brown said she
>>> couldn't do it because she's not a biologist.) But it wasn't an unethical
>>> one because it wasn't asking her how she would rule on a legal issue
>>> before hearing arguments in a potential case.
>>
>> Did someone ask Kavanaugh how he'd rule on such an issue?
>
> No, but then Brown wasn't asked how she'd rule on such an issue, either
> because defining a woman isn't a request for a premature ruling on any
> legal issue.

So, he wasn't asked an unethical question, but was merely (deftly?)
coerced into supplying an unethical answer...

> Brown wasn't asked a lot of the questions Kavanaugh was, either. She
> wasn't, for example, asked to explain teenage jokes in her high school
> yearbook.

....which lets you sanction Kavanaugh's various lies there, too, I guess.

On 7/29/2022 7:34 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 03:33:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2022 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 12:32:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/28/2022 2:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <W0AEK.743183$X_i.412644@fx18.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 11:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <RqwEK.723577$JVi.44662@fx17.iad>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from
>>> 1975 and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interview of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "progressive"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
>>>>>>>>>>>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a
>>> frightened
>>>>>>>>>>>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being
>>> voiced above?
>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've*
>>> seen burst
>>>>>>>>>>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is
>>> settled law"...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
>>>>>>>>>> Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law
>>> here and
>>>>>>>>>> we have to respect that."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once appointed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Asking nominees to 'promise' how they'll rule on cases before they're
>>>>>>>> confirmed is the actual offense to the Constitution here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, indeed, they didn't promise. They merely lied...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they said it was a precedent and at the time they said it, it was a
>>>>>> precedent. Then a new case came before them and in light of new
>>>>>> arguments presented to the Court, a different decision was reached.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though I don't consider it likely that you actually believe that, I'm a
>>>>> bit disturbed by even the possibility that you might.
>>>>
>>>> It's a reasonable response to politicians insisting on putting jurists in
>>>> untenable and unethical positions by asking those inappropriate questions in
>>>> the first place.
>>>>
>>> Like by asking them to define a woman?
>>
>> She shouldn't have ducked it. The judicial nominee is supposed to be
>> able to put your denser United States Senators in their place. She
>> should have specifically said she can't offer a LEGAL definition, but
>> she could have made broad, common sense comments about context, that
>> "woman" has a different meaning in college sports than in reproduction.
>
> If she was going to duck the question she should have just plainly
> stated that she wasn't going to play the game with the Senators by
> trying to answer the question, but I do agree she would have been
> better served by your answer. Simply that there is no one definition
> that fits all situations.

Indeed. That's why, in the real world, "definition" is often best
served by appending "for purposes of".

On 7/29/2022 9:48 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>>>>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>
>>>>>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite
>>>>>>>> interview of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed
>>>>>>>> "progressive"?
>
>>>>>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>
>>>>>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
>>>>>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
>>>>>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
>
>>>>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>>>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>>>>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
>
>>>> Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
>>>> Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law here and
>>>> we have to respect that."
>
>>> Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once appointed?
>
>> Asking nominees to 'promise' how they'll rule on cases before they're
>> confirmed is the actual offense to the Constitution here.
>
> Not that moviePig has ever heard of ...

Hey Adam, you should clean the windows to my room in your head...

On 7/28/2022 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <yZHEK.677516$wIO9.63014@fx12.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2022 6:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 1:45:02 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <vxBEK.556320$70j.546075@fx16.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:03 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> Trotsky
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have aligned yourself to the party that denies reality and
>>>>>>>> refuse to admit to their crimes,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL! Says the guy who is aligned with the party that can't provide
>>>>>>> a definition for "woman"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you define it ...in 25 assumptions or less?
>>>>>
>>>>> A woman is a female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as a lioness is a female member of the species Panthera leo.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a cow is a female member of the species Bos taurus.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a mare is a female member of the species Equus ferus caballus.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a hormel is a female member of the species Haliaeetus
>>>>> leucocephalus.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a hen is a female member of the species Gallus domesticus.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a doe is a female member of the species Odocoileus virginianus.
>>>>
>>>> And what defines a 'female'? ...or, if you'd prefer, a 'female member'?
>>>
>>> Rather than conduct a treatise of basic science here on Usenet, I'll
>>> simply refer you to any junior high-level biology textbook. Or do we
>>> not care about this scientific consensus, either?
>>>
>>> In fact, it seems like the *only* scientific consensus that is
>>> conveniently off limits to debate these days is 'climate change'.
>>>
>>> (I find it amazing that you seem to imply that identifying the lionesses
>>> from the lions has somehow become a scientifically dicey proposition.)
>>
>> Sadly, I DON'T find it amazing that your "definitions" consist only of
>> "authoritative" redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests
>
> Wherein moviePig redefines centuries of basic biology as authoritative
> redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests.
>
> Amazing.
>
> Notice he didn't deny that his argument implies that distinguishing
> lionesses from lions or does from bucks has suddenly become a hopelessly
> fraught endeavor, one which science cannot solve, and the results of
> which are now merely authoritative redundancies rather than the
> scientific facts they've always been. (Up until we were blessed with the
> tremendous insights of the woke, that is.)

Umm, your compendium of binomial nomenclatures is practically the
definition (as it were) of empty appeal to fact-free authority. You
should realize that "A rose is a rose" is poetry, not research...

On Jul 29, 2022 at 8:42:05 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 7/28/2022 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <yZHEK.677516$wIO9.63014@fx12.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2022 6:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 1:45:02 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <vxBEK.556320$70j.546075@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:03 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Trotsky
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have aligned yourself to the party that denies reality and
>>>>>>>>> refuse to admit to their crimes,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL! Says the guy who is aligned with the party that can't provide
>>>>>>>> a definition for "woman"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you define it ...in 25 assumptions or less?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A woman is a female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just as a lioness is a female member of the species Panthera leo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a cow is a female member of the species Bos taurus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a mare is a female member of the species Equus ferus caballus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a hormel is a female member of the species Haliaeetus
>>>>>> leucocephalus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a hen is a female member of the species Gallus domesticus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a doe is a female member of the species Odocoileus virginianus.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what defines a 'female'? ...or, if you'd prefer, a 'female member'?
>>>>
>>>> Rather than conduct a treatise of basic science here on Usenet, I'll
>>>> simply refer you to any junior high-level biology textbook. Or do we
>>>> not care about this scientific consensus, either?
>>>>
>>>> In fact, it seems like the *only* scientific consensus that is
>>>> conveniently off limits to debate these days is 'climate change'.
>>>>
>>>> (I find it amazing that you seem to imply that identifying the lionesses
>>>> from the lions has somehow become a scientifically dicey proposition.)
>>>
>>> Sadly, I DON'T find it amazing that your "definitions" consist only of
>>> "authoritative" redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests
>>
>> Wherein moviePig redefines centuries of basic biology as authoritative
>> redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests.
>>
>> Amazing.
>>
>> Notice he didn't deny that his argument implies that distinguishing
>> lionesses from lions or does from bucks has suddenly become a hopelessly
>> fraught endeavor, one which science cannot solve, and the results of
>> which are now merely authoritative redundancies rather than the
>> scientific facts they've always been. (Up until we were blessed with the
>> tremendous insights of the woke, that is.)
>
> Umm, your compendium of binomial nomenclatures is practically the
> definition (as it were) of empty appeal to fact-free authority. You
> should realize that "A rose is a rose" is poetry, not research...

And he continues. Apparently "scientific consensuses" aren't what they used to
be. Except for 'climate change'!!! That one must be respected at all times and
don't even think of questioning it!!!

On 7/29/2022 1:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2022 at 8:42:05 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2022 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <yZHEK.677516$wIO9.63014@fx12.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2022 6:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 1:45:02 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vxBEK.556320$70j.546075@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:03 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Trotsky
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have aligned yourself to the party that denies reality and
>>>>>>>>>> refuse to admit to their crimes,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL! Says the guy who is aligned with the party that can't provide
>>>>>>>>> a definition for "woman"...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you define it ...in 25 assumptions or less?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A woman is a female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just as a lioness is a female member of the species Panthera leo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a cow is a female member of the species Bos taurus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a mare is a female member of the species Equus ferus caballus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a hormel is a female member of the species Haliaeetus
>>>>>>> leucocephalus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a hen is a female member of the species Gallus domesticus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a doe is a female member of the species Odocoileus virginianus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what defines a 'female'? ...or, if you'd prefer, a 'female member'?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather than conduct a treatise of basic science here on Usenet, I'll
>>>>> simply refer you to any junior high-level biology textbook. Or do we
>>>>> not care about this scientific consensus, either?
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, it seems like the *only* scientific consensus that is
>>>>> conveniently off limits to debate these days is 'climate change'.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I find it amazing that you seem to imply that identifying the lionesses
>>>>> from the lions has somehow become a scientifically dicey proposition.)
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, I DON'T find it amazing that your "definitions" consist only of
>>>> "authoritative" redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests
>>>
>>> Wherein moviePig redefines centuries of basic biology as authoritative
>>> redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests.
>>>
>>> Amazing.
>>>
>>> Notice he didn't deny that his argument implies that distinguishing
>>> lionesses from lions or does from bucks has suddenly become a hopelessly
>>> fraught endeavor, one which science cannot solve, and the results of
>>> which are now merely authoritative redundancies rather than the
>>> scientific facts they've always been. (Up until we were blessed with the
>>> tremendous insights of the woke, that is.)
>>
>> Umm, your compendium of binomial nomenclatures is practically the
>> definition (as it were) of empty appeal to fact-free authority. You
>> should realize that "A rose is a rose" is poetry, not research...
>
> And he continues. Apparently "scientific consensuses" aren't what they used to
> be. Except for 'climate change'!!! That one must be respected at all times and
> don't even think of questioning it!!!

'Terminology' isn't 'consensus'. Nor was the scientific classification
of 'female' ever intended for use in competitive athletics.

In article <5wVEK.548056$ssF.265906@fx14.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 7/29/2022 1:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2022 at 8:42:05 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/28/2022 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <yZHEK.677516$wIO9.63014@fx12.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/28/2022 6:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 1:45:02 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <vxBEK.556320$70j.546075@fx16.iad>,
> >>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:03 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Trotsky
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You have aligned yourself to the party that denies reality
> >>>>>>>>>> and refuse to admit to their crimes,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> LOL! Says the guy who is aligned with the party that can't
> >>>>>>>>> provide a definition for "woman"...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Can you define it ...in 25 assumptions or less?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A woman is a female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just as a lioness is a female member of the species Panthera leo.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And a cow is a female member of the species Bos taurus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And a mare is a female member of the species Equus ferus caballus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And a hormel is a female member of the species Haliaeetus
> >>>>>>> leucocephalus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And a hen is a female member of the species Gallus domesticus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And a doe is a female member of the species Odocoileus virginianus.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And what defines a 'female'? ...or, if you'd prefer, a 'female
> >>>>>> member'?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rather than conduct a treatise of basic science here on Usenet, I'll
> >>>>> simply refer you to any junior high-level biology textbook. Or do we
> >>>>> not care about this scientific consensus, either?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In fact, it seems like the *only* scientific consensus that is
> >>>>> conveniently off limits to debate these days is 'climate change'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (I find it amazing that you seem to imply that identifying the
> >>>>> lionesses from the lions has somehow become a scientifically dicey
> >>>>> proposition.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Sadly, I DON'T find it amazing that your "definitions" consist only of
> >>>> "authoritative" redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests
> >>>
> >>> Wherein moviePig redefines centuries of basic biology as authoritative
> >>> redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests.
> >>>
> >>> Amazing.
> >>>
> >>> Notice he didn't deny that his argument implies that distinguishing
> >>> lionesses from lions or does from bucks has suddenly become a
> >>> hopelessly fraught endeavor, one which science cannot solve, and the
> >>> results of which are now merely authoritative redundancies rather than
> >>> the scientific facts they've always been. (Up until we were blessed with
> >>> the tremendous insights of the woke, that is.)
> >>
> >> Umm, your compendium of binomial nomenclatures is practically the
> >> definition (as it were) of empty appeal to fact-free authority. You
> >> should realize that "A rose is a rose" is poetry, not research...
> >
> > And he continues. Apparently "scientific consensuses" aren't what they
> > used to be. Except for 'climate change'!!! That one must be respected
> > at all times and don't even think of questioning it!!!
>
> 'Terminology' isn't 'consensus'.

No, but scientists being able to identify the females and males of each
species is.

The bottom line: Democrats can't legitimately call themselves the 'party
of science' (as many of them do) when they embrace all this unscientific
87-gender trans-testicle nonsense.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:52:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>> Oh, indeed, they didn't promise. They merely lied...
>
>No, they said it was a precedent and at the time they said it, it was a
>precedent. Then a new case came before them and in light of new
>arguments presented to the Court, a different decision was reached.
>
>There's no such thing as a precedent that cannot be overturned or a
>jurist whose mind cannot be persuaded or changed. Either one of those
>two things are anathema to a judicial system.

So you're saying the overturning of Plessy was a bad thing? (I agree
the original decision was one of the more distasteful in US
jurisprudence but once it was made I would not want it cast in
concrete for all time)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:32:32 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> No, they said it was a precedent and at the time they said it, it was a
>> precedent. Then a new case came before them and in light of new
>> arguments presented to the Court, a different decision was reached.
>
>Though I don't consider it likely that you actually believe that, I'm a
>bit disturbed by even the possibility that you might.
>
I wasn't unduly fazed by those statements since they were typical law
school prof's answer to a question on the definition of precedence.

Which admittedly prospective SCOTUS justices usually aren't but it
wasn't a shocking comment from them.

On 7/29/2022 2:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <5wVEK.548056$ssF.265906@fx14.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/2022 1:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 2022 at 8:42:05 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2022 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <yZHEK.677516$wIO9.63014@fx12.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 6:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 1:45:02 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <vxBEK.556320$70j.546075@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:03 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trotsky
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have aligned yourself to the party that denies reality
>>>>>>>>>>>> and refuse to admit to their crimes,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Says the guy who is aligned with the party that can't
>>>>>>>>>>> provide a definition for "woman"...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you define it ...in 25 assumptions or less?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A woman is a female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just as a lioness is a female member of the species Panthera leo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And a cow is a female member of the species Bos taurus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And a mare is a female member of the species Equus ferus caballus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And a hormel is a female member of the species Haliaeetus
>>>>>>>>> leucocephalus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And a hen is a female member of the species Gallus domesticus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And a doe is a female member of the species Odocoileus virginianus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what defines a 'female'? ...or, if you'd prefer, a 'female
>>>>>>>> member'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rather than conduct a treatise of basic science here on Usenet, I'll
>>>>>>> simply refer you to any junior high-level biology textbook. Or do we
>>>>>>> not care about this scientific consensus, either?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, it seems like the *only* scientific consensus that is
>>>>>>> conveniently off limits to debate these days is 'climate change'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I find it amazing that you seem to imply that identifying the
>>>>>>> lionesses from the lions has somehow become a scientifically dicey
>>>>>>> proposition.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sadly, I DON'T find it amazing that your "definitions" consist only of
>>>>>> "authoritative" redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests
>>>>>
>>>>> Wherein moviePig redefines centuries of basic biology as authoritative
>>>>> redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice he didn't deny that his argument implies that distinguishing
>>>>> lionesses from lions or does from bucks has suddenly become a
>>>>> hopelessly fraught endeavor, one which science cannot solve, and the
>>>>> results of which are now merely authoritative redundancies rather than
>>>>> the scientific facts they've always been. (Up until we were blessed with
>>>>> the tremendous insights of the woke, that is.)
>>>>
>>>> Umm, your compendium of binomial nomenclatures is practically the
>>>> definition (as it were) of empty appeal to fact-free authority. You
>>>> should realize that "A rose is a rose" is poetry, not research...
>>>
>>> And he continues. Apparently "scientific consensuses" aren't what they
>>> used to be. Except for 'climate change'!!! That one must be respected
>>> at all times and don't even think of questioning it!!!
>>
>> 'Terminology' isn't 'consensus'.
>
> No, but scientists being able to identify the females and males of each
> species is.

What scientists can do is predict which gender other scientists will
likely identify of a specimen when offered only two possibilities.

(Except when they can't.)

> The bottom line: Democrats can't legitimately call themselves the 'party
> of science' (as many of them do) when they embrace all this unscientific
> 87-gender trans-testicle nonsense.

Which "Democrats" have done either? Did Chuck Schumer horsewhip them
like Mitch McConnell would've?

In article <6nXEK.770688$X_i.557994@fx18.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 7/29/2022 2:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <5wVEK.548056$ssF.265906@fx14.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/29/2022 1:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 2022 at 8:42:05 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/28/2022 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <yZHEK.677516$wIO9.63014@fx12.iad>,
> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/28/2022 6:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2022 at 1:45:02 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <vxBEK.556320$70j.546075@fx16.iad>,
> >>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2022 3:03 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trotsky
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have aligned yourself to the party that denies reality
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and refuse to admit to their crimes,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Says the guy who is aligned with the party that can't
> >>>>>>>>>>> provide a definition for "woman"...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Can you define it ...in 25 assumptions or less?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A woman is a female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Just as a lioness is a female member of the species Panthera leo.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And a cow is a female member of the species Bos taurus.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And a mare is a female member of the species Equus ferus caballus.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And a hormel is a female member of the species Haliaeetus
> >>>>>>>>> leucocephalus.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And a hen is a female member of the species Gallus domesticus.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And a doe is a female member of the species Odocoileus virginianus.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And what defines a 'female'? ...or, if you'd prefer, a 'female
> >>>>>>>> member'?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rather than conduct a treatise of basic science here on Usenet, I'll
> >>>>>>> simply refer you to any junior high-level biology textbook. Or do we
> >>>>>>> not care about this scientific consensus, either?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In fact, it seems like the *only* scientific consensus that is
> >>>>>>> conveniently off limits to debate these days is 'climate change'.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (I find it amazing that you seem to imply that identifying the
> >>>>>>> lionesses from the lions has somehow become a scientifically dicey
> >>>>>>> proposition.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sadly, I DON'T find it amazing that your "definitions" consist only of
> >>>>>> "authoritative" redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wherein moviePig redefines centuries of basic biology as authoritative
> >>>>> redundancies and ad hoc litmus tests.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amazing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Notice he didn't deny that his argument implies that distinguishing
> >>>>> lionesses from lions or does from bucks has suddenly become a
> >>>>> hopelessly fraught endeavor, one which science cannot solve, and the
> >>>>> results of which are now merely authoritative redundancies rather than
> >>>>> the scientific facts they've always been. (Up until we were blessed with
> >>>>> the tremendous insights of the woke, that is.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Umm, your compendium of binomial nomenclatures is practically the
> >>>> definition (as it were) of empty appeal to fact-free authority. You
> >>>> should realize that "A rose is a rose" is poetry, not research...
> >>>
> >>> And he continues. Apparently "scientific consensuses" aren't what they
> >>> used to be. Except for 'climate change'!!! That one must be respected
> >>> at all times and don't even think of questioning it!!!
> >>
> >> 'Terminology' isn't 'consensus'.
> >
> > No, but scientists being able to identify the females and males of each
> > species is.
>
> What scientists can do is predict which gender other scientists will
> likely identify of a specimen when offered only two possibilities.
>
> (Except when they can't.)

Amazing.

In article <i1g8eh5rha6okseijdi5fhaa84clofp5ke@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:52:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, indeed, they didn't promise. They merely lied...
> >
> >No, they said it was a precedent and at the time they said it, it was a
> >precedent. Then a new case came before them and in light of new
> >arguments presented to the Court, a different decision was reached.
> >
> >There's no such thing as a precedent that cannot be overturned or a
> >jurist whose mind cannot be persuaded or changed. Either one of those
> >two things are anathema to a judicial system.
>
> So you're saying the overturning of Plessy was a bad thing?

Not even a little bit. But the 'settled law' mavens amongst us would
have been scandalized by its overturn in Brown. If they remained true to
their principles, that is.

In article <tc0rda$3hbu4$1@dont-email.me>, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> I simply don't see anywhere near the civility in politics today that
> used to be the norm back in Reagan's day.

That was hilarious. Thanks for the day-brightener!

> I noticed how polarized and just plain angry American politics was
> getting at least a decade ago and it's only gotten worse - MUCH worse
> - since.

You're dreaming if you think things haven't always been about as bad as
they are now. You surely don't remember the attacks on JFK in the
run-up to the 1960 election, or on Goldwater during the following
cycle. American politics have always been rough and tumble.

What we didn't have back in those days was a 24-hour news cycle, which
is news wrapped in noise. The cycle has made all the difference where
it matters the most. These channels don't have much audience, but they
have a long reach.