pfife

I feel like he found the grievance gravy train when he was able to claim victimization from Bammer.

Calling it "so called" isn't libertarian. Unless you're a libertarian who likes theocracy-ish stuff which seems oxymoronic. ETA: I wasn't making a constitutional law argument. I was responding to Oblong's characterization of Gorsuch as libertarian.

I dont think the three justices are always going to rule in trumps interest but I think they will always vote I. The conservative direction. I for one and highly skeptical that it's from and objective analysis of the law and facts and every time it happens to be the republican outcome. And yes obviously it's the same on the other side too.

Idk about libertarian. He recently called it the so called separation of church and state.

lol

Surprised Rosen didn't hit him with a Lets Go Brandon too

I remember this used to come up on the board all the time way back in the day. Bush years I'd say. Back then the GOP commissioned a study that was intended to demonstrate NPR was biased but it came back finding no such thing. It was posted in this forum for this fight every time it happened.

heard he was displaying skills that get you recruited to run for congress on the right

This is well stated.

It won't be an issue because the GOP is going to reinstall it, haven't you heard their claims?

dude I kinda feel like this should either be in blue font or sent as a submission to the NYTimes pitchbot. I'll be honest I've never thought about it much but my gut reaction is to say the right was doing that anyways but I honestly don't know

I think the best is hearing the same jabronies that a year ago wanted the federal congress to overturn Brandon's landslide, now arguing against the 2 Democratic bills because they're against federal control of elections. That's pretty awesome

literally legislating safe spaces lol I remember when republicans were super tough

holy shit that's embarrassing bitch shit.

yeah that would make sense. I guess from the standpoint we use at my job which isn't academic rigor - it's rigorous enough to use as a valuable piece of information in a larger business decision. From that standpoint, I would totally do the date of policy change as the cutoff b/c it's NOT arbitrary - it's when the policy changed. When I start adding days to that, I then DO have to demonstrate why I selected 7 days for appointment setting instead of 8,9,10,15, etc. Then I also have to demonstrate why I added 1 or 2 months to that for immunity to kick in and why did I select 1 month and not 2 months or should it have been 1.653 months? Should it be the same for every single person? Do I need to research whether a state was slow with their appointment setting systems and change the values for just that state? Why does one state get a special value but others don't? Etc etc.

If the policy change date itself is arbitrary, wouldn't any date derived by adding X number of days to it be just as arbitrary but with X days added to it?

I don't think I'm totally following your concern with this specific one though b/c I think your concern doesn't change the overall number of deaths but merely whether it's in the grey box or black box? Personally I feel the policy date change is more apt than a nebulous date of [policy change date + 1 week for reasonable person + one or two months from there]. That strikes me as more arbitrary than the actual definitive policy change date.

I think that is the date things kinda changed. https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210420/all-us-adults-eligible-covid-vaccines

The chart to me seems to be suggesting to me anyways that was the date where they made vaccines available to all adults as opposed to some prioritization of folks in greater need? I got mine in late March and did some shady going to Ohio when I live in Michigan stuff to get it so maybe that works out?

I've only been to Henry VII w/ a bachelor party. You'll notice that's also not a recommendation lol

lotsa strip clubs there too.

no i didn't miss the mop up job

And just for the record, that was after you tried to equate a bunch of unapproved but contracted doses as "enough to vaccinate people" which would be that lie stuff I mentioned, which was also mentioned in your article that you posted, which also would be that "read past 2 paragraphs" thing I mentioned. Then when you then expect me to give you my time, and expect me to treat your posts as if this crap doesn't happen, no sale chief. Your posts get as much of my time and attention as I want to give you.

speaking of not reading posts, perhaps you should adhere to the standard you impose on others. I guess we can add "double standard" to the list of features. Standards for others but not yourself. Typical of trumpers as often pointed out in this forum.

LOL. Imagine thinking the media has a liberal bias. Takes a health level of divorce from reality to think that.