Jump to content

DDD Dad

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12194
  • Joined

Everything posted by DDD Dad

  1. You're missing out on some really entertaining bits.
  2. I get that and that's why I said that if the concern was over the failure to disclose the identity of the buyer, "okay." However, I just don't think that, of itself, is something that outrages me. It happens to be a matter of public record (one could simply review the deed records for the sale). So it's not like he was actively concealing anything, especially when the disclosure wasn't required. Sure, I'm in favor of requiring SCOTUS judges to disclose that sort of information. But lighting tiki torches and storming the courthouse over this particular lack of disclosure in this instance seems somewhat overly reactionary. ETA: I overlooked your point about turtle shooting down proposed legislation as attempts to tear down justices, etc. I agree with the outrage over his hypocrisy.
  3. DDD Dad

    LBGTQ

    That doesn't really address my question. I know she stated that. My question was, what was the rule of decorum those who censured her claim that statement violated? For example, I don't believe a member of Congress can call a witness testifying before Congress a "liar" (looking at you, MTG). Also, I don't believe it is appropriate for members of Congress to address one another directly when speaking, but instead to direct their statements to the presiding officer (I haven't researched these points, just going off general recollection). FWIW this is what I've been able to find so far From the AP: Also this from NBC News: Reminds me of this:
  4. There's nothing that required him to disclose the identity of the purchaser (coincidentally I used to work at Greenberg Traurig, though it was long before they had a Denver office). Again, Gorsuch was a minority owner in the property. I mean, I guess if someone wanted to dig deeper to see if Gorsuch was in some sort of cash crunch (such as needing to cash out of the vacation house to afford to move to DC), perhaps that would be worth pursuing. But standing alone, I just don't get the outrage over that particular transaction. Note my comment above about the original purchase.
  5. Look, I get it that there appears to be some seriously questionable issues surrounding several of the SCOTUS justices. I just think this particular transaction (the sale to the Greenberg Traurig CEO who happens to live in Denver) doesn't rise to a level to cause me to be outraged. Frankly, I think the more curious transaction isn't the sale of this property (which Gorsuch held only a 20 percent stake for essentially timeshare rights to use the fishing cabin). It's the original purchase. Based on the NYT article, the property was purchased and cabin was built by an LLC that Gorsuch owned along with two other investors who happened to be "lieutenants of [billionaire and major conserviative donor Philip F.] Anschutz." Again, per the article, "Ansczuch lobbied Colorado's lone Republican senator and the George W. Bush administration to nominate Mr. Gorsuch to an appeals court seat in 2006." So if you're looking for bogeymen, perhaps digging a little deeper gets you to some meat. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/25/us/neil-gorsuch-property-sale.html Also, csb, the priest at my former church, St. Michaels and All Cadillacs (actually All Angels) was also named Anschutz. He was most definitely NOT a major conservative donor. He was very much a liberal (you know, real Christian) who preached to one of the wealthiest congregations in Dallas. We ended up leaving that parish after he moved back east.
  6. Unpopular opinion here but I don’t get the outrage over the Gorsuch story. If i understand the story correctly he was a part owner of a vacation home that sold on the open market below listing price. If the issue is that the failure to disclose the buyer on his reporting form is some evidence of malfeasance, okay. But it is a FAR cry from the sort of shit Clarence has been up to with his personal pal Harlan, who loves him just because they have so much in common, and not because Harlan wants any preferential treatment.
  7. DDD Dad

    LBGTQ

    What exactly was the rule of decorum they contend she violated?
  8. It’s already too fucking long even limited to true mass shootings. Are still at a clip of over one a day for 2023?
  9. Idk. Seemed like a classic season 1 episode to me. Hit me right in the feels at the end with the team coming together to work on the restaurant.
  10. Indeed. I imagine this is an expensive series to produce. Hopefully it draws enough viewers for a renewal.
  11. No one else watching this?
  12. Anyone else relieved they didn't see a "NowThis" tab on this screenshot?
  13. I wonder if this was a provision of the Dominion settlement, perhaps one that was confidential.
  14. Reminds me of an anecdote regarding Mr. Jefferson. This post would have been perfect if you had said it only works on February 30. https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/humor/
  15. So...did she serve you with a restraining order yet?
×
×
  • Create New...