Why would rosenstein resign if he didn't actually make the 25th Am comment?

I think you are misunderstanding. The point is to say there will never exist a capitalism in which women are liberated. Showing other economic relations (feudalism) doesn’t disprove this. Does that make sense?

It’s tenable dude, they are from the intro. Read the read of the ****ing book!

In both reform and conservative Judaism today, the words Lord, Father, King, .or any other masculine term is no longer used as the translation of adonai (God)

Women can be rabbis, cantors, wear yalmukes and talit, can basically do anything a man can do as a Jew

Ther orthodox don't follow this at all of course.

It's progress. I hadn't gone to synogauge in about 8 years before 2004 and was amazed at the changes. At first i was bothered that it didn't say lord your god. Now i think it's a good thing, it's more inclusive, its better, and most cantors are female and make the service sound even more beautiful

Im not saying women are equal in jewish society yet, but they are 1000 times closer than they were even 15 years ago so that's progress

It is hard to believe women couldn't vote 100 years ago. I have a hard time comprehending that

I don't understand why not

“Hey gee this one two sentence quote doesn’t answer every possible question I have about capitalism and feminism. If one quote can’t satisfy me I must dimiss the entire field of thought.”

-IANAW, probably

He wouldn't

But he knows he's going to be subpoenaed and have to answer under oath so better to resign

It's peculiar how often the left-wing activists and thinkers Birdman and Filthy cite in these debates over whether there are meaningful differences between Democrats and Republicans have, in the right situation, made the lesser-of-two-evils argument: Angela Davis (Clinton/Trump), Winona LaDuke (endorsed Kerry and Obama), Noah Chomsky (Clinton/Trump), Howard Zinn (Obama/McCain)...

http://richmondfreepress.com/news/20...ughts-trump-c/

http://www.nativenews.net/environmen...dministration/

Maybe they just need a Birdman to tell them to check their privilege.

Pretty sure you think poverty is caused by people not working hard enough so I’m not sure you would ever understand why as long as you think this.

so you believe he did suggest invoking the 25th?

and how does resignation spare him from subpoena?

Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Party's presidential candidate. Nancy Pelosi is the party's leader in the House of Representatives. Diane Feinstein is the ranking judiciary committee chair.

Regardless, the dictates of capitalism, and the democratic party's fealty to it, prevent the destruction of the patriarchy... these women are Aunt Tomasina's.

Because they won’t call him if he’s no longer DAG, because it would have the (likely) potential to be embarrassing for Trump and the Republican Party as a whole, and if he’s no longer employed there is no reason to need to know what he did or didn’t say

I actually doubt they would subpoena him even if he was still employed due to the aforementioned embarrassment, but I suppose they could if they really wanted

I'm not following any of this; not sure if you're serious.

If they wouldn't call him because of the likelihood for embarassment, I don't see what difference it makes whether he is acting or former DAG.

If he is former DAG, his perspective is still relevant to gauging the general temperament of the potus, and (just checked) Congress can also invoke the 25th.

If the democrats take control at some point he could very well be called - no way the Republicans do if he is just a former DAG

Same thing as a current DAG to some extent, although the chances he has to answer under oath is much higher since they call him in semi-regularly to ask him questions about the Mueller investigation, and have some motivation to wound/weaken him politically in his current role if they are trying to protect Trump (they are)

Birdman (et cadre), for the record, while I think your a priori arguments about the immorality/impropriety of "profit" are ~trash, I am sympathetic to a posteriori arguments about the immoral ramifications of the profit motive.

They have no interest in your mealy mouthed fake liberal half measures

Thanks for posting those. There are plenty of Marxists who believe that direct action is a better use of one's time than engagement in electoral politics. There are approximately zero that spend their time attacking people for voting against Trump. Someone who is trying to disengage specifically liberals from the political process isn't a Marxist, they're just spewing GOP/Russian propaganda.

What about my arguments makes them a priori iyo?

your position is that Profit is per se fundamentally/inherently a bad thing, akin to theft (though not in the strict, legal sense), right?

at using winona laduke as an example of someone who supports voting democrat. SHE WAS RALPH NADER'S RUNNING MATE

continuing to be unable to distinguish "supporting the democrats" from "opposing the democrats' opposition"


what isn't clear is whether you are being intentionally obtuse for some pathological reason or whether you are actually this flippantly non-reflective

the nader/laduke platform was democrats suck so bad that you have to vote for someone else.

i can't find it. but their campaign had billboards up of george bush and al gore's face morphed into one person

story checks out

If Al Gore had been elected, I expect we:

(1) would not have invaded Iraq;
(2) would not have withdrawn from the Kyoto accord; &
(3) would not have established ICE.


Good thing Ralph Nader peeled so many votes off of him.


(caveat: I have done no research to back the position that Nader votes going to Gore would have flipped a critical threshold of states)