In The News...

You are welcome, it's just how I see it from perhaps a wider point of reference.

Is there no admission of ANY culpability for the way things are partly due to the sneering self serving rhetoric that emanates from rallies and twitterstorms?
Modern politics fosters a 'see it like me' myopia and when the rest of the world intrudes to present the fact that there are others out there who don't see everything through the same mirror darkly, there seems to be an inability to debate in a rational and mature adult manner.
 
thats interesting, but who actually gets a print newspaper anymore? I wonder if the websites do the same thing.
 
Maybe...

We know we get individualised advertisements both in print and on the web.
Why would politics, which at the same general level of brand sales and catchy slogans, be any different?
 
I don't have a TV, so newspapers are how I keep up with your president's latest shenanigans.
 
No Jim. I used to love listening to the Sunday morning police report up North at my friends place though...it was hilarious.
 
Chief Roberts. Wasn’t he instrumental on getting Obamacare passed? Saying “you have to call it a fee and not a tax”..? Making law instead of judging law..? That Roberts..? Fuk’n hack...
 
Actually Roberts called it a tax in his opinion...as did Mitch McConnell

"So what did Roberts actually say?

"The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning," the chief justice said in the majority opinion. "To take a familiar example, a law that reads 'no vehicles in the park' might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice [Joseph] Story said that 180 years ago: 'No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the Constitution.' ... Justice [Oliver Wendell] Holmes made the same point a century later: '[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.' ...
"
 
Back
Top