The Gateway Pundit's claims were entirely inaccurate. The Wisconsin state assembly did not vote to withdraw its 2020 electors and did not vote to advance a resolution to withdraw these electors. In fact, the assembly did not hold a vote on this resolution at all. Rather, the resolution was referred to an assembly committee, where it is overwhelmingly likely to die. The committee's Republican chair, who is also the assembly's majority leader, accurately says it is unconstitutional. There is no legal way for Wisconsin or any other state to withdraw its 2020 electors in 2022.
"The Select Committee is seeking information about attempts in multiple states to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including the planning and coordination of efforts to send false slates of electors to the National Archives" said Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs the committee, of this batch of subpoenas. "We believe the individuals we have subpoenaed today have information about how these so-called alternate electors met and who was behind that scheme."
Yes I've watched it. I watched it at the time she was confirmed. And yes, that's the soft but persistent anti-Semitism of the South on full public display. Kagan wisely deflected it to a joke, but you can clearly tell she was a bit taken aback when it became clear the Senator was asking her. If you want to convince me and Chip is wasn't anti-Semitic, you need to find me clips of non-Jewish Justices being questioned about their Passover or Hanukkah activities in the run up to a question about a matter of jurisprudence. Of them being asked where they were on Christmas for that matter.
I even agreed with I'm on the interpretation that the South, by counting slaves as only 3/5ths of a person, was weaker then it would have been in proportional representation had slaves been counted as full people the same way white women and children were - and I'm still wrong
Another well written piece that I resonate with a lot. I'm the twice married man, and while things have worked much much better the second time around, as you note it's no picnic always.
Even when you’re an adult, even when you’ve been married relatively happily for quite a long time, there’s that lingering fear that if you aren’t perfectly obliging all the time in every arena that you’re gonna get dumped. Not only dumped, but dumped in such a way that everyone in the whole wide world will side with Hubby, immediately assuming that Wifey drove him to it by failing to enthusiastically appreciate a sudden interest in some ridiculous and bizarre thing.
This one works both ways - and for me you'd just have to substitute the roles to describe how my first marriage ended. In my case it wasn't some new sudden ridiculous interest - it was my career as a scientist, which wasn't a "real job" or so I was told as part of the break up. The real issue was she had economic expectations I wasn't meeting that were unvoiced until it was all over, and which frankly my background as a poorish university professor's kid didn't equip me well to respond to. What I also find, however, is that even in our enlightened day and age men in this situation are still held as accountable for the failure, because we should have pivoted to whatever was needed even when that need is never told to us.
That’s all it is. A whole lot of people expect constant novelty when really even the best day to day life – even for celebrities, let alone the rest of us – tends more towards mundanity interspersed with fantastic, lovely moments that really by all rights should make it all worthwhile.
I don't agree with this assessment either, in as much as all the marriage counseling and relationship self help books tell you you have to do a better job of breaking up the mundane, and couples who last do seem to have a better shot at creating the new and unique more regularly. Few of the couples I know in decades long marriages or monogamous relationships sit idly by and focus ONLY on their kids, their house and their careers. They go out on real dates regularly, they travel, they try new hobbies together. and they boost each others vocations and avocations publicly. Which means those counselors and those books are probably on to something.
Meanwhile, a woman can’t even take a goddamn bath now and then without someone muttering that she should probably be scrubbing something – like her husband’s junk – instead.
I detect a certain deficiency being highlighted in your daily routine here. Perhaps listening to plaster and lathe discussions should be required to be done after you have had your soaking time?
For someone who seems supportive of unfettered capitalism it strikes me as ... ironic ... funny ... sadly overwrought ... to object when a private entity makes a decision about its own property.
Glad to. I was raised by history professors and educators. I don't agree with government directed censorship, both because I believe in grappling with hard ideas, and because it distorts the historical record.
I detest the ideas of bigotry and discrimination of any kind - anti-Semitism, misogyny, racism to name a few - an objection rooted as much in my Christian faith as in my desire for clean scholarship. I know of no way to fight them however if they are allowed to be hidden under a bushel whether that hiding is done by a school board, or by burning what you think are every copy of the tome in question. I also believe that public sanction and censure for those spouting the ideas is a necessary condition of a functional society. And I do celebrate when bigots get taken downs hard in the public square.
As to corporate censorship - I'm not a fan either, though I do find it ironic that so many people who object to corporations limiting speech while applauding corporations who do all sorts of other unethical things in the name of profit. We live in a nation and a time where, with limited personal resources, I have to choose which to fight more. And frankly I choose government, because history teaches us over and over that government censorship is far more pernicious.
You know. The stuff that will get you to say “But Corporations can do whatever they want!” as if that’s not a phrase that you’re going to choke on someday.
Has it not ever occurred to you that I use that phrase both sarcastically and ironically, mostly to throw it back in the face of the "blow up the regulatory state and let capitalism reign free" conservatives, who invariably are all a twitter (the old kind) when businesses do something they don't like (like mandating getting vaccinated to keep working)?
Of the 4.4 million African Americans in the US before the war, almost four million of these people were held as slaves; meaning that for all African Americans living in the US in 1860, there was an 89 percent* chance that they lived in slavery.
Point of Order - The ACA underwent 72 hours of Senate Debate after 13 months of negotiations and committee hearings. There were also 147 Amendments form Republicans added to the bill in Committee. Granted, most of those were technical in nature, but they were introduced, and in most cases voted on. And the ACA was based on Heritage Foundation concepts and ideas, so it was the Minority's idea to start with.
And yet, even with that level of inclusion, it was denounced as partisan and voted against by every member of the GOP caucus in the Senate and House.
You weren't paying attention then and you aren't now. A publisher deciding not to continue publishing a book is not the same thing as a government entity removing a book from a public sphere.
True - like the "states rights" debate that swirls around the Civil War. As soon as you ask "States Rights To What" defenders always withdraw because they don't want to state publicly what the southern states plainly described in their articles of secession.
in one sense he's not wrong. Had the slaves been counted as full persons the souths proportional representation in the House would have been significantly greater, and probably drive policy choices and legislation that would have kept slavery intact for decades beyond its end.
Of the 4.4 million African Americans in the US before the war, almost four million of these people were held as slaves; meaning that for all African Americans living in the US in 1860, there was an 89 percent* chance that they lived in slavery.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons
Who do you believe the 3/5ths of all other persons applies to?
Over and over and over I and others have presented you significant, numerical evidence that both lack of equality of opportunity and lack of equality of outcome exist in this country for racial and ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ people. And over and over you have rejected that evidence, sometimes politely, sometimes impolitely. Judging you by both your words and your actions you don not want to be convinced that racism exists, much less that its a problem. That's my experience of years of interacting with you, and watching others interact with you. So yes, on this topic I do believe you are writing in bad faith. You are no doubt since in your beliefs and conclusions, but you are no more open to changing your beliefs on this then you are on abortion.
As to the 3/5ths compromise, it was done to keep southern states from garnering overwhelming political power since if all the slaves had been counted as full persons their population would have dwarfed the northern states. What makes it evil and ALSO about race is that it was only applied to enslaved black people. That it served two purposes is, incidental, intersectionality and one of the core principals that CRT seeks to elide.
On “What America Needs for a Third Party”
Much of this is true - but in our system if you are trying to break in you need to prove capability. Walk before you can run.
On “No, Virginia, Natural Immunity is Not Six Times As Good As Vaccine Immunity”
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_ID" on null in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 851
https://ordinary-times.com/commenter-archive/#comment-"> to
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_author" on null in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/otx-sotd/state-of-the-discussion.php on line 1060
I'd be happy to if you can provide a link ...
On “Yes Virginia, There Was A Coup”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fact-check-gateway-pundit-wisconsin-electors-2020-biden/index.html
"
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/28/politics/committee-subpoenas-14-republicans/index.html
On “What America Needs for a Third Party”
The Greens and the Libertarians would do better to spend time working on getting elected to state houses.
On “Supreme Court Justice Breyer Retiring At End Of Term”
Yes I've watched it. I watched it at the time she was confirmed. And yes, that's the soft but persistent anti-Semitism of the South on full public display. Kagan wisely deflected it to a joke, but you can clearly tell she was a bit taken aback when it became clear the Senator was asking her. If you want to convince me and Chip is wasn't anti-Semitic, you need to find me clips of non-Jewish Justices being questioned about their Passover or Hanukkah activities in the run up to a question about a matter of jurisprudence. Of them being asked where they were on Christmas for that matter.
I'll wait ...
"
I even agreed with I'm on the interpretation that the South, by counting slaves as only 3/5ths of a person, was weaker then it would have been in proportional representation had slaves been counted as full people the same way white women and children were - and I'm still wrong
"
In which any evidence you dislike is rejected as bad evidence.
On “What America Needs for a Third Party”
Care to expand a bit on this?
"
Down here Independents are really liberals who know that they can't get elected by calling themselves Democrats.
On “The First Wives Snub”
Another well written piece that I resonate with a lot. I'm the twice married man, and while things have worked much much better the second time around, as you note it's no picnic always.
This one works both ways - and for me you'd just have to substitute the roles to describe how my first marriage ended. In my case it wasn't some new sudden ridiculous interest - it was my career as a scientist, which wasn't a "real job" or so I was told as part of the break up. The real issue was she had economic expectations I wasn't meeting that were unvoiced until it was all over, and which frankly my background as a poorish university professor's kid didn't equip me well to respond to. What I also find, however, is that even in our enlightened day and age men in this situation are still held as accountable for the failure, because we should have pivoted to whatever was needed even when that need is never told to us.
I don't agree with this assessment either, in as much as all the marriage counseling and relationship self help books tell you you have to do a better job of breaking up the mundane, and couples who last do seem to have a better shot at creating the new and unique more regularly. Few of the couples I know in decades long marriages or monogamous relationships sit idly by and focus ONLY on their kids, their house and their careers. They go out on real dates regularly, they travel, they try new hobbies together. and they boost each others vocations and avocations publicly. Which means those counselors and those books are probably on to something.
I detect a certain deficiency being highlighted in your daily routine here. Perhaps listening to plaster and lathe discussions should be required to be done after you have had your soaking time?
On “Supreme Court Justice Breyer Retiring At End Of Term”
For someone who seems supportive of unfettered capitalism it strikes me as ... ironic ... funny ... sadly overwrought ... to object when a private entity makes a decision about its own property.
"
Glad to. I was raised by history professors and educators. I don't agree with government directed censorship, both because I believe in grappling with hard ideas, and because it distorts the historical record.
I detest the ideas of bigotry and discrimination of any kind - anti-Semitism, misogyny, racism to name a few - an objection rooted as much in my Christian faith as in my desire for clean scholarship. I know of no way to fight them however if they are allowed to be hidden under a bushel whether that hiding is done by a school board, or by burning what you think are every copy of the tome in question. I also believe that public sanction and censure for those spouting the ideas is a necessary condition of a functional society. And I do celebrate when bigots get taken downs hard in the public square.
As to corporate censorship - I'm not a fan either, though I do find it ironic that so many people who object to corporations limiting speech while applauding corporations who do all sorts of other unethical things in the name of profit. We live in a nation and a time where, with limited personal resources, I have to choose which to fight more. And frankly I choose government, because history teaches us over and over that government censorship is far more pernicious.
"
You know. The stuff that will get you to say “But Corporations can do whatever they want!” as if that’s not a phrase that you’re going to choke on someday.
Has it not ever occurred to you that I use that phrase both sarcastically and ironically, mostly to throw it back in the face of the "blow up the regulatory state and let capitalism reign free" conservatives, who invariably are all a twitter (the old kind) when businesses do something they don't like (like mandating getting vaccinated to keep working)?
"
What do you consider censorship from the left?
On “Alternate Electors: The Illusion and Pretense of Lawfulness to the Unlawful”
one hopes this both continues and gets media traction:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/economy/us-fourth-quarter-2021-gdp/index.html
On “Supreme Court Justice Breyer Retiring At End Of Term”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010169/black-and-slave-population-us-1790-1880/
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
Point of Order - The ACA underwent 72 hours of Senate Debate after 13 months of negotiations and committee hearings. There were also 147 Amendments form Republicans added to the bill in Committee. Granted, most of those were technical in nature, but they were introduced, and in most cases voted on. And the ACA was based on Heritage Foundation concepts and ideas, so it was the Minority's idea to start with.
And yet, even with that level of inclusion, it was denounced as partisan and voted against by every member of the GOP caucus in the Senate and House.
On “Supreme Court Justice Breyer Retiring At End Of Term”
You weren't paying attention then and you aren't now. A publisher deciding not to continue publishing a book is not the same thing as a government entity removing a book from a public sphere.
"
True - like the "states rights" debate that swirls around the Civil War. As soon as you ask "States Rights To What" defenders always withdraw because they don't want to state publicly what the southern states plainly described in their articles of secession.
On “Alternate Electors: The Illusion and Pretense of Lawfulness to the Unlawful”
Not just the base . . .
On “Supreme Court Justice Breyer Retiring At End Of Term”
in one sense he's not wrong. Had the slaves been counted as full persons the souths proportional representation in the House would have been significantly greater, and probably drive policy choices and legislation that would have kept slavery intact for decades beyond its end.
"
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010169/black-and-slave-population-us-1790-1880/
"
Who do you believe the 3/5ths of all other persons applies to?
"
Over and over and over I and others have presented you significant, numerical evidence that both lack of equality of opportunity and lack of equality of outcome exist in this country for racial and ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ people. And over and over you have rejected that evidence, sometimes politely, sometimes impolitely. Judging you by both your words and your actions you don not want to be convinced that racism exists, much less that its a problem. That's my experience of years of interacting with you, and watching others interact with you. So yes, on this topic I do believe you are writing in bad faith. You are no doubt since in your beliefs and conclusions, but you are no more open to changing your beliefs on this then you are on abortion.
As to the 3/5ths compromise, it was done to keep southern states from garnering overwhelming political power since if all the slaves had been counted as full persons their population would have dwarfed the northern states. What makes it evil and ALSO about race is that it was only applied to enslaved black people. That it served two purposes is, incidental, intersectionality and one of the core principals that CRT seeks to elide.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise