He has NOT been consistent. He was one of nine - because he obviously didn't want the extent of his wife's involvement in the coup to be made public.
He is proof positive of the corruption of the conservative wing of the SC.
He has NOT been consistent. He was one of nine - because he obviously didn't want the extent of his wife's involvement in the coup to be made public.
Sure, you have.
What “lw radio” have you heard this on?is scotus started from the beginning simply making up their rules and claiming powers that were and never have been in the constitution
I listen to the progressive channel of Sirius about 3 hours a day when workingcarmenjonze wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 5:08 pm Sure, you have.
What “lw radio” have you heard this on?
You just made up what you said.
Not at all I enjoy the progressive shows. They are better produced and far more entertaining.
Ok but I didn’t say you don’t enjoy the shows. I said you made up your story and asked what “lw radio” said scotus started from the beginning simply making up their rules and claiming powers that were and never have been in the constitution.Glennfs wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 10:13 pm Not at all I enjoy the progressive shows. They are better produced and far more entertaining.
I listen to Thom Hartmann most every day. I also enjoy Dean Obeidallah and when I'll drive overnight I always listen to whatever is being rebroadcast. Generally it is John Foglaestand [name misspelled]
I've learned that what is said, and what Glenn HEARS, are two different thing. He will bring up things like speeches that I hadn't heard, and he wants me to react to what was said. When I look into the actual speech, what he says they said, and what they ACTUALLY said, are often two different things. He seems to have a right-wing filter that everything goes through.carmenjonze wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:22 pm Ok but I didn’t say you don’t enjoy the shows. I said you made up your story and asked what “lw radio” said scotus started from the beginning simply making up their rules and claiming powers that were and never have been in the constitution.
I believe you are referring to John Fugelsang. I love him. He turns up a lot as a guest on the Stephanie Miller show.
Not beliefs. ACTIONS.Glennfs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:49 pm On this you are correct he should recuse on cases related to 1/6.
As for impeachment based on his wife's political activism. I am assuming I heard the worse of the worse today on Hartmann. While her beliefs are bizarre and extreme nothing she wrote was illegal or suggested violence.
The main one they keep referring to was written on November 20th. In iit she appears to be encouraging fighting the election results in court.
One thing people the people who are calling for Thomas removal aren't considering is the law of unintended consequences.
Once we start down the road of impeaching judges based on their significant other's beliefs there will be no going back.
Not me, he was one of the loudest bashers of Hillary, still is of any mainstream dem.
But pragmatism only changes the slide into autocracy to easing into it. Both sides are serving the same purpose rather than challenge it.ProfX wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 12:59 pm That's weird. I can't listen to Nicole Sandler's show anymore, esp. on Thursdays. Her fave guest Howie Klein is always an hour of how Chuck Schumer and other Dems suck, and I'm like ... hello? This country is sliding into autocracy, one part has gone full Qcumber, and you're going to rant about how imperfect "Chucky" Schumer is? Priorities?
I didn't think Fugelsang was that way, since he's always on Steffie's show, and TBH, Steffie has always been way more ... pragmatic, sometimes than Randi, as well as Nicole.
Excellent article, but THIS section is VERY important, dont want the headline to lead people down the wrong path, they are NOT fascists ONLY becauseProfX wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 3:06 pm Are Trump Republicans Fascists?
No, says BU historian Jonathan Zatlin, but they can still be dangerous
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/are-tr ... -fascists/
And the Republican Party is in danger of becoming the party of violence, antidemocracy, and racism.
[snip]
I see conservatives walking down a really precarious path, one that will endanger us all.
[snip][end]
That's a BU historian, not a pundit, not a board ranter, not a spiritual guru.
Fascism was a response to long-term trends and what was going on after 1918. What you see today, what Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene are saying, is completely unoriginal. It is an attempt to resurrect those responses in the interwar period to democratic and liberal rule. It’s not clear to me that you can call them fascists, since fascism was a historical phenomenon. Simply because you think violence is good, and you think racism is good, doesn’t make you a fascist.
Yeah, it is a slow boil, we are the frog.ProfX wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 3:52 pm Well, I agree with that.
When people used to ask, do I think Trump is a fascist, I would say no, he's an authoritarian right populist. Very much in the mold of Viktor Orban.
But, if pressed, would I describe THAT as "fascist lite"? Yes, yes I would.
Oh Prof! Are you saying that all conservatives or Rethugs are fascists? No. But I AM saying Trumpism and Trumpists are fascist lite, yes, yes I am. And for sure Carlson and MTG fall in that category.
Someone else on this board says, when going to war against fascism, you fight it with what you have, not what perfect people you wish you had. I very much agree with this idea. It's ... pragmatic. If I had the luxury of wasting my time on idealism, I would join the Green Party, knowing it's full of perfect people that never get elected. I don't.
On the point that socio-economic conditions are the vat out of which these monsters emerge, I of course agree, which is why I think we need to pass BBB (and much else besides, but we can start there.)
He has a long history of consistency on the issue of executive privilege.
[bold]i would hope it's not impossible. Improbable, i can understand. It's called reality.Sir Thomas More (1477 - 1535) was the first person to write of a 'utopia', a word used to describe a perfect imaginary world. More's book imagines a complex, self-contained community set on an island, in which people share a common culture and way of life. He coined the word 'utopia' from the Greek ou-topos meaning 'no place' or 'nowhere'. It was a pun - the almost identical Greek word eu-topos means 'a good place'. So at the very heart of the word is a vital question: can a perfect world ever be realised? It is unclear as to whether the book is a serious projection of a better way of life, or a satire that gave More a platform from which to discuss the chaos of European politics.
If you are a fan of John Fugelsang you’ll like thisProfX wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 12:59 pm That's weird. I can't listen to Nicole Sandler's show anymore, esp. on Thursdays. Her fave guest Howie Klein is always an hour of how Chuck Schumer and other Dems suck, and I'm like ... hello? This country is sliding into autocracy, one part has gone full Qcumber, and you're going to rant about how imperfect "Chucky" Schumer is? Priorities?
I didn't think Fugelsang was that way, since he's always on Steffie's show, and TBH, Steffie has always been way more ... pragmatic, sometimes than Randi, as well as Nicole.
I guess the deeper problem is would we all agree on what Utopia would look like? Some peoples' utopia others might find a dystopia; we are told to be free to pursue happiness, with the understanding that not everybody will find it in the same places or from the same things.