What Is "Judicial Activism?"

[Eddie Haskell]

It is of course when liberal judges strike down perfectly constitutional
laws simply because they don't like them. While Goebbels fascism is the
liberal lie that Judicial Activism is when judges strike down
unconstitutional laws that liberals like.

Glad I could help.

-Eddie Haskell

[Sid9]

"Eddie Haskell" <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote in message
news:nvDfr.20844$gX6....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

It's the US Supreme Court that Republicans put in place!

No longer an honest court of judgment it has become a Republican party tool!

[Eddie Haskell]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jln40q$15k$1...@dont-email.me...

Remarkable comment considering that republicans believe in following the
rule of law and liberals believe in legislating from the bench. What is it
that scares you so about following the law and the constitution, Sid, other
than the bullshit Goebbels propaganda you been told to believe from your
latest DNC fax?

You folks see in Sid here what Hussein's irresponsible comments have done
with low IQ followers? He's undermined the SC like a third-world Hugo Chavez
to delegitimize them if they render a decision they don't like and uphold
the constitution. This is not even America anymore thanks to these fascist
democrats.

Thanks for that, Sid, you idiot.

-Eddie Haskell

[Lee Curtis]

Eddie Haskell wrote:

> It is of course when liberal judges strike down perfectly
> constitutional laws simply because they don't like them.

Such as?

[Eddie Haskell]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jln40q$15k$1...@dont-email.me...
>

Hey Sid, what are you going to do if the SC upholds Husseincare? Wait for
your DNC fax to tell you what to think next? Will it be kinda like when
things were going south it was because of republican "obstructionism," but
now that you've decided that things are looking up it's because of the
success of the Hussein agenda?

Hahahahahahah!!

Man, it must suck to be as stupid as you are.

Bah hahahaha!!

-Eddie Haskell

[Sid9]

"Eddie Haskell" <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote in message

news:rGEfr.368$ew5...@unlimited.newshosting.com...

Nothing new here.
Same old Republican RRR chant

[Eddie Haskell]

"Lee Curtis" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8cadnY_gkZDIheLS...@giganews.com...

Laws against gay marriage.

Voter ID.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:jln5cn$9n3$1...@dont-email.me...

I win again.

> Same old Republican RRR chant

When did the DNC tell you say that, Sid?

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0LVgr.5$0l...@news.usenetserver.com...
> Judicial activism occurs when conservative judges strike down laws passed
> by
> Congress that do not meet with conservative standards

Yeah, conservative standards being whether it's constitutional or not, while
you on the anti-American lawless third world left strike down perfectly
constitutional laws just because you don't like them. You know that and
defend it. Why? Hate your country? Playing in the fucking sandbox again? Do
you ever get serious about anything? By the time you wake up it'll be too
late. That's why you are so hated and despised.

-Eddie Haskell

[lsrlts]

On 4/10/2012 5:31 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> Judicial activism occurs when conservative judges

Oh, not when LIBERAL judges do something?

Interesting...

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 4/10/2012 8:31 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> Judicial activism occurs when conservative judges strike down laws passed by

> Congress that do not meet with conservative standards or else render
> judgements in cases that effectively cancels the ability to enforce a law by
> establishing a precedence directly opposed to the law.


The courts are supposed to find laws in or out of their jurisdiction,
which is constitutional or outside the constitution.


What the constitution did NOT delegate the power to do, was the power to
interpret and fill in the blanks (also known as writing laws) that
power is already delegated to CONGRESS.


The court saying that they have no jurisdiction to hear any cases based
on ObamaCare means it is an unconstitutional law and ObamaCare is
unenforceable under the constitution. The Courts aren't making or
writing laws which "is" Judicial activism.




--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[lsrlts]

On 4/10/2012 10:13 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> idiotic conservative judge keep trying to
> supercede existing laws

Just as idiotic liberal judges do...

[MattB]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:16:16 -0700, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid>
wrote:

Yes both sides on the court IMO put politics before the Constitution
in many cases.

[2938 Dead]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:20:12 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> On 4/10/2012 8:31 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>> Judicial activism occurs when conservative judges strike down laws
>> passed by Congress that do not meet with conservative standards or else
>> render judgements in cases that effectively cancels the ability to
>> enforce a law by establishing a precedence directly opposed to the law.
>
>
> The courts are supposed to find laws in or out of their jurisdiction,
> which is constitutional or outside the constitution.
>
>
> What the constitution did NOT delegate the power to do, was the power to
> interpret and fill in the blanks (also known as writing laws) that
> power is already delegated to CONGRESS.

That's one of the brainless right's favourite tropes, but I've yet to see
a concrete example of that.

>
>
> The court saying that they have no jurisdiction to hear any cases based
> on ObamaCare means it is an unconstitutional law and ObamaCare is
> unenforceable under the constitution. The Courts aren't making or
> writing laws which "is" Judicial activism.





--

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK





--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:jTZgr.6258$Vy4....@news.usenetserver.com...
>
> On 10-Apr-2012, "Eddie Haskell" <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote at
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:

> You pathetic little snot. You are an uneducated idiot who doesn't know
> anything about this type of subject.
>
> Conservative judges continuous try to challenge Roe v. Wade when that case
> was decided on the basis of laws that had been passed by Congress.

Hahahahahaha!!!

You're full of shit. Woe v Wade stands as the most egregious example of
judicial activism, where you struck down state laws all across the country
simply because you did not like them and thought legal abortion was a good
idea. Congress or the constitution had NOTHING to do with it.

Why do you support a lawless party hell bent on running roughshod over the
constitution and the rule of law in order to force it's moral beliefs down
the throat of the nation?

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"MattB" <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:isq8o7dqb2321uvkd...@4ax.com...

Cite?

-Eddie Haskell

[MattB]

Corporations are persons? The PAC mess we have now. Strip
searches for traffic tickets etc.....

[First. Post]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:20:26 -0700, MattB <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>
wrote:

The fact that you say "both sides of the court" implies that there are political
leanings regardless.

But the plain reality of the matter is that EVERYONE will look at everything
from their own political point of view to one degree or another. It is simple
human nature.
"Don't piss off the judge" has been a saying that has existed as long as there
have been courts of any kind.
One's politics as well as religion will always affect the way they perceive and
interpret things. One's concept of good and evil is for the most part based in
their politics and religious beliefs. There is no getting around it.

Too bad that the founders didn't have a crystal ball or they may have written in
plain English "This is what the constitution means.......". It may have kept us
from having a small group of folks "interpreting" the constitution for us.

Lastly, if folks want to just now start whinning and complaining that the SCOTUS
is nothing but a political arm of this party or that then every single decision
that has ever been handed down by the court regarding the constitution should be
thrown out as well as there has always been a majority of liberal or
conservative judges in the court.

The funny thing is most of the sudden criticisms we are now hearing are all
about the evil conservatives on the bench but the very same people bitching
about that alleged bias have no problem at all with Obama's statement that "when
he gets re-elected" he'll put two more liberal judges on the bench and make
everything so much easier for him. That right there says more about how
liberals and their politicians view the court and how corrupt they would
actually like it to be as opposed to some existing conservative bias by the
SCOTUS against a democratic president. They really want the court to be biased.
They just don't like it if they think the bias is not in their favor.

[MattB]

The last thing we need is 2 more liberal judges on the court.

[First. Post]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:17:14 -0700, MattB <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>

You mean you don't want to sit around toking on medical marijuana, collecting a
government check, getting free government healthcare while living in a free
government house that's all been paid for by the much deserved 99% taxation on
the evil bastards that dare make more than a liveable wage?
Off to the re-education camp with you.

[MattB]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:26:03 -0500, First. Post

Re-education camp = Liberal Public Universities.

[lsrlts]

On 4/10/2012 2:39 PM, China Blue Water Navy wrote:
> In article<0LVgr.5$0l...@news.usenetserver.com>,

> "Kirby Grant"<KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Judicial activism occurs when
>

> you don't like a court's decision.
>

left or right...

[Matt]

On Apr 10, 4:17 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:06:51 -0500, First. Post
>
>
>
>
>

> <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:20:26 -0700, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com>

Oh absolutely.

Then you can be strip searched by any corporation while it takes money
out of
your pocket.

Legally.

Thank you conservatives!

Matt

[MattB.]

That is why w need more moderate judges. Left and right are all
about agenda

That is also why I oppose the Tea Party they are all about
corporate power.far left is just as bad as a few here have shown.
Moderates need to wake up in this election. Congressional races are
also very important kick th radical left and right out.

[Matt]

Until every non-moderate is out of Congress, we won't have a moderate
judge. That's simply a given.

>
>      That is also why I oppose the Tea Party they are all about
> corporate power.far left is just as bad as a few here have shown.
> Moderates need to wake up in this election.   Congressional races are
> also very important kick th radical left and right out.

You may feel Obama is a liberal, I would say he's almost dead middle
of the road. However, from living in a mostly conservative state, I
can say
safely that the Tea Party and its ilk (radical right wingers) have
completely
taken over the grass roots of the Republican party. It is dead.
Democrats
don't vote in blocks for a reason, there are just too many different
types of
them. Nobody will ever take over that party so completely.

If you want Mitt Romney as President, go for it. All I see that way is
disaster.


Matt

[linuxgal]

There are no liberal judges, you see. Only far-right ones, and moderate
ones.

[2960 Dead]

Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?

[MattB]

Well we can hope. I'm agreeing with you. Guess that means you
moved a little to the right ;-))))))))

>
>>
>>      That is also why I oppose the Tea Party they are all about
>> corporate power.far left is just as bad as a few here have shown.
>> Moderates need to wake up in this election.   Congressional races are
>> also very important kick th radical left and right out.
>
>You may feel Obama is a liberal, I would say he's almost dead middle
>of the road. However, from living in a mostly conservative state, I
>can say
>safely that the Tea Party and its ilk (radical right wingers) have
>completely
>taken over the grass roots of the Republican party. It is dead.
>Democrats
>don't vote in blocks for a reason, there are just too many different
>types of
>them. Nobody will ever take over that party so completely.
>
>If you want Mitt Romney as President, go for it. All I see that way is
>disaster.

Well to be honest I see it being bad no matter what. Much depends
on Congress. I would like to see the Tea party's influence reduced by
a major degree. I do not no matter who wins don't want to see all 3
belonging to the same party. Guess when it come to Congress can't get
much worse that it is now.

Tea Party not so popular here guess it depends where you live. .
>
>
>Matt

[linuxgal]

2960 Dead wrote:

>
> Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?

If you think tax cuts need to be "paid for" you might be a liberal.

If you believe only tax collectors and criminals should bear arms, you
might be a liberal.

If you blame your personal failure on "society" rather than poor
choices, you might be a liberal.

If you believe the Black Death was spread by a lack of federal funding,
you might be a liberal.

If your High School Year Book goals were to "become a journalist" in
order to "help people" you might be a liberal.

If you believe it is noble to be a philanthropist with other people's
money, you might be a liberal.

If you think a balanced news story is to quote two liberals and then
give a personal opinion, you might be a liberal.

If you love your government but hate your country, you might be a liberal.

If you think that Supply Side Economics refers to your drug dealer's
business model, you might be a liberal.

If you believe a "government option" for health care coverage means it's
free, you might be a liberal.

If you believe the American individual's right to bear arms enumerated
in the 2nd Amendment is a "technicality" you might be a liberal.

If you get angry when someone says, "Our founding forefathers..." you
might be a liberal.

If you say you hate slavery, but want total governmental control over
each and every facet of American's lives, you might be a liberal.

[MattB.]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:46:04 GMT, "Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>On 10-Apr-2012, MattB <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote at
>alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:
>
>> X-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:15:22 UTC (s05-b12.iad)

>You are right. We need all of them to be liberal.

Well that would be one way to totally get rid of the Constitution,
Far Left heaven. Hugo Chávez would be proud of you.

[2960 Dead]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:50:47 -0700, linuxgal wrote:

> 2960 Dead wrote:
>
>
>> Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?
>
> If you think tax cuts need to be "paid for" you might be a liberal.

And if you're a libertarian, you don't believe cutting taxes can cause
bigger deficits.

>
> If you believe only tax collectors and criminals should bear arms, you
> might be a liberal.

I don't know a single liberal who thinks that. I know many dishonest
libertarians who like to pretend we do, though.

>
> If you blame your personal failure on "society" rather than poor
> choices, you might be a liberal.

Because, after all, there's no such thing as favoritism and
discrimination--not in the PRIVATE SECTOR, for heaven's sake!

>
> If you believe the Black Death was spread by a lack of federal funding,
> you might be a liberal.

You may have noticed that countries with good public programs don't have
black death plagues any more.

>
> If your High School Year Book goals were to "become a journalist" in
> order to "help people" you might be a liberal.
>

Yes, a free press must be stamped out, no matter what.

> If you believe it is noble to be a philanthropist with other people's
> money, you might be a liberal.
>

Wow. You're digging out the dumbest tropes you can find, aren't you?

Care to name any libertarian paradises where everyone has a decent
standard of living?

> If you think a balanced news story is to quote two liberals and then
> give a personal opinion, you might be a liberal.
>
> If you love your government but hate your country, you might be a
> liberal.
>
> If you think that Supply Side Economics refers to your drug dealer's
> business model, you might be a liberal.
>
> If you believe a "government option" for health care coverage means it's
> free, you might be a liberal.
>
> If you believe the American individual's right to bear arms enumerated
> in the 2nd Amendment is a "technicality" you might be a liberal.
>
> If you get angry when someone says, "Our founding forefathers..." you
> might be a liberal.
>
> If you say you hate slavery, but want total governmental control over
> each and every facet of American's lives, you might be a liberal.

[lsrlts]

I get it!

[linuxgal]

2960 Dead wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:50:47 -0700, linuxgal wrote:
>
>> 2960 Dead wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?
>> If you think tax cuts need to be "paid for" you might be a liberal.
>
> And if you're a libertarian, you don't believe cutting taxes can cause
> bigger deficits.

Only if you take spending levels as a sacrosanct baseline.

[Matt]

On Apr 10, 8:38 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:00:10 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>

Not especially. In fact, I've always been pretty much dead in the
middle.
A little liberal socially, since I believe abortion and drugs should
be legal.
A little conservative fiscally, since I don't believe in spending tons
on things
that don't need money, like corporations and wars.
Mostly, I am what was once called an "Average American". Sad that this
is no longer true.

> >>      That is also why I oppose the Tea Party they are all about
> >> corporate power.far left is just as bad as a few here have shown.
> >> Moderates need to wake up in this election.   Congressional races are
> >> also very important kick th radical left and right out.
>
> >You may feel Obama is a liberal, I would say he's almost dead middle
> >of the road. However, from living in a mostly conservative state, I
> >can say
> >safely that the Tea Party and its ilk (radical right wingers) have
> >completely
> >taken over the grass roots of the Republican party. It is dead.
> >Democrats
> >don't vote in blocks for a reason, there are just too many different
> >types of
> >them. Nobody will ever take over that party so completely.
>
> >If you want Mitt Romney as President, go for it. All I see that way is
> >disaster.
>
>     Well to be honest I see it being bad no matter what.  Much depends
> on Congress.  I would like to see the Tea party's influence reduced by
> a major degree.  I do not no matter who wins don't want to see all 3
> belonging to the same party.  Guess when it come to Congress can't get
> much worse that it is now.
>
>   Tea Party not so popular here guess it depends where you live. .

The Tea Party was a fad, and is dying off. That isn't the problem. The
problem
is, Congress has given up on caring about the country, as long as they
are in
charge.

Matt

[2960 Dead]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:10:29 -0700, linuxgal wrote:

> 2960 Dead wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:50:47 -0700, linuxgal wrote:
>>
>>> 2960 Dead wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?
>>> If you think tax cuts need to be "paid for" you might be a liberal.
>>
>> And if you're a libertarian, you don't believe cutting taxes can cause
>> bigger deficits.
>
> Only if you take spending levels as a sacrosanct baseline.

Yes, but most of us reject the social Darwinism of the libertarian
"budgets" such as Paul Ryans.

[lsrlts]

On 4/11/2012 7:41 AM, Matt wrote:
> The
> problem
> is, Congress has given up on caring about the country, as long as they
> are in
> charge.
>
> Matt

Succinctly summarized and true.

[Eddie Haskell]

"First. Post" <OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:pka9o7hcu4n3r1v5l...@4ax.com...

They did write it in plain English. It's just that the left likes to pretend
that it's obscure and endlessly complicated so we need them to tell us what
it means. That's why they made Husseincare so huge and complex. It's so no
one will understand it and they can make up shit as they go.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"First. Post" <OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> wrote in message

news:hjc9o79ag6hkg9dgd...@4ax.com...

Which college are you suggesting?

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"2960 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jm2pme$s2s$3...@dont-email.me...

Why are all democrats projecting liars?

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:r5SdnQmycoGbbxnS...@giganews.com...

> 2960 Dead wrote:
>
>>
>> Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?
>
> If you think tax cuts need to be "paid for" you might be a liberal.
>
> If you believe only tax collectors and criminals should bear arms, you
> might be a liberal.
>
> If you blame your personal failure on "society" rather than poor choices,
> you might be a liberal.

You nailed 2960 Dead with that one right then and there.

-Eddie Haskell

> If you believe the Black Death was spread by a lack of federal funding,
> you might be a liberal.
>
> If your High School Year Book goals were to "become a journalist" in order

> to "help people"ť you might be a liberal.

[Eddie Haskell]

"2960 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

news:jm2v7v$q3v$1...@dont-email.me...

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:50:47 -0700, linuxgal wrote:
>
>> 2960 Dead wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?
>>
>> If you think tax cuts need to be "paid for" you might be a liberal.
>
> And if you're a libertarian, you don't believe cutting taxes can cause
> bigger deficits.

If you are a liberal you cannot possibly understand that economic growth
increases revenues. Your envy is so vast and consuming that you would rather
have lower revenues if you think you are getting back at "the man."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"China Blue Water Navy" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-9D9B7...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <35OdneFuu7e--hjS...@giganews.com>,

> Spending levels are decided by what voters agree to.

Hussein told the voters that he would cut the deficit, you lying sack of
worthless horse shit. Of course he was lying just like you are lying all the
while knowing that he was lying while you lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJvkkNmR_8

> What cuts do more than half
> the voters agree to?

That's the spirit. Get as many people hooked on government largess as you
possibly can and then fear-monger us into bankruptcy. Fucking irresponsible
cocksuckers.

Oh, and it's worth noting folks, that 2960 Dead and China shit for brains
are both Negroes. Don't it figure? They demonstrate to us daily why all
Negro nations are corrupt third world shit-holes.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"2960 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

news:jm4a26$2sp$6...@dont-email.me...

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:10:29 -0700, linuxgal wrote:
>
>> 2960 Dead wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:50:47 -0700, linuxgal wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2960 Dead wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?
>>>> If you think tax cuts need to be "paid for" you might be a liberal.
>>>
>>> And if you're a libertarian, you don't believe cutting taxes can cause
>>> bigger deficits.
>>
>> Only if you take spending levels as a sacrosanct baseline.
>
> Yes, but most of us reject the social Darwinism of the libertarian
> "budgets" such as Paul Ryans.

You're too fucking stupid to even come up with original lies. You just
parrot Hussein's. But tell us one thing, you lying piece of fucking shit.
Why was the world going to end because of Bush's 200 billion dollar budget
deficits but all of a sudden we have to have trillion dollar plus ones from
now on or we're all going die? Why are you hell bent on fear-mongering the
nation into bankruptcy with irresponsible lies?

Just being a stupid lying nigger like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:edc131c4-e0e4-4f46...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 10, 4:17 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:06:51 -0500, First. Post
>
>
>
>
>
> <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:20:26 -0700, MattB

> ><trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com>
> >wrote:
>

> Oh absolutely.

> Then you can be strip searched by any corporation while it takes money
> out of
> your pocket.

Hussein and the democrats are raping the country blind while telling you to
look over there at a corporation that can't take a dime from you without
your consent and has nothing even resembling the power of the federal
government and you fall for it because you are a certified fomented fucking
idiot.

Btw, where's my goddamn trillion fucking dollars?

Why did we have to have a second stimulus for infrastructure?

Why does Hussein's budget call for more massive infrastructure spending?

What happened to the first goddamn trillion dollars?

Why are you too fucking stupid to give a fuck?

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"MattB." <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote in message
news:0ek9o7lu49n23p1k5...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Matt

>>Legally.
>>
>>Thank you conservatives!
>
> That is why w need more moderate judges. Left and right are all
> about agenda
>

> That is also why I oppose the Tea Party they are all about
> corporate power.

You're a fucking idiot.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote in message

news:48050296-5181-4e6b...@a5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

> Until every non-moderate is out of Congress, we won't have a moderate
> judge. That's simply a given.

How do you moderately uphold the constitution and the rule of law, you two
retards? That's what is known in modern terms as conservatism.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"MattB" <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:17r9o7del5vng8gd6...@4ax.com...

No, it means you're both idiots.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote in message

news:c51ed616-7a53-43d3...@m13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

Who is spending money on corporations, you frothing at the mouth left-wing
extremist?

Oh, wait.

Corporate Subsidy: The amount of taxes a corporation pays that is below what
a frothing at the mouth left-wing extremist pulls out of his ass and says it
should be.

> Mostly, I am what was once called an "Average American". Sad that this
> is no longer true.

Oh, it's still true, brainwashed out of your butt fucking head by a daily
avalanche of Goebbels propaganda bullshit spewing from the DNC / MSM cabal.

Now, tell us about that "war on women."

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"lsrlts" <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote in message
news:jm4bsb$u5r$3...@dont-email.me...

So much for Paul Ryan sticking his neck out. Others will learn from you not
to. It will get them no credit and nowhere.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:si6hr.20$iV6...@news.usenetserver.com...
>
> On 10-Apr-2012, Matt <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote at
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:

>> > That is also why I oppose the Tea Party they are all about

>> > corporate power.far left is just as bad as a few here have shown.
>> > Moderates need to wake up in this election. Congressional races are
>> > also very important kick th radical left and right out.
>>
>> You may feel Obama is a liberal, I would say he's almost dead middle
>> of the road. However, from living in a mostly conservative state, I
>> can say
>> safely that the Tea Party and its ilk (radical right wingers) have
>> completely
>> taken over the grass roots of the Republican party. It is dead.
>> Democrats
>> don't vote in blocks for a reason, there are just too many different
>> types of
>> them. Nobody will ever take over that party so completely.
>>
>> If you want Mitt Romney as President, go for it. All I see that way is
>> disaster.
>>
>>

>> Matt
>
> At this point Romney is just competing to be the person who loses to
> President Obama in November. But his followers will have a chance to hold
> a
> lot of parties between now and then - that's about the only benefit I can
> think of for his candidacy.

Explain to me in a hundred words or less why I should continue to make the
effort of clicking on your messages with my index finger.

I'll expect it on my desk within the hour.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:gg6hr.4560$gH6....@news.usenetserver.com...

>
> On 10-Apr-2012, MattB <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote at
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:
>
>> X-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:15:22 UTC (s05-b12.iad)
>>

>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:06:51 -0500, First. Post
>> <OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:20:26 -0700, MattB

>> ><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>

> You are right. We need all of them to be liberal.

Why do you hate the rule of law and the constitution? The only people that
are going to uphold that and prevent the rule of men are conservatives.
Liberals aren't even Americans and nether are you.

Goddamn America.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"MattB." <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote in message

news:j6s9o751qai7bgv82...@4ax.com...

I get it now. There are two MattBs. One is an idiot and one gets it right.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

news:bvydnWTITN09RRnS...@giganews.com...

> lsrlts wrote:
>> On 4/10/2012 5:31 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>> Judicial activism occurs when conservative judges
>>
>> Oh, not when LIBERAL judges do something?
>>
>> Interesting...
>
> There are no liberal judges, you see.

No, I don't see.

<farts>

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"lsrlts" <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote in message

news:jm33c5$8fu$5...@dont-email.me...

So a liberal judge is not a judge, but simply an activist?

So true.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"China Blue Water Navy" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:chine.bleu-8EDE3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <0LVgr.5$0l...@news.usenetserver.com>,

> "Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Judicial activism occurs when
>

> you don't like a court's decision.

I looked up the term "lie like a nigger" and there was your picture.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"lsrlts" <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote in message

news:jm2dvq$61f$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/10/2012 2:39 PM, China Blue Water Navy wrote:
>> In article<0LVgr.5$0l...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>> "Kirby Grant"<KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Judicial activism occurs when
>>
>> you don't like a court's decision.
>>
>

> left or right...

I thought I had already explained this.

"It is of course when liberal judges strike down perfectly constitutional
laws simply because they don't like them. While Goebbels fascism is the
liberal lie that Judicial Activism is when judges strike down
unconstitutional laws that liberals like."

Now, write it down this time.

-Eddie Haskell

[MattB]

Well that would imply I've moved a little to the left. NO can't
have that. :-)

>A little liberal socially, since I believe abortion and drugs should
>be legal.

I don't like Abortions and yet don't think it is right to make laws
based on religion.

Drugs it would depend on the Drug. Marijuana Maybe, Meth never.

>A little conservative fiscally, since I don't believe in spending tons
>on things
>that don't need money, like corporations and wars.

I am a firm in my opposition to Corporate Welfare in any form. I
also opposed the war in Iraq and libya.

>Mostly, I am what was once called an "Average American". Sad that this
>is no longer true.

I think there are more than you know. I hope they are waking up
and seeing they are needed to vote these extremist out of office.

Well glad to see I'm not the only one seeing that. If we could get
the middle class to wake up the extremes on both sides would be in
trouble.

Lately seems the only thing both sides agree on is getting more
power and reducing our freedoms. Wonder if this CISPA will pass.
They seem to really want control of the internet.

We actually agree on many things. So you have to be leaning right.
Well except Gun Control and then I can never get the left to tell me
what new laws they want.


>
>Matt

[MattB]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:35:26 -0700, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid>
wrote:

Careful. That is enough to get you on the no fly list. ;-))))

[MattB]

Eddie can you sh\ow us the part that gives Corporations power over
government and calls them a "Person"

[Matt]

On Apr 11, 12:29 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <hfhfh...@ssassw.com> wrote:
> "Matt" <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote in message

You whine a lot, Mikey Poo Flannigan, but never say anything worth
reading.

Probably why nobody reads it.

Matt

[lsrlts]

What's next, "no-drive"?

[MattB]

Maybe but them again another Tea Party member introduced another
SOPA. Did change the name to CISPA.

Tell me again they don't serve the corporate masters.


>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
>
>
>
>

[MattB]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:09:37 -0700, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid>

wrote:

>On 4/11/2012 11:48 AM, MattB wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:35:26 -0700, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/11/2012 7:41 AM, Matt wrote:
>>>> The
>>>> problem
>>>> is, Congress has given up on caring about the country, as long as they
>>>> are in
>>>> charge.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>> Succinctly summarized and true.
>>
>> Careful. That is enough to get you on the no fly list. ;-))))
>>
> What's next, "no-drive"?

Maybe we will need a pass to travel? National Id's with GPS.
:-).

[MattB]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:36:25 GMT, "Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>On 11-Apr-2012, "Eddie Haskell" <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote at
>alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:

>
>> 2960 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

>> news:jm2pme$s2s$3...@dont-email.me...
>> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:26:03 -0500, First. Post wrote:

>> >
>> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:17:14 -0700, MattB
>> >> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:06:51 -0500, First. Post
>> >>><OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:20:26 -0700, MattB

>> >>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:16:16 -0700, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid>
>> >>>>>wrote:
>> >>>>>

>> >> You mean you don't want to sit around toking on medical marijuana,
>> >> collecting a government check, getting free government healthcare while
>> >> living in a free government house that's all been paid for by the much
>> >> deserved 99% taxation on the evil bastards that dare make more than a
>> >> liveable wage? Off to the re-education camp with you.

>> >
>> > Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?
>>

>> Why are all democrats projecting liars?
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
>Why are you a pathetic little snot?
>
>Democrats are not liars. We have stated that President Obama will be
>re-elected in November. That is not a lie. It is the truth. We know it now.
>You will know it later.


The only way you can know it now is if it is fixed. Is that the
plan????


Future is not fixed. Both Romney and Obama might make a mistake.
Romney's VP choice will be a major factor.

[lsrlts]

On 4/11/2012 12:36 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> Democrats are not liars.

Sure they are.

[BillyBobMarley]

On Apr 11, 10:41 am, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:38 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> The Tea Party was a fad, and is dying off. That isn't the problem.

A group of people caring about constitutional rights fading away is a
fad ?

The
> problem
> is, Congress has given up on caring about the country, as long as they
> are in
> charge.>
> Matt

Which party that was in charge of congress had the most responsibilty
in revoking constituional rights of citizens at one time in history
and did it while a democrat was president.Think long and hard about
this.

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:q1lhr.444$gs2...@news.usenetserver.com...

>
> On 11-Apr-2012, "Eddie Haskell" <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote at
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:
>
>> "2960 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

>> news:jm2v7v$q3v$1...@dont-email.me...
>> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:50:47 -0700, linuxgal wrote:

>> >
>> >> 2960 Dead wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?
>> >>

>> >> If you think tax cuts need to be "paid for" you might be a liberal.
>> >
>> > And if you're a libertarian, you don't believe cutting taxes can cause
>> > bigger deficits.
>>
>> If you are a liberal you cannot possibly understand that economic growth
>> increases revenues. Your envy is so vast and consuming that you would
>> rather
>> have lower revenues if you think you are getting back at "the man."
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894
>>
>> -Eddie Haskell
>
> You can't understand a think, you pathetic little snot. You spend all of
> your time searching for new clips on YouTube instead of getting an
> education.

I can't understand a think?

Bah hahahahaha!!!

"You can't understand a think, you pathetic little snot."

-Kirby Grant, Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:34 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rav9ijyyZk

"Howevder dim he may appear to you, he is actually far, far worse."

-Kirby Grant, Friday, April 06, 2012 3:13 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rav9ijyyZk

"You next message will be a domonstration of this fact. So stgart dancing."

-Kirby Grant, Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rav9ijyyZk

"Although it is more polite to just say "menally challenged" these days."

-Kirby Grant, Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:37 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rav9ijyyZk

"How is it possible that you are just one person and yet you have more
ignorance 'then' a thousand men?"

-Kirby Grant, Friday, June 03, 2011 10:47 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rav9ijyyZk

"You see, we have plenty of confusion on the Democratic side as well, but we
know better 'then' to start having splinter groups. "

-Kirby Grant, Monday, July 18, 2011 1:29 PM

"Again with the vast ignorance. I was wrong - you have more ignorance 'then'
ten thousand other men."

-Kirby Grant, Friday, June 03, 2011 10:52 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rav9ijyyZk

"I know better 'then' to address a letter to the president."

-Kirby Grant, Wednesday, June 08, 2011 5:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rav9ijyyZk

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:w3lhr.10637$575....@news.usenetserver.com...

>
> On 11-Apr-2012, "Eddie Haskell" <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote at
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:
>
>> 2960 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

>> > Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?
>>

>> Why are all democrats projecting liars?
>

> Democrats are not liars.

You're lying.

See what I mean, folks?

Thanks for the demonstration, Grant. You may take your seat now.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"MattB" <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:ugkbo7turtr0ufh3r...@4ax.com...

Who said corporations have power over government?

-Eddie Haskell

[MattB]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:32:21 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:49:59 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Eddie can you sh\ow us the part that gives Corporations power over
>>government and calls them a "Person"
>

>"Citizens united" USSC ruling
>
>2) Hundreds of millions shoveled to (mostly) republican politicians.
>
>That good enough?


That is not part of the Constitution that is a SC ruling. Maybe
they will change their minds someday.

Show me in the Constitution???????????

[MattB]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:33:36 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"

Oh they have power. Another SOPA was introduced by the Tea Party
again changed the name to CISPA. We can see who the Tea Party works
for. Economy going to hell and they do nothings. Yet Corporations
call and they jump. So glad the Tea party is going down in flames.
Hopefully Mike Rogers will be kicked out.

It isn't as bad as SOPA but is vague. To broad in scope.


>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
>
>
>
>

[First. Post]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMegqgGORY

[linuxgal]

"Lie" is such a harsh term. The progressive community prefers to say the
President dispenses facts adaptively.

[linuxgal]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:10:29 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:

>
>> 2960 Dead wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:50:47 -0700, linuxgal wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2960 Dead wrote:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>> Why are all American right wingers such whiny and dishonest cunts?

>>>> If you think tax cuts need to be "paid for" you might be a liberal.
>>> And if you're a libertarian, you don't believe cutting taxes can cause
>>> bigger deficits.

>> Only if you take spending levels as a sacrosanct baseline.
>
> Why is the transfer of billions and billions to a few people
> "sacrosanct" and the care and welfare of a majority of citizens not?

Only a redistributionist lib would call letting people keep more of
their own money a "transfer of billions to a few people".

[Matt]

On Apr 11, 3:58 pm, BillyBobMarley <wha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:41 am, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 8:38 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Tea Party was a fad, and is dying off. That isn't the problem.
>
> A group of people caring about constitutional rights fading away is a
> fad ?

The Tea Party could care less about Constitutional rights, aside from
the
few they agree with.

>
>  The
>
> > problem
> > is, Congress has given up on caring about the country, as long as they
> > are in
> > charge.>
> > Matt
>
> Which party that was in charge of congress had the most responsibilty
> in revoking constituional rights of citizens at one time in history
> and did it while a democrat was president.Think long and hard about
> this.

I know the answer to this, and you don't, because you believe the
choices
are the Republicans or the Democrats.

Must be a Tea Partier.

Matt

[linuxgal]

2960 Dead wrote:

> Yes, but most of us reject the social Darwinism of the libertarian
> "budgets" such as Paul Ryans.
>

Yes, I'm used to it. I'm on alt.atheism and we get a lot of people
rejecting biological Darwinism there too. Same level of ignorance.

[2960 Dead]

Are you seriously trying to equate social Darwinism to "biological
Darwinism"?

One thing your "survival of the fittest" cult leaders forgot (beyond the
fact that Darwin never used that phrase) is that he deduced that
successful evolution was as much a product of cooperation as it was of
competition. He had in mind hives and insects, but we've learned that
nearly all species of life work cooperatively with others of their kinds,
an that further, cooperation amongst various species extends well beyond
symbiosis.





--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK





--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK

[linuxgal]

2960 Dead wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:26:10 -0700, linuxgal wrote:
>
>> 2960 Dead wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, but most of us reject the social Darwinism of the libertarian
>>> "budgets" such as Paul Ryans.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, I'm used to it. I'm on alt.atheism and we get a lot of people
>> rejecting biological Darwinism there too. Same level of ignorance.
>
> Are you seriously trying to equate social Darwinism to "biological
> Darwinism"?

Every system with patterns that propagate through time (DNA, political
positions) is subject to Darwinism.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Obama is FACTUALLY challenged. Or you might say if there were a Special
Olympics for telling the truth.... Obama is the in last place.





--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[2960 Dead]

A non-answer combined with the snipping of my following remarks.

You aren't competent to defend your position.

[linuxgal]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:43:42 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Are you seriously trying to equate social Darwinism to "biological
>>> Darwinism"?
>> Every system with patterns that propagate through time (DNA, political
>> positions) is subject to Darwinism.
>

> You forget that obstruction and deliberate adverse human nature alters
> how a social system works.
>

There are predators in the jungle too.