JFLNYC wrote:Also, Bannon doesn’t deny saying those things.

Bucky wrote:

thephan wrote:Jake Tapper had Stupid Steven Miller on, and kicked him off. Miller was the Miller we’ve all seen in public when he escapes his cage. Terrible evil version of Squidward Q. Tentacles character who fights completely unmoored about his agenda independent of topic,reality or fact. He is repugnant and should never be booked as a guest. I came in late, and was glad it ended quickly.

"I get it. There’s one viewer that you care about right now and you're being obsequious and you’re being a factotum in order to please him, OK,” Tapper told Miller, who was defending the president.

nailed it

Miller got walked off the set by security when he wouldn't leave.

Jake Tapper of Fake News CNN just got destroyed in his interview with Stephen Miller of the Trump Administration. Watch the hatred and unfairness of this CNN flunky!

NEW DELHI (AP) — India's top court on Monday said it will re-examine its earlier decision not to strike down a colonial-era law that makes homosexual acts punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Three judges including Chief Justice Dipak Misra said a larger group of justices would reconsider the law following a petition filed by five people who say they are living in fear of being prosecuted. However, no date was fixed for hearings in the case.

"What is natural to one may not be natural to others," the judges said.

In 2009, a New Delhi High Court declared unconstitutional Section 377 of the law, which says intercourse between members of the same sex is against the order of nature. But the judgment was overturned four years later by the Supreme Court, which said amending or repealing the law should be left to Parliament, not the judiciary.

Parliament is yet to act in the matter, with the Hindu nationalist party-led government in no hurry to change the law.

Arvind Datar, attorney for the petitioners, said the penal provision was unconstitutional because it provides for the prosecution and sentencing of consenting adults.

The Supreme Court said Monday that while choice can't be allowed to cross the boundaries of law, laws shouldn't trample or curtail the inherent right to freedom granted to individuals by the Indian Constitution.

The judges said the 2013 decision needed to be reconsidered because of the constitutional issues. "We think it appropriate to send this issue to a larger bench," they said.

Over the past decade, homosexuals have gained a degree of acceptance in parts of deeply conservative India, especially in big cities. Some high-profile Bollywood films have dealt with gay issues.

Still, being gay is seen as shameful in most of the country, and many homosexuals remain hidden.

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:I assume this is a joke?

People "joke" about it, sure. But also think they are half serious. She won an award at the Golden Globes so the "jokes" were in full force last night. Even JH thinks she'd win!

thephan wrote:word worm side note -

Just a day before this interview my son encountered obsequious in his SAT prep. He got the definition wrong. I told him that that I've heard the word but honestly could not do better then guess the definition from the choices he had (i.e., I did not really know the word). We learned together, then we managed to catch the right 5 minutes of Tapper before turning the channel.

obsequious

adjective

obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree.

synonyms: servile, ingratiating, sycophantic, fawning, unctuous, oily, oleaginous, groveling, cringing, subservient, submissive, slavish;

I like that a number of the synonyms are also fifty cent words too! More over my actual favorite is OILY. I know unctuous, but have never used it in a sentence, and I have a clear preference for sycophantic.

thephan wrote:Mueller & Friends want to interview Donald, but legal team 3-bazillion percent do not want him interviewed in person. It makes complete sense because you almost know he'd crack like a dropped egg, and confirm everything, then tweet about it. Maybe he should just invoke executive client-attorney privileged. Of course it would be closed door, but I cannot even imagine the chaos. Refusal to answer, bully-berate the SC, claim that he is the authority and they can suck it, or, most terrifying, take the 5th.

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:I assume this is a joke?

People "joke" about it, sure. But also think they are half serious. She won an award at the Golden Globes so the "jokes" were in full force last night. Even JH thinks she'd win!

Morganelli joins a crowded Democratic primary including Chip Collica, Allentown pastor Greg Edwards, Bill Leiner, Laura Quick, David Weidman, and former Allentown solicitor Susan Ellis Wild.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:I assume this is a joke?

People "joke" about it, sure. But also think they are half serious. She won an award at the Golden Globes so the "jokes" were in full force last night. Even JH thinks she'd win!

She could run as a standard issue Dem, is a compelling communicator, and is pretty much universally liked. Black people & suburban women make up like half of the Dem primary electorate. I think she'd be a force if she got in.

Whether it's a good idea for her to be president is a different question.

pacino wrote:SSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPP

Bucky wrote:the thing that stands out to me about this supposed "fiction" book is that they had no trouble believing the parts about what bannon said and threw him under the bus. So what is it? It's all made up? Or you know Bannon really did say these kinds of things?