New GOP rules will require all bills to cite 'specific constitutional authority.'
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46565.html
House GOP: Bills will have to cite Constitution
New GOP rules will require all bills to cite 'specific constitutional
authority.'
Updated: 12/17/10 6:57 PM EST
Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House
Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill
filed in the House “cite its specific constitutional authority.”
And for those who may have skipped that constitutional law class,
Republicans have organized four staff briefings prior to the Jan. 5
start of the 112th Congress to provide guidance on compliance with the
new rule. The first session will be Monday at 1 p.m. in the Capitol
Visitor Center.
GOP leaders have prepared a memo for all members of the new Congress
and senior staff informing them that no bill may be introduced unless
the sponsor has submitted for the Congressional Record a statement
“citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to
Congress” to enact the measure. The memo included five examples of
forms that sponsors could include with their legislation.
(snip)
DogDiesel
"Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:e3316633-d908-49aa...@w18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
BobWhite
> About fucking time.
>
>
>
>
> "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"<xeto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message
> news:e3316633-d908-49aa...@w18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46565.html
>
> House GOP: Bills will have to cite Constitution
> New GOP rules will require all bills to cite 'specific constitutional
> authority.'
>
> Updated: 12/17/10 6:57 PM EST
>
> Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House
> Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill
>
> And for those who may have skipped that constitutional law class,
> Republicans have organized four staff briefings prior to the Jan. 5
> start of the 112th Congress to provide guidance on compliance with the
> new rule. The first session will be Monday at 1 p.m. in the Capitol
> Visitor Center.
>
> GOP leaders have prepared a memo for all members of the new Congress
> and senior staff informing them that no bill may be introduced unless
> the sponsor has submitted for the Congressional Record a statement
> Congress� to enact the measure. The memo included five examples of
> forms that sponsors could include with their legislation.
>
> (snip)
>
>
good thing the dems won't be in charge, they wouldn't know what to do!
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Or, instead of citing a Constitutional provision, proposed legislation
can cite Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
> About fucking time.
>
We'll see. Sounds like a good idea but it's pretty vague and will
probably be of little consequence.
Christopher Helms
That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.
David Hartung
> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.
We have the reasonable expectation that those who serve in the
legislative branch of our government are indeed constitutional scholars.
If they are not, then perhaps they need to pursue a different line of work.
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
>
> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate. Cases like bush v gore and plyler
v doe and roe v wade prove that their rulings are just based on which
side gives them the biggest bribe.
Ramon F Herrera
On Dec 19, 2:25 pm, "DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
> About fucking time.
AZ SB-1070, for instance, has been declared unconstitutional by every
federal court.
You racists and assorted haters are batting 0 for 7 on that one.
-Ramon
David Hartung
Wasn't that signed into law by a Democrat governor?
David Hartung
>
0 for 7? Please explain.
Ramon F Herrera
Jan Brewer is a Republican.
Here's some intro material, so you don't insert you lower limbs in the
cavity that is entrance to your digestive tract, Dave. :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHi6_l1XzA
http://www.economicrefugee.net/tag/neo-nazi/ (2 videos)
Do those people look like Democrats to you? (post 1860s Dems, that
is).
-Ramon
ps: Look carefully at Kris Kobach, the author of AZ SB-1070 and
related bills (Hazleton, Farmers Branch, Fremont, NE) he is batting 0
for 7 in Federal Court. You antis are supposed to put your dear hopes
in your 5-4 majority, but The Supremes will agree with the lower
courts. You can bet your right arm on it.
Geo
That's just silly. The legislative branch is the lawmaking branch.
You really think they don't know what constitutional provision backs
up the laws they write? Which is a totally different than whether
they even care what, if any, provision applies.
Ramon F Herrera
Here's a few:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/pennsylvania.immigration.case //
Hazleton
http://tinyurl.com/246yg55
http://tinyurl.com/24xzgfr // AZ
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29arizona.html
http://tinyurl.com/23e7tsk // Fremont, NE is broke due to their racism
There's 4-5 more like that.
-Ramon
Not Sure
> On Dec 19, 2:25 pm, "DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
> > About fucking time.
>
> AZ SB-1070, for instance, has been declared unconstitutional by every
> federal court.
No it hasn't. Try not to cry, liar.
>
> You racists and assorted haters are batting 0 for 7 on that one.
ROFL, "racists?" You're really losing your cool here, imbecile. And
speaking of massive losses, so much for the Dream Act, huh? ;)
>
> -Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
Dave, being a decent and worthy opponent, perhaps you can explain this
long-running mystery, wrapped inside an enigma: The anti-immigrant
crowd has to pay high-priced lawyers, and as a result several towns
are tethering on the edge of bankruptcy:
"Meanwhile, Hazleton might have just become a whole lot poorer. After
begging anti-illegal immigration activists nationwide for cash, the
city was showered with $430,000 to pay down its massive legal debt. In
October, the town was running of fumes with a measly $10,000 in the
legal fund, barely enough to fight a few parking tickets."
Meanwhile, the pro-immigrant side's can take their pick of the litter
among the brightest young legal minds from America's best schools, who
are vying to join the cases FOR FREE, or, as the legal eagles are
proud to say: Pro-Bono. That is in addition to the big guns hired by
ACLU, the Chamber of Commerce and others in the pro-immigrant side.
(It is clear which side knows the meaning of the term "DIGNITY").
Six years I have been asking that critical question and no one has
been able to explain that unusual disparity to me...
-Ramon
David Hartung
What is your question?
leona...@gmail.com
> >Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House
> >Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill
> >filed in the House cite its specific constitutional authority.
>
>
> >And for those who may have skipped that constitutional law class,
> >Republicans have organized four staff briefings prior to the Jan. 5
> >start of the 112th Congress to provide guidance on compliance with the
> >new rule.
>
>
> Enjoy the 21st century's version of the Second Inquisition, all you
> Republican-voting independents.
ø ROTFLMAO
Indeed Dennis M it appears that you can only
read the communist manifesto, or Benny's
Il Fascisti for your constitutional ideas.
Of course all mercan libs are fascist. Canadian, too.
— –—
| Political Correct Europe is going down the tube
| America will be next spurred by academic
| idiots and the Mainstream Media with Algore.
| Slick Willy, and Hillary Clinton too, and now
| with Barak Hussein Mohammad Obama.
Ray Fischer
>On 12/19/2010 08:17 PM, Christopher Helms wrote:
>
>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.
>
>We have the reasonable expectation that those who serve in the
>legislative branch of our government are indeed constitutional scholars.
Is that why you vote for someone? Because of their expertise in
constitutional law?
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 19, 7:17�pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
>
>HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
NoBody
>Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Dec 19, 7:17 pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
>>
>>HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
>
>The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
You mean, like the Dred Scott Decision?
George Plimpton
> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote:
>> On 12/19/2010 08:17 PM, Christopher Helms wrote:
>>
>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.
>>
>> We have the reasonable expectation that those who serve in the
>> legislative branch of our government are indeed constitutional scholars.
>
> Is that why you vote for someone? Because of their expertise in
> constitutional law?
ray-ray, you stupid cunt: weren't you one of the ones genuflecting to
Hussein as being "eminently qualified" to be president in part because
he "taught constitutional law", as if that was proof of great intellect?
I think you did, ray-ray, but even if you didn't, plenty of other
leftist dopes did. Here's one:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/48059418e3f8fd73
That douche, Bwanson Huntress, just pissed himself swooning over
Hussein's supposed qualifications, using the embarrassingly extravagant
language:
If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the
first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter
registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years
as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator
representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of
the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4
years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million
people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign
Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees
There were *hundreds* of posts in news groups you pollute, ray-ray,
fawning over Hussein's supposed intellect because he was a (all bow
down) "Constitutional Law" [sic] "professor" [sic] - except he was never
a professor, and was never on a tenure track; he was only a lecturer.
The obsequious fawners also never say why it's a mark of greater
intellect to teach "Constitutional" [sic] law rather than torts, civil
procedure, family law, etc.
liberal
Damnation, boy....you'd put every legislator with an "R" on food
stamps cuz they're only smart enough to be WalMart greeters. And you
know how "R"s hate food stamps.
Bob
news:4d10f5cb$0$44065$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year <xeto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>On Dec 19, 7:17 pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
>>
>>HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
>
> The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
They are frequently wrong ... it's just that we have
to live with the decisions until they are changed by
future decisions.
liberal
Actually.....no. From Wikipedia: Measures similar to SB 1070 had been
passed by the legislature in 2006 and 2008, only to be vetoed by
Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano.[2][33][34] She was subsequently
elevated to Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration
and was replaced by Republican Secretary of State of Arizona Jan
Brewer.
David Hartung
I stand corrected.
George Plimpton
> Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 7:17 pm, Christopher Helms<Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
>>
>> HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
>
> The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
So Plessy v. Ferguson was a good decision, ray-ray? <snicker>
liberal
The United allows the most people to immigrate .... legally .... than
any other country.
Mexico has sent at least 10% of its population to the US ...
illegally. China and India have at least a similar proportion of
excess population. Do you support allowing those two nations to send
10% of their citizens to the US too. After all, that's only
200,000,000 more people. Or are you biased in favor of those with
brown skin color?
You see, the world is not what it was when several tens of millions
came to the US from Europe. Our population was approximately
100,000,000. Our farms did not need huge quantities of hydrocarbons to
produce fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides to produce the food
to feed our population. The cost of energy is beginning to push the
cost of food beyond the reach of some families; that's why WalMart
workers get food stamps.
Ramon F Herrera
> What is your question?
What would be your guess as to:
(1) Pro-illegal-immigrant groups getting plenty of free bright
volunteers.
(2) Anti-illegal-immigrant groups paying full price and expensive
legal fees.
I though the 2nd. groups was composed by patriots and "Real Americans"
working to save our country from an invasion and traitors (and yet
can't find one single).
-Ramon
George Plimpton
> On 12/19/2010 08:17 PM, Christopher Helms wrote:
>
>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.
>
> We have the reasonable expectation that those who serve in the
> legislative branch of our government are indeed constitutional scholars.
Bullshit. We have a reasonable expectation that they might have some
awareness of the Constitution - maybe that explains why that twat
O'Donnell lost - and it seems reasonable to expect that they would give
some thought to whether or not some bill they're considering is
constitutional, but it is entirely unreasonable to expect congressmen
and senators to be constitutional scholars.
George Plimpton
>
> On Dec 19, 2:25 pm, "DogDiesel"<nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
> > About fucking time.
>
> AZ SB-1070, for instance, has been declared unconstitutional by every
> federal court.
That's a lie, racist Ramon. No court has made a ruling on the
constitutionality of the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070#Hearings_and_rulings
George Plimpton
ray-ray Fischer believes Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were good
decisions.
George Plimpton
ray-ray Fischer also likes Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal), and
he likes Elk v. Wilkins (Native Americans are not citizens). Everything
the Supreme Court says, ray-ray believes to be right.
David Hartung
I assume that you are asking why one group has to pay while the other
has plenty of volunteers. The answer is that I don't know.
My question is simple. Why does it matter?
George Plimpton
You're just making it up. You can't identify anyone.
Salty Stan
On October 4, 2005 WKMG television in Florida reported on their
website that fourteen "field laborers broke into an 18-year-old
woman's home, dragged her across the street and then took turns raping
her."
This rampaging gang of "field laborers" consisted of men ranging in
age from 18 to 56. The victim reported they choked her until she
passed out. When she awoke, they were pouring alcohol in her mouth.
She was then raped by each and every one of them.
When these animals finished they pushed her out the front door like a
piece of used meat. Somehow this girl managed to get to a phone where
she called the police. Deputies arrested the 14 men who were still at
the house where the rape occurred. They will be charged with
kidnapping, false imprisonment, and sexual battery by multiple
perpetrators. They face life in prison if convicted.
Not until we get to the end of the WKMG website story is the fact that
the rapists aren't just "farm laborers." Indeed, they are all illegal
aliens. Only at the end of their story do we learn: "Twelve of the men
are from Guatemala, one from Puerto Rico and the other from Mexico."
The rather euphemistic headline is our first clue that it's now very
politically incorrect to even state the truth about a situation when
it comes to illegals. The fact is, besides the obvious primary
importance of the girl being gang raped, the other clearly important
cultural element is the fact that it was carried out by a gang of
illegal aliens.
This is not, unfortunately, a freakish, one-of-a-kind event. Last
year, Heather MacDonald, in a piece for City-Journal which also posted
at Frontpagemagazine.com, addressed the astounding impact of illegal
alien criminals. In "Illegal Alien Crime Wave," she notes that in Los
Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which
total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all
fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
JohnN
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46565.html
>
> House GOP: Bills will have to cite Constitution
> New GOP rules will require all bills to cite 'specific constitutional
> authority.'
>
> Updated: 12/17/10 6:57 PM EST
>
> Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill
>
> And for those who may have skipped that constitutional law class,
> Republicans have organized four staff briefings prior to the Jan. 5
> start of the 112th Congress to provide guidance on compliance with the
> Visitor Center.
>
> GOP leaders have prepared a memo for all members of the new Congress
> and senior staff informing them that no bill may be introduced unless
> the sponsor has submitted for the Congressional Record a statement
> “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to
> Congress” to enact the measure. The memo included five examples of
> forms that sponsors could include with their legislation.
>
> (snip)
I wish the Republicans had provided a few examples of constitutional
and unconstitutional bills considered by the present Congress.
JohnN
Harold Burton
<a324c5e9-a317-4907...@15g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> Or, instead of citing a Constitutional provision, proposed legislation
> can cite Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.
The legislation stuck a nerve.
snicker
Harold Burton
<74253292-5a87-4a73...@w17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Christopher Helms <Chrish...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 5:37�pm, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"
> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
> some staffer to cite constitutional authority
Yeah, ya can't expect some lowly staffer to understand the constitution.
snicker.
Harold Burton
<51ea3aa0-52f1-4cca...@z26g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
> On Dec 19, 7:17�pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
> > some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
> > accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
>
> HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate. Cases like bush v gore and plyler
> v doe and roe v wade prove that their rulings are just based on which
> side gives them the biggest bribe.
Bingo.
Lefturds tend to be very selective about which Supreme Court rulings
they endorse.
snicker
Harold Burton
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 19, 7:17 pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
> >> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
> >> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
> >
> >HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
>
> The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
Unless it disagrees with a lefturd.
snicker
Harold Burton
"Bob" <daln...@att.net> wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4d10f5cb$0$44065$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> > Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year <xeto...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>On Dec 19, 7:17 pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
> >>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
> >>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
> >>
> >>HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
> >
> > The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
>
> They are frequently wrong ...
Only when they disagree with you?
> it's just that we have
> to live with the decisions until they are changed by
> future decisions.
Hahahahahahahahahhaha
WR
> On 12/19/2010 08:17 PM, Christopher Helms wrote:
>
> > That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
> > some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>
> We have the reasonable expectation that those who serve in the
> legislative branch of our government are indeed constitutional scholars.
Like Tom DeLay or Sonny Bono? Anyone who is above 25 and US citizen
can run for congress. They don't have to be able to read, have a
driver's license or be able to numbers. WHen SOnny Bono died your
constitutional scholar Republicans had his wife, a cocktail waitress,
appointed in his place. They even lauded the great job she did.
WR
> On Dec 19, 5:37 pm, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"
>
>
>
>
>
> <old_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46565.html
>
> > > House GOP: Bills will have to cite Constitution
> > > New GOP rules will require all bills to cite 'specific constitutional
> > > authority.'
>
> > > Updated: 12/17/10 6:57 PM EST
>
> > > Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House
> > > Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill
> > > filed in the House “cite its specific constitutional authority.”
>
> > > And for those who may have skipped that constitutional law class,
> > > Republicans have organized four staff briefings prior to the Jan. 5
> > > start of the 112th Congress to provide guidance on compliance with the
> > > new rule. The first session will be Monday at 1 p.m. in the Capitol
> > > Visitor Center.
>
> > > GOP leaders have prepared a memo for all members of the new Congress
> > > and senior staff informing them that no bill may be introduced unless
> > > the sponsor has submitted for the Congressional Record a statement
> > > “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to
> > > Congress” to enact the measure. The memo included five examples of
> > > forms that sponsors could include with their legislation.
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > Or, instead of citing a Constitutional provision, proposed legislation
> > can cite Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.
>
> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.
This is all political theatre, Chris. They'll pass a law and cite the
interstate commerce clause, or the line in the constitution that
allows congress to raise funds for defense, or something similar. The
rightards think this is going to put a screeching halt to legislation.
It's not. It's not even going to ensure the constitutionality of the
laws that are passed. The right-wing Republicans are the most
disgusting politicians on the hill.
David Hartung
> The right-wing Republicans are the most
> disgusting politicians on the hill.
Right up there with Left Wing Democrats.
sid9
"David Hartung" <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message
news:-rmdnd2Vks3o5IzQ...@giganews.com...
> On 12/21/2010 09:54 PM, WR wrote:
>
>> The right-wing Republicans are the most
>> disgusting politicians on the hill.
>
Let me fix this line for you:
> Right up there with the Left Wing Democrat.
.
.
There's only one, Dennis Kucinich.
Buster Norris
wrote:
George Plumpton is a fatass wetback faggot and a brokeback fraud!!!!!!
Frauds are Exposed:
From: George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
From: George Plimpton <notg...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.3.133.105
Host: h-69-3-133-105.lsanca54.dynamic.covad.net
940 N Milford St
Orange, CA 92867
From: Rudy Canoza <notg...@yahoo.com>
From: Wilson Woods <notg...@yahoo.com>
From: Wilson Woods <ban...@hotmail.com>
From: K <Kvis...@live.con>
From: Ron Hamilton <dh_ld@>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.165.18.223
Host: h-68-165-18-223.lsanca54.dynamic.covad.net
15202 Caravaca Rd
La Mirada, CA 90638
From: Wilson Woods <ban...@hotmail.com>
From: K <Kvis...@live.con>
From: Ron Hamilton <dh_ld@>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.245.7.227
Host: h-72-245-7-227.lsanca54.dynamic.covad.net
773 W Potrero Rd
Westlake Village, CA 91361
From: Ron Hamilton <ban...@hotmail.com>
From: Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot>
From: Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.164.234.86
Host: h-68-164-234-86.lsanca54.dynamic.covad.net
1831 W Washington Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90006
Covad Business Internet Services - Broadband service built for
business
Since 1997, Covad has been delivering broadband designed especially
for small and mid-sized businesses.
http://www.covad.com/
---< Update>----------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:15:21 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
>On 9/29/2010 8:48 PM, Buster Norris wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:41:49 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>> Frauds are Exposed:
>Spammy exposed:
>From: Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com>
>Message-ID: <4428a61nmchkd177n...@4ax.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
>From: Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com>
>Message-ID: <0qfs9654goau4ah8t...@4ax.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
>Golly, Spammy - not even one fucking percent of posters to Usenet
>newsgroups use Forte Agent,
No cite... Probably a lie...
You LACK the data, the intelligence, the skills and the tools to
determine what percentage of posters use Forte Agent.
I lack NONE of the above, which is why you will ALWAYS be an inferior
fat faggot fraud compared to me...
>and you and the impotent cunt "Patriot
>Games" use *exactly* the same build of it?
Could that be because v6.00/32.1186 is the LATEST UPDATE AVAILABLE???
Hahahahahahaha!!!
>BUSTED
For a fat faggot pimp you sure are stupid...
Here's a sampling without IPs:
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
From: Alfred Stomacker <alfreds...@gmail.com>
From: AmericaMourning <nos...@earthlink.net>
From: Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
From: Dave Head <rall...@att.net>
From: David Moss <dm...@adfa.edu.au>
From: Dean Knox <DeanKnox...@America.usa>
From: deaw...@pacbell.net
From: duke <duckg...@cox.net>
From: Ed...@Mylove.com
From: Edgar Earl <e...@zombie.com>
From: EGK <m...@privacy.net>
From: Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
From: Evan Platt <ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com>
From: Fred Hall <fkh...@gmail.com>
From: FredB...@Flox.net
From: Free...@peach.net
From: Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com>
From: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
From: John Doe<joh...@google.com>
From: John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
From: j...@hotmail.com
From: Keith <kilowa...@use-reply-to.invalid>
From: Ku...@Click.com
From: Lady Veteran <arm...@bigfoot.com>
From: Michael Quinn <qwi...@hotmail.com>
From: Mikie <nom...@noplace.org>
From: mr_antone <mr_a...@see.reply.to>
From: Nathan Bedford Forrest <N...@AOL.COM>
From: No Surr...@never.net
From: Nor...@tweet.net
From: Obi...@Dicta.net
From: Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
<themilit...@pacbell.net>
From: Petzl <pet...@gmail.com>
From: R...@HMO.COM
From: shawn <nanof...@gmail.com>
From: Sir Frederick Martin <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com>
From: softsofa <soft...@comcast.net>
From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
From: SteveL <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com>
From: Tecknomage <teck...@NOSPAM.com>
From: Tem...@Fi.net
From: tripletask@gmail..com
From: Yoor...@Jurgis.net
From: Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mai...@foo.com>
Here's a sampling with IPs:
From: "Nusrat, Rowayton, Connecticut" <rizv...@optonline.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.163.161
From: Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.187.225.124
From: Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.190.177.116
From: Mike Smith <m...@wt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.68.222.19
From: ozark...@yahoo.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.30.108.140
From: redvet <red...@lava.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.65.107.18
From: Roedy Green <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.68.248.254
From: Starbuck <Star...@BogusDomain.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1b399d9f.news.sonic.net
From: Tommy the Troll <tom_elamatearthlinkdotnet>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.145.179.143
From: William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: *.newsdawg.com
Now, fat faggot pimp, explain how YOU think I'm ALL OF THOSE
posters...
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!
>Understand this...
Understand that I have enjoyed SHITTING IN YOUR OPEN MOUTH IN PUBLIC.
Understand that IT WILL NEVER END.
Understand that you're finished here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Buster Norris
Buster Norris
Buster Norris
Buster Norris
Buster Norris
Buster Norris
Ray Fischer
>On 12/21/2010 10:44 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2010 08:17 PM, Christopher Helms wrote:
>>>
>>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.
>>>
>>> legislative branch of our government are indeed constitutional scholars.
>>
>> constitutional law?
>
>ray-ray, you stupid cunt:
pimpleton, you dumbshit nazi - you lie out of habit.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4d10f5cb$0$44065$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year <xeto...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>>>
>>>HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
>>
>> The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
>
>They are frequently wrong ...
Not when it comes to law. By definition their opinions are final.
Ray Fischer
>On 12/21/2010 10:45 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 7:17 pm, Christopher Helms<Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
>>>
>>> HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
>>
>> The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
>
Where did I write anything about "good", nazi dumbass?
NoBody
>George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>On 12/21/2010 10:44 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2010 08:17 PM, Christopher Helms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>>>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>>>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.
>>>>
>>>> We have the reasonable expectation that those who serve in the
>>>> legislative branch of our government are indeed constitutional scholars.
>>>
>>> Is that why you vote for someone? Because of their expertise in
>>> constitutional law?
>>
>>ray-ray, you stupid cunt:
>
>pimpleton, you dumbshit nazi - you lie out of habit.
And...irony anyone?
NoBody
>On 21 Dec 2010 18:45:31 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Dec 19, 7:17�pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
>>>
>>>HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
>>
>>The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
>
>You mean, like the Dred Scott Decision?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
<ray-ray crickets.wav> whodda thunk it?
George Plimpton
> George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 12/21/2010 10:44 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2010 08:17 PM, Christopher Helms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>>>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>>>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.
>>>>
>>>> We have the reasonable expectation that those who serve in the
>>>> legislative branch of our government are indeed constitutional scholars.
>>>
>>> Is that why you vote for someone? Because of their expertise in
>>> constitutional law?
>>
>>
>> I think you did, ray-ray, but even if you didn't, plenty of other leftist dopes did. Here's one:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/48059418e3f8fd73
>>
>> That douche, Bwanson Huntress, just pissed himself swooning over Hussein's supposed qualifications, using the embarrassingly extravagant language:
>>
>> If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the
>> first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter
>> registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years
>> as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator
>> representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of
>> the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4
>> years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million
>> people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign
>> Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees
>>
>> There were *hundreds* of posts in news groups you pollute, ray-ray, fawning over Hussein's supposed intellect because he was a (all bow down) "Constitutional Law" [sic] "professor" [sic] - except he was never a professor, and was never on a tenure track; he was only a lecturer. The obsequious fawners also never say why it's a mark of greater intellect to teach "Constitutional" [sic] law rather than torts, civil procedure, family law, etc.
>
> I lie out of habit.
I know, ray-ray, you cunt - everyone knows.
liberal
So overly broad a condemnation as to be stupid. Try using examples of
Liberal democrat (as opposed to DINO) legislation you despise. (I
assume you are referring to legislation...as democrats may have
personal "failures" [see: Charlie Rangel] but democrats don't pretend
to be more moral than anyone else, thus enacting laws against
activities that hurt others.)
You anti-civil rights,food safety,the national highway system, NASA,
NIH, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare (which began when movie
newsreels showed the poverty of families destroyed by coal mine
disasters), mine safety,pollution control,etc??????
The problem here is the nation *YOU* want is the confederacy, complete
with slavery.
liberal
> Bob <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >news:4d10f5cb$0$44065$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >> Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year <xeton2...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Dec 19, 7:17 pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
> >>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
> >>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
>
> >>>HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
>
> >> The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
>
> >They are frequently wrong ...
>
> Not when it comes to law. By definition their opinions are final.
No they're not. One SC ruling can overturn a previous decision.
Constitutional amendments can overturn SC decisions.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
> rfisc...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
George Plimpton Is A Wetback Faggot
wrote:
George PumpAsston is a fat dark-brown bone-smoker and a brokeback
fraud!!!!!!
Frauds are Exposed:
George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>|67.101.171.48
SQL Queries <h...@illinois.gov>|67.101.171.48
T. Howard Pines Jr. <al.l...@kfi.com>|67.101.171.48
T. Howard Pines Jr. <som...@somewhere.now>|67.101.171.48
Truman Kaputt <dead....@grave.in.hell>|67.101.171.48
Covad Business Internet Services - Broadband service built for
business
Since 1997, Covad has been delivering broadband designed especially
for small and mid-sized businesses.
http://www.covad.com/
---< Update>----------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:15:21 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
George Plimpton Is A Wetback Faggot
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 22, 3:16 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Bob <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >news:4d10f5cb$0$44065$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> >> Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year <xeton2...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>On Dec 19, 7:17 pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> That's what they'll end up doing. It's all guesswork. You can't expect
>> >>>> some staffer to cite constitutional authority with any sort of
>> >>>> accuracy. That's what the Supreme Court does.-
>>
>> >>>HAHAHA. The SC is hardly accurate.
>>
>> >> The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong.
>>
>> >They are frequently wrong ...
>>
>> Not when it comes to law. By definition their opinions are final.
>
>No they're not. One SC ruling can overturn a previous decision.
Now you're just quibbling.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
Ramon F Herrera
> On 12/21/2010 01:46 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 5:11 pm, David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/20/2010 01:00 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 20, 11:50 am, David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/20/2010 11:24 AM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 19, 2:25 pm, "DogDiesel"<nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
> >>>>> > About fucking time.
>
> >>>>> AZ SB-1070, for instance, has been declared unconstitutional by every
> >>>>> federal court.
>
> >>>>> You racists and assorted haters are batting 0 for 7 on that one.
>
> >>> > 0 for 7? Please explain.
>
> >>> Dave, being a decent and worthy opponent, perhaps you can explain this
> >>> long-running mystery, wrapped inside an enigma: The anti-immigrant
> >>> crowd has to pay high-priced lawyers, and as a result several towns
> >>> are tethering on the edge of bankruptcy:
>
> >>> "Meanwhile, Hazleton might have just become a whole lot poorer. After
> >>> begging anti-illegal immigration activists nationwide for cash, the
> >>> city was showered with $430,000 to pay down its massive legal debt. In
> >>> October, the town was running of fumes with a measly $10,000 in the
> >>> legal fund, barely enough to fight a few parking tickets."
>
> >>> Meanwhile, the pro-immigrant side's can take their pick of the litter
> >>> among the brightest young legal minds from America's best schools, who
> >>> are vying to join the cases FOR FREE, or, as the legal eagles are
> >>> proud to say: Pro-Bono. That is in addition to the big guns hired by
> >>> ACLU, the Chamber of Commerce and others in the pro-immigrant side.
>
> >>> (It is clear which side knows the meaning of the term "DIGNITY").
>
> >>> Six years I have been asking that critical question and no one has
> >>> been able to explain that unusual disparity to me...
>
> >>> -Ramon
>
> > > What is your question?
>
> > What would be your guess as to:
>
> > (1) Pro-illegal-immigrant groups getting plenty of free bright
> > volunteers.
>
> > (2) Anti-illegal-immigrant groups paying full price and expensive
> > legal fees.
>
> > I though the 2nd. groups was composed by patriots and "Real Americans"
> > working to save our country from an invasion and traitors (and yet
> > can't find one single).
>
> > -Ramon
>
> I assume that you are asking why one group has to pay while the other
> has plenty of volunteers. The answer is that I don't know.
>
> My question is simple. Why does it matter?
It matters when we rely on democracy and the will of the people. My
explanation is that the anti-immigrant side is (mostly) based on
illegitimate motivations such as hate. Pure, simple, old fashioned
hate towards human beings.
Just take a look at who is on the side of anti-immigrants here in
Usenet.
Another equivalent argument I always make: How come NOT EVEN ONE
corporation supports the anti-immigrants, NOT EVEN ONE religious
denomination (save the Westboro Baptist Church), NOT A SINGLE military
institution?
-Ramon
David Hartung
I would suggest that you have no idea what motivates those of us who
oppose illegal immigration.
NoBody
Of course this analysis comes from the guy who thinks the Dredd Scott
decision was correct since he says the Supreme Court can't be
incorrect...
Ramon F Herrera
We all oppose illegal immigration. It is a dreadful business that
should be fixed.
The question remains though, how come there is zero legitimate (ie,
institutional) support for the anti-immigrants?
Other than yourself (who are not an institution) you cannot cite ONE
single legitimate organization on your side.
In short there are only two positions:
(1) Against CIR and Path to Citizenship: NumbersUSA and its network.
They are undeniably racists, white supremacists. A hateful crowd.
(2) For CIR and a Path to Citizenship: The rest of the US
organizations. EVERY single one (business, religious and military). I
can provide evidence for my side, you cannot for yours.
-Ramon
Ray Fischer
You're lying.
NoBody
Ray Fischer
No, asshole. You are LYING.
And here is the proof that you're a liar...
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/a64a6e42ee66e572?dmode=source
>
>"The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong."
No mention of "correct" or what I think of their decisions. You just
make uyp your own littgle fairy tales and pretend that they come from
other people.
Bob
You win the "squirm" prize for December 2010.
Ray Fischer
You don't win any prize for being a rightard liar. There are too many
of you stupidly dishonest assholes.
NoBody
Amazing to what level of squirming you will resort to when you've said
something stupid. You said the Supreme Court is never wrong:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrong
: something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect b : the state of being guilty
If you believe they can never be wrong (and that's *your* statement)
then Dredd Scott must have been decided correctly. If you disagree
with it personally that's one thing (and you *still* haven't said
this) but your statement was all encompassing with no wiggle room for
legal or personal opinion. Please provide support for your claim that
Dredd Scott was decided correctly since you (indirectly) stated it was
was not a wrong decision. Don't blame me...they were *your* words.
NoBody
Indeed. Ray-ray stepped in it and refuses to admit it. Of course,
this is typical for him -- he's right and everyone else is wrong even
when they have facts on their side. He will just simply delete them
and declare them to be false.
NoBody
And...irony anyone?
NoBody
<ray-ray crickets.wav>
NoBody
I forgot to add "or simply run away and vanish".
Ray Fischer
You lied. Now you're lying about what I wrote in order to justify
your prior lie.
> You said the Supreme Court is never wrong:
Legally they are never wrong.
NoBody
I quoted you you moron...
>
>> You said the Supreme Court is never wrong:
>
>Legally they are never wrong.
Then you believe Dredd Scott was decided correctly..duh...
Ray Fischer
There's another lie.
>>> You said the Supreme Court is never wrong:
>>
>>Legally they are never wrong.
>
>Then you believe Dredd Scott was decided correctly.
Where did I use the word "correct", asshole?
NoBody
Read your own post idiot.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/a64a6e42ee66e572?dmode=source
The US Supreme Court, by definition, is never wrong."
>
>>>> You said the Supreme Court is never wrong:
>>>
>>>Legally they are never wrong.
>>
>>Then you believe Dredd Scott was decided correctly.
>
>Where did I use the word "correct", asshole?
If something is not "wrong" what is it, ray-ray? Face it ray-ray, you
got caught saying something incredibly foolish and just can't deal
with it. OBTW, you've not condemned the Dredd Scott decision in this
thread to date.
Ray Fischer
Nothing there about whether they were correct, or whether I agreed
with them. You lied.
>>>>> You said the Supreme Court is never wrong:
>>>>
>>>>Legally they are never wrong.
>>>
>>>Then you believe Dredd Scott was decided correctly.
>>
>>Where did I use the word "correct", asshole?
>
>If something is
The asshole is squirming, again trying to redefine words to justify
its habitual lying.
NoBody
What's it mean when they're not wrong? Why, to normal people people,
it means they're right. So clearly, especially in light of the fact
that I've invited you to clarify your position (and you haven't) you
agree with their decision on Dredd Scott.
>
>>>>>> You said the Supreme Court is never wrong:
>>>>>
>>>>>Legally they are never wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Then you believe Dredd Scott was decided correctly.
>>>
>>>Where did I use the word "correct", asshole?
>>
>>If something is
>
>The asshole is squirming, again trying to redefine words to justify
>its habitual lying.
That would be you ray-ray. Sorry your own words clearly demonstrated
you to be the fool everyone knows you are.
NoBody
<ray-ray crickets.wav>
Ray Fischer
You lied. No amount of squirming will change that. Playing stupid
won't change that. More lies won't change that.
NoBody
I didn't lie about anything. I quoted you, idiot. When will you tell
us your position on the Dredd Scott and explain why if the SC can't be
wrong, the decision was not right?
Coward...