ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,259 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
13 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Recap of what the media is telling you about the J6 hearings.
Just look at Tom Elliott’s supercut for a small taste of how excited and breathless the media were to break it all down for the masses:
Push play.
Who gives a ***** about the media?-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, B-Man said:
AND.........that is exactly what the court ruled was unconstitutional.
The state’s constitution requires Maine to deliver a “free” education to every school-age child, to fix this gap, the legislature created a voucher program but set it up so that parents could not apply the reimbursements to religious schools.
If that sounds familiar, it should. The court disposed of similar cases in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza over the last few years, striking down so-called Blaine Amendments that explicitly disfavored Catholic schools in particular.
In this case as well, this was a “neutral benefit program” for parents to use in their choice of schools in the lack of any public education options. And as such, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, that crosses the line into an infringement on religious expression, especially since the legislature deliberately added this restriction after the program had been in operation for years
It is Freedom OF Religion in the constitution, not freedom FROM religion.
I may have missed it but was the issue that there were no schools that met the standards so they had to go to a religious school? It doesn’t look like that from a brief scan of the arguments.
From what I can tell from the certified question is that the parents *opted* to use sectarian schools, not that they had to.
That is a VERY different argument than saying the only school they could go to in the area was sectarian. In that case, they have a good argument for that a lack of subsidy would be denying their right to an education.
But if it’s a just a choice (i.e. there are local schools that qualify but they preferred a religious one), then what we are seeing here is that taxpayers must subsidize religious education.
That would NOT be a ruling to ensure access to education because they had access to education at a qualifying school they opted not to use.
Also, the Constitution actually guarantees both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.
This ruling means that Catholics may have to pay money to Muslim schools or Jews may have to pay money to Hindu schools. And they would have no say in the matter. It also continues the entanglement of the government into religious affairs.
-
2 minutes ago, B-Man said:
False.
Government subsidizing the education of ALL children.
But you knew that. (or maybe your bias did blind you)
.
False.
The Maine law was structured to ensure that all kids had access to education but prohibited religious schools from their program because they believed taxpayer money subsidizing religious education would be tantamount to a violation of the first amendment (which prohibits the government from enacting laws respecting the establishment of a religion).
With this ruling, taxpayer money can now be funneled into religious schools. So taxpayers could now be funding Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, or any school that teaches religion. You could potentially set up a school for the Church of Satan and get taxpayer money.
-
25 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Good news.
6 - 3
The Supreme Court issues an important freedom of religion case:
"Maine’s 'nonsectarian' requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause."
Here's the opinion, Carson v. Makin. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and Breyer dissents, joined by Kagan and (in part) Sotomayor. Sotomayor has a separate dissenting opinion.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-supreme-court-issues-important.html
Government subsidizing religion. So much for separation of Church and State. -
1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
I used to travel all over the country for work and had a couple trips where I worked primarily the Southside of Chicago, while almost everyone I met was kind to me several warmed me to make sure I was back out to of the area before sundown. The majority of the city is safe it is only the places where I betting you never go that are scary
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Chicago is great. It definitely wasn’t burned down and basically everything we hear about how awful it is here is either completely overblown or just not true.
Sure the violence in the Summer of 2020 was bad but it was not nearly as bad as you would think reading stuff here or in the national news. And the left didn’t have a monopoly on the violence either.
-
1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
You’ve got Fox News and MSNBC and all their respective biased partners just shouting their narratives at each other in their own vacuum.
The best thing anyone can do to stay informed is turn off cable news. -
21 hours ago, Albwan said:
....yep and the dummies in the s***holes cities will continue to vote democrap with glossed over dead eyes.
Yeah, I have lived in Chicago for the last decade and the entire city has basically been rubble for the last two years. Basically everything burned down and it’s next to impossible to live here. Antifa is everywhere burning everything down constantly.-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
People here (like Tibs) who constantly bashed Trump for his ties to Saudi Arabia are eerily quiet on this trip.
I think it sucks and he shouldn't do it. I get that people care more about gas prices than human rights or democracy, so bringing the prices down could help the Dems in the midterms, but we still shouldn't be doing this.
But yes, Trump still sucks.
-
Just now, B-Man said:
Thanks to 716'er for bringing this story up.
It illustrates beautifully how Conservatives act when someone puts out a questionable ad VS how liberals close ranks against any criticism.
Senator Al Franken could not be reached for comment...
-
Same guy who tied up his mistress and took photos of her to blackmail her and beat his wife. Real nice guy.
The increased violent rhetoric coming from these extremist Republican candidates is going to get somebody killed.
-
2
-
-
PPP logic:
Bad thing happens:
- President is on my team: It's not the president's fault!
- President is not on my team: It's the president's fault!
Good thing happens:
- President is on my team: Look how great my president is!
- President is not on my team: The president had no hand in this!
Maybe try some root cause analysis sometime. Might make these conversations better instead of the usual trolls just trolling each other.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:
Get used to the haunting of PPP by DR's Ghost....
If they post an interesting or compelling argument, it’ll be a first. -
Just now, DRsGhost said:
Lol. This is all you got left?
Weak.
Nah, it’s just that talking to you is like talking to a wall. There is no evidence or facts that can possibly penetrate, so I’ll only do it as long as it’s fun. There are other, more serious posters who actually add value to the conversation that I’d rather engage with.
If Donald Trump came out today and said “I did it. I wanted my supporters to overrun the Capitol and prevent the certification and I made sure that they did” you still would find a way to say it’s all a Dem conspiracy.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
What part of the committee has less credibility than an Alex Jones Rachel Maddow lovechild don't you understand?
The fact that you're waiting on them to come to your conclusions tells everyone here all they need to know.
You aren't a serious poster.
And yet you arrived here all high falootin about being above it all.
That’s just like, your opinion man.
And you sure do spend a lot of time discussing Jan 6th here for someone who doesn’t care.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
Go outside and touch some grass, you’ll feel better.
-
40 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
So you're going with the FBI is incompetent then. Im shocked. The FBI, the world's premier law enforcement agency, knows the plans of a dangerous group of unarmed "insurrectionists" ahead of time, yet they were powerless to stop them from marching to the Capitol in the first place, then breach the restricted area and finally against all odds actually break into the Capitol?
How about $5MM for that oceanfront Nebraska property?
You have no game. Zero.
I’m going with: I don’t know the answers and hope the committee addresses them. Since one of the teams on the committee was tasked specifically for this, we should expect them to give us info on it and call them out if they don’t.Your story seems to be that you already know everything the committee has and you believe the positions of people you know are lying to you because it aligns to your worldview and anyone who disagrees is a shill.
Once again, you’re just jumping to conclusions based on what you want to see and what people who *you know are lying to you* are telling you.
Spending a lot of time talking about something you say you don’t care about. You can prove you don’t care by just logging off and letting the adults have a conversation.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Sorry for the late response…but since I currently pay approximately 50% of everything I make right back out in taxes , you believe the problem is that I’m not paying enough? It’s your position that if I only paid a bit more we wouldn’t be THIRTY TRILLION in debt? Really? Wouldn’t it be smarter for our elected officials to just budget what they already know is going to come into the treasury (or even something close to it)? It’s not like annual tax revenue is surprise to them. The country is being run into a ditch by children who simply can’t keep the nation’s credit card in their wallet!
I think we could have a better and more efficient tax structure, that when paired with better enforcement, would generate revenues that wouldn’t require hard working Americans to pay so much without substantially reducing services.
Also, a balanced budget requirement would be a terrible idea, though I agree that I’d like Congress to start acting like adults and actually figure out what their priorities are.
-
40 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Mmmhmm. Again, any comment on "The Old Gray Lady" reporting on at least one FBI informant being present with the proud boys in DC as they were in the pre-process of an insurrection? Or are you waiting on the committee to tell you why the FBI could be so spectacularly incompetent?
It's on you if you're going to wait for a partisan sham committee to tell you what to think before "jumping to conclusions"
I don't give a rats ass what this sham committee says.
It ain't working dude.
Here ya go: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/us/politics/capitol-riot-fbi-informant.htmlOnly Republicans have testified before the committee. The real divider isn’t between Dems and the GOP, it’s between who will testify under oath and who won’t.
The people who agree with you are all lying so they won’t testify. And when they do, they either say different things than they do in public or they plead the fifth. Because they are lying to you. And they know it.
And you obviously care about the committee because you are spending so much time here on PPP talking about it.
You’re game is weak as hell, man. Just give it up.
-
1 hour ago, DRsGhost said:
Ok. So then maybe the rhetoric of it being the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War was just a smidgen overblown? Jumping to crazy conclusions just a bit?
Also, any comment on why the FBI was unable to thwart the dangerous Proud Boys when they had at least one informant in their midst that day texting the FBI real time updates as they marched towards the Capitol?
They knew they were coming to stage a coup and the friggin FBI couldn't thwart it? Please.
Let's talk about that Nebraska ocean front property.
You’re the one jumping to conclusions all the time, here. We have a bunch of people saying essentially “let’s see what the committee has” and you’re out here implying the FBI was in on it and that you already know everything they are going to present all while castigating others for jumping to conclusions. -
20 minutes ago, Doc said:
The boots on the ground didn't make that decision to just finally let people in. That came from much higher up. Do you think we'll find out from where? Don't hold your breath.
You’re making assumptions here and I think it would just be better to see what they found. -
7 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
We know multiple requests for extra security were denied before and during J6.
So then logically both of you agree that the commission will ask hard questions and provide solid answers as to why multiple requests for additional security were denied given that the security on J6 at the Capitol proved insuffucient. This is unacceptable, right?
I mean they were overrun, that shouldn't ever be allowed to happen and yet we know requests were denied. I'm sure we'll get answers though!
We know multiple requests for extra security were denied before and during J6.
So then logically both of you agree that the commission will ask hard questions and provide solid answers as to why multiple requests for additional security were denied given that the security on J6 at the Capitol proved insuffucient. This is unacceptable, right?
I mean they were overrun, that shouldn't ever be allowed to happen and yet we know requests were denied. I'm sure we'll get answers though!
One of the five investigative teams on the committee has a specific task of investigating the law enforcement failures.
So I would expect to see something about this at some point.
-
13 minutes ago, Doc said:
Fair enough. But if they felt they were going to overthrow the government, don't you think they would have done whatever they could to prevent it?
My guess is that it was probably chaos and they may not have realized exactly what was going on. Plus, they may have been worried that some of the people were armed and opening fire would result in a firefight with a lot of potential for fatalities. Even if they took non-lethal action, they were so outnumbered it wouldn’t do much aside from endanger their own lives. -
2 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
I think the most logical explanation for why some of those scumbags were let in is just as you pointed out, they were already outnumbered and overrun. There was no way they could have kept people out.
Of course I'm sure we'll hear 10 more conspiracies about what happened there before all is said and done.
I think the most likely explanation is that Hillary Clinton and her legion of baby eating globalists partnered with the FBI and the reverse vampires to infiltrate the Capitol police to let the rioters in so that they could prevent the certification of Biden’s win to make Trump look bad. -
6 minutes ago, Wacka said:
And still nothing (close to 48 hrs later- except on Fox) aboutColbert's people doing the same thing that people have been locked for 18 months.
Absolute smooth brain post right here.
Equating a violent attempt to prevent the certification of an election to trespassing and then stating an easily debunked falsehood.
ABC:
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
😀
Don't hold your breath.
And by law enforcement should be "disciplined" you mean arrested and charged for aiding an insurrection, right?
I mean we've been told this was the worst attack on our country since the Civil War, right?
I don't recall stories of US soldiers standing around doing nothing at Pearl Harbor, do you?
I also don't recall many scenes from 9/11 where police and first responders stood around doing nothing, do you?
Why haven't these police officers been arrested and charged with aiding the insurrection?
Everyone has pulled out their jump to conclusions mat, assuming they know the answers to ongoing investigations.
I don’t know why some officers were standing around. Maybe since they were so outnumbered and overwhelmed at that point, they decided just to try to prevent violence instead of pushing people out. Maybe they were rooting for the rioters. Maybe they were incompetent.
I would like to see what, if anything, the committee has on this. I would like to know what, if anything, the DoJ is doing about it.
But what I’m not going to do is assume I know all of the information gathered in these investigations before it’s released or the hearings are done. Because that would just be partisan nonsense.
Supreme Court backs religious freedom over restrictions!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
1. I don’t give a ***** about what CNN says and I have no idea why it would be relevant to the discussion.
2. I think there is a decent debate to be had around education but I’ve always held what I believe to be the small “c” conservative view of the government only providing public education and not getting entangled in religion.
From what I can tell, there was no issue with the quality of the other schools. And even if there were, there’s an argument for making those schools better instead of continuing to move funds away from them.
I have absolutely zero problem with parents choosing religious schools for their kids. My parents did that for me. What I have a problem with is taxpayer money going to religious institutions for secular education as this would be a tacit governmental endorsement of that religion.