This guy is single-handedly keeping the USPS alive.

"Grammar Nazi has entered the chat."

It's bringing back deja-vu of when Republicans whined about 'low-information' voters when Obama was in office.

Shouldn't it be Senators-elect? Just like we say Attorneys general instead of Attorney generals.

"a stupid man who confused the two Dana White's"

People who don't know how to use apostrophe's should be more careful before calling other's s'tupidity.

"Dr Brian Moench"

From what I've been able to find out, he's a retired anesthesiologist with no background in climate science. He's also apparently a cartoonist and a satirist whose writing admittedly relies heavily on deliberate irreverence, sharp sarcasm, and extreme analogies to "grab public attention".

Gee, as if that never ever backfires.

"If the EC is undemocratic then so too is the Senate and both were created to protect the right to own slaves. We abolished the right to own slaves but not the power of the former slave states to have inordinate power over the majority of the people of the whole nation. This distorts our politics and prevents progress which those same slave states have opposed throughout the entire history of the United States."

Maybe you should go back and take a civics class. If you really think everything was about slavery and slave states, then you missed a lot of the complexity and nuance of the reality.

"No different than us Congress critters."

Us Congress critters? That's quite a Freudian slip there, Oneiro. ;-)

Whether it was BLM or J6, it shouldn't be surprising that many of those involved in violent riots were also serial criminals.

Oh noes. A bigot supposedly kill-filed me today.

I guess I'll have to wear it as a badge of honor.

"It shouldn't be up to states."

In that case, you also need to propose changing the name of the country. If states truly don't matter, then why not do away with all state laws and legislatures?

"I asked two direct questions, which go directly to the heart of the matter. Easy questions, despite the fact we still have 13,998 more to go."

Gosh, Mister Sealion, it must be very puzzling to you why no one wants to engage with your "questions", especially when you brazenly admit that you literally have thousands of goalpost positions lined up.

"GFY."

GF**Y**S.

Bigot.

^^
quoting an ultra-conservative state when it ruled against marriage equality

"So ... what, five posts with no answers at all?!?"

Again, you've demonstrated you're not arguing in good faith, both with your 'play-acting' comment and then bragging about how you were quoting a state when it ruled against marriage equality.

You do raise legitimate questions about how plural marriage would affect survivor benefits and competing spousal claims. That is something that would need to be worked out, but you've clearly been using that as an excuse for gatekeeping. You're using the exact same tactics as many of those who were on the other side of the marriage issue from when you were at the forefront of the marriage "equality" movement.

"You're not really interested in rights, are you?"

We could throw this accusation at each other all day. Your own statements are a lot more damning when it comes to this than any of mine.

Welcome new sock puppets, farm trolls, bots, and maybe one or two real people who've stumbled across this site by accident.

"Everyone that owns a US stock index mutual fund is invested in AI."

That's really not a valid comparison though. Burgum's wealth is heavily concentrated and directly tied to private tech and venture-backed AI interests via Arthur Ventures (the investment firm he co-founded) and direct equities. Rather than a diversified, passive market tracker, his multi-million-dollar direct and co-founded venture holdings mean he stands to experience a massive, individualized financial gain from targeted federal policies that expand AI infrastructure onto public lands. A pretty clear conflict of interest.

Oh boy, now he's gone full sealion.

"Please. The constitution says an insurrectionist can't run for president. The whole country decided to ignore that part."

No. The country rejected the idea that someone can be legally labeled an insurrectionist without due process. Which is good, because it means Republicans cannot do that either. That's the kind of crap that Putin pulls in Russia.

"What a riot."
#22 | Posted by Danforth
"What a riot."
#24 | Posted by Danforth

You're just digging yourself deeper. I would tell you to stop, but I can see you're having a lot of fun down there.

>>the exact language people used (and some still use) about same-sex couples as well as transgendered individuals.
"What a riot. I literally used the words the state of Utah used when addressing the issue of polygamy, dumfuq."

You're the dumfuq for not realizing that completely undermines your argument and proves my point about you.

"I notice you skipped over addressing the facts, and went straight to ad hominem."

Waaah, someone one won't engage with poor DanFroth Dantorum's 'points' after he's demonstrated he's not arguing in good faith.

Keep digging, DanFroth. You outed yourself with the 'play-acting' comment, which is the exact language people used (and some still use) about same-sex couples as well as transgendered individuals.

"I was at the forefront of the equality movement"

You're making the exact same fallacious argument as the people who squealed they couldn't be bigoted because they marched in the civil rights movement and opposed anti-miscegenation laws. They claimed to be at the forefront of the equality (for some) movement to.

"I'm all for extending the rights; now let's see some legwork instead of just lip service."

If you really were for extending the rights, you'd be willing to do at least *some* of the legwork yourself like you did for gays. Instead, you relentlessly mock and insist others put the cart before the horse before you even consider they might be worthy of the same rights you and your gay friends enjoy. You're a hypocrite.

Looks like we've struck a nerve. "The truth hurts, doesn't it, Hapsburg?"

"And how often does that involve kids being one of those wives?"

Not as often as you'd think based on media which overrepresent the extreme cases. The vast majority of global child marriages occur as monogamous arrangements (e.g., in South Asia and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa) due to family financial desperation.

"I'm not. The law is merely pointing out marriage, at its legal root, is the conference of SUPERSEDING RIGHTS to ONE person.
For multiple marriage partners, a whole new canon of laws would have to be written.
To date, legally, it's ONE spouse (the first), and some play-actors. The third "wife", for example, isn't really a wife, and has ZERO legal marital rights and protections."

You're entitled to your opinions, but you can't hide the fact that you're just as much of a bigot as those who described same-sex couples as "play acting" and defending the status quo back when they had ZERO legal marital rights and protections.