czrisher.bsky.social
(he/him) (Not actually Thomas Hobbes, I just try to be.)
579 posts
249 followers
509 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I was going to ask you how they wore their pants, Image A, but find there is an answer to that question, Image B. www.wired.com/2006/12/you-...
comment in response to
post
But maybe it's good that they used ICE @ the ballpark in a sports-not-politics headline, for those who wouldn't otherwise know.
comment in response to
post
Curious if your position is at all informed by how the nation is approaching the race for IL-9....
comment in response to
post
"There is no sense in which a single state trooper and several deputy sheriffs can be considered 'soldiers' ... nor in which the use of a house ... for ... fewer than 24 hours could be construed as 'quartering' ... "
Estate of Bennett v. Wainwright, (D. Me. May 30, 2007)
comment in response to
post
If only any of them had lived through the exact same thing in 2007/08....
comment in response to
post
Without disputing your underlying point, I still wonder how much is just refusal by Klein et al. to believe, let alone admit, that these people played him and he's not as savvy as he wants to be.
comment in response to
post
Not to tell you what to do but you present as a delicate, little, White lady who, thus to many, must be treated like a precious flower. (They don't know your writing, etc.) So you could absolutely be a tank if you choose.
comment in response to
post
Among other things, these people don't remember Harriet Miers.
comment in response to
post
As a first step, I do. Journey of a thousand miles and all. And I don't want to kick her for starting.
comment in response to
post
We really do. But we hope for a similar result.
comment in response to
post
Because I don't think she gets only one chance to speak or act and I think what she did is an acceptable first step. I hope her constituents, of whom you may be one, will expect and demand more but I don't think damning her for doing something appropriate as a first step is right until she fails to.
comment in response to
post
I congratulate you on your ability to predict the future. I hope you're wrong.
comment in response to
post
Do you understand how time works? You can be as mad as you want about what she did in the past but the question right now is whether she's doing the right thing now or will going forward.
comment in response to
post
There's no mention of "pocketbook issues" in the video. She says "there is simply no excuse for that kind of behavior" and that Noem has to "public[ly] apologize" and guarantee it not happen again. Isn't that what you'd want her to do, irrespective of her vote?
comment in response to
post
She says "there is simply no excuse for that kind of behavior" and Noem has to "public[ly] apologize" and guarantee it not happen again. You don't think that an appropriate reaction for a senator?
comment in response to
post
Why is this important, let alone your focus, now?
comment in response to
post
The video to which you responded is her condemning Noem and calling on others to do so. Did you not watch it?
comment in response to
post
So you _do_ want to focus on that vote, right now, rather than her opposition to Noem now. Well, you've certainly given her an incentive to go after Noem. Well done.
comment in response to
post
So you're praising her for taking the right position now, right? Because otherwise you'd just be distracting from her appropriate criticism of Noem and Trump. And you wouldn't want to do that, right?
comment in response to
post
I like a lot of your material but your pleasure in your sail training may be the best part. (I did a couple seasons on Niagara long ago, including with one of the sailors who helped make The Fillum.)
comment in response to
post
I was moved by a single sentence from sociologist Raymond Williams. “There are in fact no masses; there are only ways of seeing people as masses.” (!958)
I agreed, and wanted to extend what Williams was saying there. Masses were fine for The Media. Journalists had to speak to a public. 9/
comment in response to
post
It's unusually generous of you to suggest that the courts would be cowering rather than actively aiding authoritarianism.
comment in response to
post
Have you confidence on the antecedent of those later "he"s? I read them as probably Clarence (James II) but with only the lowest degree of confidence.
comment in response to
post
Is it your contention that "ICE and DHS" and "police" mean the same thing? Or just your hope that other people don't notice the difference?
comment in response to
post
While "outside agitator" was certainly the more common way for Jim Crow supporters to condemn civil rights workers, Spiro Agnew literally called H. Rap Brown a "professional agitator".
comment in response to
post
You're probably better not knowing how people here are trying to milkshake duck Derek Guy for saying having a greencard makes people safer in a Xitter thread that got the VP tweeting threats to deport Guy. Everything is awesome.
comment in response to
post
Also failure to be at his approved work location or to show the pass saying that his master had authorized him to travel. (You know but, for others who might not)
comment in response to
post
“If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” - Churchill, after Operation Barbarossa (Nazi invasion of USSR)
comment in response to
post
Could this be as simple as legislators are convinced that legislation is the most important thing?
comment in response to
post
Cooty rat... I mean, SETEC ASTRONOMY.
comment in response to
post
Isn't refusal to disavow what the quotes say is meant by don't split?
comment in response to
post
Yup, yup. This is how I avoided the Purple Tunnel of Doom in 2009.
comment in response to
post
Once the Leviathan has authorized it, it would be rude, if not disobedient, not to make use of the waiver of sovereign immunity. ;-)
comment in response to
post
Yes, this was my read, too. The individual officers, meaning both field and executives like the secretary, are probably secure but there are surely claims against the federal government (and _Monell_ claims against municipalities) supported by the law. (IDK if supported by the judiciary.)