Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Do Liberal Dems Keep Flattering A Revisionist Like Scalia By Calling Him An "Originalist?"
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Bret Cahill
May 2, 2012, 11:42:49 AM5/2/12
to
The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
Why Oh Why do liberal Dems keep calling Scalia an originalist?
Bret Cahill
separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
Why Oh Why do liberal Dems keep calling Scalia an originalist?
Bret Cahill
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
May 2, 2012, 1:33:30 PM5/2/12
to
him a lard-assed, shit-for-brains, grease-oozing, scum-sucking,
bought-and-paid-for Dago.
pnyikos
May 2, 2012, 1:35:34 PM5/2/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net, nyi...@math.sc.edu
On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing! Where is your
> The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
documentation of *any* of the founders besides Thomas Jefferson
writing about "the separation of church and state"?
Do you even know what the word "respecting" means in the first
amendment to the Constitution?
> Ditto for
> Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
By the way, do you think a mandate by the federal government to force
everyone to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional?
[Careful: I do not claim a state law to that effect would be in
violation of the US Constitution. ]
> Why Oh Why do liberal Dems keep calling Scalia an originalist?
> Bret Cahill
By the way, are you any relation to Lisa Sowle Cahill, who has written
about abortion in a scholarly manner?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Bret Cahill
May 2, 2012, 1:42:02 PM5/2/12
to
> > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing!
Only an ignorant tire biter would think "reading the Constitution" was
> > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing!
"amazing."
> Where is your
> documentation of *any* of the founders besides Thomas Jefferson
> writing about "the separation of church and state"?
Seven Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
ministers running for public office and "public opinion precluded it
everywhere else."
Bret Cahill
Padraigh ProAmerica
May 2, 2012, 2:39:23 PM5/2/12
to
In the post-colonial republic, many towns used tax money to help fund
bringing a minister to the town.
The First Amendment didn't apply to the States until the passage of the
14th Amendment in 1868. Until then, it was a brake on purely NATIONAL
events.
--
"A good march should make a man with a wooden leg want to step out."--
John Phillip Sousa
bringing a minister to the town.
The First Amendment didn't apply to the States until the passage of the
14th Amendment in 1868. Until then, it was a brake on purely NATIONAL
events.
--
"A good march should make a man with a wooden leg want to step out."--
John Phillip Sousa
pnyikos
May 2, 2012, 5:18:00 PM5/2/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 2, 1:42 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing!
>
> Only an ignorant tire biter would think "reading the Constitution" was
> "amazing."
Only a sophomoric ignoramus would think that separation of church and
> > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing!
>
> Only an ignorant tire biter would think "reading the Constitution" was
> "amazing."
state is written into the US Constitution.
The fact that you deleted my question about whether you know the
meaning of "respecting" is also telling.
Here's a little hint: three states had established Congregationalist
churches into the 19th century. The 1st Amendment to the US
Constitution forbade Congress to touch them.
> > Where is your
> > documentation of *any* of the founders besides Thomas Jefferson
> > writing about "the separation of church and state"?
>
> It wasn't just the founders, but _all_ Americans of that era.
And where is ANY documentation of this?
> Seven Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
> ministers running for public office and "public opinion precluded it
> everywhere else."
those were state constitutions, not federal.
And whom are you quoting?
> Bret Cahill
You deleted the question of whether you are related to Lisa Cahill,
the Boston U. scholar, and I do believe she would be ashamed of you if
you were.
Peter Nyikos
ANTONIN SCALIA
May 2, 2012, 6:53:57 PM5/2/12
to
I will bring charges against anyone on this group who defames me in
any way. Bet on it!
any way. Bet on it!
BeamMeUpScotty
May 2, 2012, 9:54:33 PM5/2/12
to
On 5/2/2012 6:53 PM, ANTONIN SCALIA wrote:
> I will bring charges against anyone on this group who defames me in
> any way. Bet on it!
>
wouldn't "we" have to specifically know WHO you are?
> I will bring charges against anyone on this group who defames me in
> any way. Bet on it!
>
Name, birth date, address...
Then you have to prove we know who you are.
Then you have to prove intent.
And a famous person has little chance of winning a case where someone
mindlessly says negative things about them.
BUT GOOD LUCK WITH ALL THAT ANGER and I hope the class on Thursday
nights can help you....
--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-
Q Harlan Sharkey
May 2, 2012, 7:28:00 PM5/2/12
to
An ultra-left old fool. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
encourage them to continue lying.
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Francine Wickham
May 2, 2012, 7:28:09 PM5/2/12
to
'Lickin' Ass and Fakin' Military Service' is a Proven Fraud, a Proven
Liar and a Proven Thief. She is the most prolific liar in this
newsgroup and also the most prolific thief of other's writings. She is
also a Stolen Valor stain on America. Note that when you reply to a
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:09:20 -0400, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
<PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>S&P bumped the commonwealth's credit rating from AA- to AA under
>Romney's tenure, so he's got a talking point to tout, but the
>interesting thing is how he secured the upgrade.
>HOWEVER -- as we learn here, he got it by pointing to increased taxes:
>http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7941E813-B6CF-4621-ADBC-5A2DD60EC634
>-- quote
>Gov. Mitt Romney lobbied the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s
>in 2004 to raise his state’s credit rating in part because
>Massachusetts had raised taxes during an economic downturn two years
>earlier.
>The claim was part of a presentation to the ratings agency obtained by
>POLITICO under a state freedom of information law from the
>Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
>-- end quote
>I'm confused. Has Romney flipped or has he flopped?
>
>Or is he lying?
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
70th Governor of Massachusetts
In office January 2, 2003 – January 4, 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
Liar and a Proven Thief. She is the most prolific liar in this
newsgroup and also the most prolific thief of other's writings. She is
also a Stolen Valor stain on America. Note that when you reply to a
Proven Liar you encourage them to continue lying.
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
[Courtesy of Buster Norris]
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:09:20 -0400, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
<PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>S&P bumped the commonwealth's credit rating from AA- to AA under
>Romney's tenure, so he's got a talking point to tout, but the
>interesting thing is how he secured the upgrade.
>HOWEVER -- as we learn here, he got it by pointing to increased taxes:
>http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7941E813-B6CF-4621-ADBC-5A2DD60EC634
>-- quote
>Gov. Mitt Romney lobbied the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s
>in 2004 to raise his state’s credit rating in part because
>Massachusetts had raised taxes during an economic downturn two years
>earlier.
>The claim was part of a presentation to the ratings agency obtained by
>POLITICO under a state freedom of information law from the
>Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
>-- end quote
>I'm confused. Has Romney flipped or has he flopped?
>
>Or is he lying?
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
70th Governor of Massachusetts
In office January 2, 2003 – January 4, 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
Orval Fairbairn
May 2, 2012, 10:30:27 PM5/2/12
to
In article
<0f82b3f6-9a71-49b0...@e9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
They had very good reasons to separate Church from the State. After all,
the Constitution was written less than 100 years after the Salem withc
trials. In addition, several of the Colonies had established religion in
their charters.
As Mark Twain remarked, "Preachers promise Heaven on Earth, but they
deliver Hell."
The same can be said for Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Islamists and
any other ism that wishes to impose itself on people and take away their
personal and/or economic freedom.
<0f82b3f6-9a71-49b0...@e9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
the Constitution was written less than 100 years after the Salem withc
trials. In addition, several of the Colonies had established religion in
their charters.
As Mark Twain remarked, "Preachers promise Heaven on Earth, but they
deliver Hell."
The same can be said for Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Islamists and
any other ism that wishes to impose itself on people and take away their
personal and/or economic freedom.
pnyikos
May 2, 2012, 11:31:31 PM5/2/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 2, 10:30 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article
> <0f82b3f6-9a71-49b0-b2bd-f09390c09...@e9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Church and State was written into the US Constitution.
> > > Where is your
> > > documentation of *any* of the founders besides Thomas Jefferson
> > > writing about "the separation of church and state"?
And, ironically, Jefferson's stress was on the state keeping its hands
off the church, rather than vice versa. He would have been appalled
at Obama strong-arming Catholic universities, hospitals, etc. into
violating their consciences.
Notre Dame got NO traction out of giving Obama that honorary
doctorate.
> > It wasn't just the founders, but _all_ Americans of that era.
Sheer baloney.
> > Seven Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
> > ministers running for public office and "public opinion precluded it
> > everywhere else."
>
> > Bret Cahill
No relative of Lisa Cahill, I hope.
> They had very good reasons to separate Church from the State.
Looks like y'all are treating sCftS as a catchall phrase that means
anything you want it to mean.
I believe liberals call this technique "the living Constitution". ;-)
> After all,
> the Constitution was written less than 100 years after the Salem withc
> trials. In addition, several of the Colonies had established religion in
> their charters.
Yes, and I believe Connecticut kept it that way until ca. 1830.
The first amendment forbade Congress to make any law abolishing it.
The word "respecting" meant "with respect to," and it was a knife that
cut both ways. On the one hand, Congress could not make any law
establishing a national church. But equally, it could not
disestablish any state established churches.
States were very jealous of their rights in those days. Did you know
Patrick Henry was against the US Constitution because he thought it
gave too much power to the federal government, even after everyone was
assured the Bill of Rights would be added? It took Herculean efforts
by Madison et.al. (federalist papers and all that) to get New York to
approve the Constitution.
> As Mark Twain remarked, "Preachers promise Heaven on Earth, but they
> deliver Hell."
Mark Twain was an embittered cynic in his later years. I prefer Harry
S Truman's "They think I give them hell, but I give them the truth,
and they think it's hell."
> The same can be said for Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Islamists and
> any other ism that wishes to impose itself on people and take away their
> personal and/or economic freedom.
I'll go along with that to a great extent. Right now, Obama is moving
us towards the kind of fascism one sees in Communist China: lots of
scope for entrepreneurs (including AFAIK some big businesses) but
curtailed personal freedoms.
Contraception is a big business, and some drug companies are drooling
at the prospect of women turning up their noses at generics and going
for the expensive brands, which they can make even more expensive.
It's no skin off the noses of the women, they don't even have to copay
like we have to do for life-saving medicine.
And Obama is in bed with these companies, and with Planned Parenthood.
Peter Nyikos
> In article
> <0f82b3f6-9a71-49b0-b2bd-f09390c09...@e9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing!
>
> > Only an ignorant tire biter would think "reading the Constitution" was
> > "amazing."
And as I said, only a sophomoric ignoramus would think separation of
> > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing!
>
> > Only an ignorant tire biter would think "reading the Constitution" was
> > "amazing."
Church and State was written into the US Constitution.
> > > Where is your
> > > documentation of *any* of the founders besides Thomas Jefferson
> > > writing about "the separation of church and state"?
off the church, rather than vice versa. He would have been appalled
at Obama strong-arming Catholic universities, hospitals, etc. into
violating their consciences.
Notre Dame got NO traction out of giving Obama that honorary
doctorate.
> > It wasn't just the founders, but _all_ Americans of that era.
> > Seven Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
> > ministers running for public office and "public opinion precluded it
> > everywhere else."
>
> > Bret Cahill
> They had very good reasons to separate Church from the State.
anything you want it to mean.
I believe liberals call this technique "the living Constitution". ;-)
> After all,
> the Constitution was written less than 100 years after the Salem withc
> trials. In addition, several of the Colonies had established religion in
> their charters.
The first amendment forbade Congress to make any law abolishing it.
The word "respecting" meant "with respect to," and it was a knife that
cut both ways. On the one hand, Congress could not make any law
establishing a national church. But equally, it could not
disestablish any state established churches.
States were very jealous of their rights in those days. Did you know
Patrick Henry was against the US Constitution because he thought it
gave too much power to the federal government, even after everyone was
assured the Bill of Rights would be added? It took Herculean efforts
by Madison et.al. (federalist papers and all that) to get New York to
approve the Constitution.
> As Mark Twain remarked, "Preachers promise Heaven on Earth, but they
> deliver Hell."
S Truman's "They think I give them hell, but I give them the truth,
and they think it's hell."
> The same can be said for Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Islamists and
> any other ism that wishes to impose itself on people and take away their
> personal and/or economic freedom.
us towards the kind of fascism one sees in Communist China: lots of
scope for entrepreneurs (including AFAIK some big businesses) but
curtailed personal freedoms.
Contraception is a big business, and some drug companies are drooling
at the prospect of women turning up their noses at generics and going
for the expensive brands, which they can make even more expensive.
It's no skin off the noses of the women, they don't even have to copay
like we have to do for life-saving medicine.
And Obama is in bed with these companies, and with Planned Parenthood.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
May 3, 2012, 4:18:07 AM5/3/12
to
In article
<b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
school, plagiarist?
<b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> You've divined the intent of the founders?
didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> You've divined the intent of the founders?
school, plagiarist?
Gary Forbis
May 3, 2012, 5:58:54 AM5/3/12
to
On May 2, 8:31 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 2, 10:30 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <0f82b3f6-9a71-49b0-b2bd-f09390c09...@e9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > > You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing!
>
> > > Only an ignorant tire biter would think "reading the Constitution" was
> > > "amazing."
>
> And as I said, only a sophomoric ignoramus would think separation of
> Church and State was written into the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> On May 2, 10:30 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <0f82b3f6-9a71-49b0-b2bd-f09390c09...@e9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > > You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing!
>
> > > Only an ignorant tire biter would think "reading the Constitution" was
> > > "amazing."
>
> And as I said, only a sophomoric ignoramus would think separation of
> Church and State was written into the US Constitution.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Now I've heard many interpretations of this, including that "an
establishment
of religion" is a building. Under this interpretation what one did in
the
building was your own business but as soon as one steps out of it
religion could be regulated. If this was the case then it seems like
"thereof"
should have been "therein".
The more common interpretation is related to Henry VIII's
establishment
of the Anglican Church and declaring himself the head of the church.
Many people came to the colonies so they could practice their own
religion and did not want the state telling them what the tenets of
their
religion should be.
> > > > Where is your
> > > > documentation of *any* of the founders besides Thomas Jefferson
> > > > writing about "the separation of church and state"?
>
> And, ironically, Jefferson's stress was on the state keeping its hands
> off the church, rather than vice versa. He would have been appalled
> at Obama strong-arming Catholic universities, hospitals, etc. into
> violating their consciences.
that the state saw fit to control. The founding fathers were humans
and
not gods. If you recall an argument about the "ground-zero mosque"
you
will see that many who claim the state does have the right to
interfere
with the free exercise of a religion. Religious beliefs come into
conflict.
The law has to be supreme and not religous beliefs.
The free exercise of religion doesn't extend into business practices.
Once a religion moves into business the business is subject to
regulation.
william mosco
May 3, 2012, 4:53:31 PM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> In article
> <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> school, plagiarist?
stop embarrassing yourself, i'm beginning to feel bad for you.
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> school, plagiarist?
william mosco
May 3, 2012, 4:56:56 PM5/3/12
to
On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
> separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
into the constitution; so how would you know they'd see his alleged
attempts as "obscene"?
pnyikos
May 3, 2012, 5:07:33 PM5/3/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> In article
> <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> school,
I did. Did you?
> > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> school,
If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
In other words, can you succeed where no one in this thread has even
tried?
I'm referring to the alt.abortion thread, from which you crossposted
this to talk.abortion without telling anyone, as per your usual
custom.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 3, 2012, 5:16:20 PM5/3/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
Anyway, I'm glad you are still around, Bill. I was gone for over two
months from the abortion newsgroups, posting heavily at
sci.bio.paleontology and even more at talk.origins, and didn't even
have time to lurk and see what you and Dino are up to.
Among other things, I am taking various steps to try and ensure that
talk.origins doesn't come to resemble talk.abortion any more than it
already does. I've dubbed talk.abortion "the Usenet newsgroup from
hell" there without actually naming it. [But if I see a good reason
for naming it, I will.]
That reminds me--it was great coming back yesterday and posting to
various threads without seeing a single reply to me from "the usual
suspects." It reminded me of an old Irish blessing that ends with
"and may you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you are
gone."
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
May 6, 2012, 4:14:57 AM5/6/12
to
Bret Cahill
May 6, 2012, 1:22:16 PM5/6/12
to
> > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> > Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
Nor did they place the text "individualist ownership of guns" either.
> > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> > Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
What's your point?
> into the constitution; so how would you know
ministers and priests running for public office and anything like Pat
Robertson or, for that matter, Santorum hyping Romney's Mormon
religion at every opportunity, was unthinkable everywhere else.
If you don't read the background material you ain't gonna figger it
out.
Bret Cahill
BeamMeUpScotty
May 6, 2012, 2:13:17 PM5/6/12
to
On 5/6/2012 1:22 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
>>> separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
>>> Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>>
>> the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
>
> Nor did they place the text "individualist ownership of guns" either.
>
> What's your point?
>
>> into the constitution; so how would you know
>
> Seven (7) Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
> ministers and priests running for public office and anything like Pat
> Robertson or,
The Constitution tossed out Profiling and government treating people
>>> The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
>>> separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
>>> Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>>
>> the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
>
> Nor did they place the text "individualist ownership of guns" either.
>
> What's your point?
>
>> into the constitution; so how would you know
>
> Seven (7) Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
> ministers and priests running for public office and anything like Pat
> Robertson or,
different. Remember the Declaration of Independence "all men are created
equal" but after "creation" they are all distinct individuals..... It's
NOT who you were created to be like pre constitutional life, it's NOW
what you do after you are created.
Those seven States became part of the United States and in the United
States, the government treats all people equal under the law. That means
people created that become Catholic priests are no different from people
Created that are of any eye color or any genetic disease in teh eyes of
the law.
> for that matter, Santorum hyping Romney's Mormon
> religion at every opportunity, was unthinkable everywhere else.
pedophiles that you don't want to elect to office and is that personal
or religious or a genetic defect and how do you separate what is NOT a
political issue.
Or to simplify.... do pedophiles believe in God? And does that make it
out of bounds to mention their pedophilia if they say God approves of it?
> If you don't read the background material you ain't gonna figger it
> out.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
Bret Cahill
May 6, 2012, 3:07:01 PM5/6/12
to
> >>> The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> >>> separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> >>> Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> >> the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
>
> > Nor did they place the text "individualist ownership of guns" either.
>
> > What's your point?
>
> >> into the constitution; so how would you know
>
> > Seven (7) Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
> > ministers and priests running for public office and anything like Pat
> > Robertson or,
>
> The Constitution tossed out Profiling and government treating people
> different.
The First Freedom trumps every other right.
> >>> separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> >>> Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> >> the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
>
> > Nor did they place the text "individualist ownership of guns" either.
>
> > What's your point?
>
> >> into the constitution; so how would you know
>
> > Seven (7) Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
> > ministers and priests running for public office and anything like Pat
> > Robertson or,
>
> The Constitution tossed out Profiling and government treating people
> different.
That's why it is called the "First Freedom."
By "censoring" Jesus -- and athiesm -- out of the political debate it
even trumphs the Second Freedom, freedom of communication.
Bret Cahill
william mosco
May 8, 2012, 9:27:31 PM5/8/12
to
On May 6, 1:22 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> > > Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> > the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
>
> Nor did they place the text "individualist ownership of guns" either.
i didn't claim those words were. what is your point?
> > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> > > Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> > the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
>
> Nor did they place the text "individualist ownership of guns" either.
>
> What's your point?
>
> > into the constitution; so how would you know
>
> Seven (7) Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
> ministers and priests running for public office and anything like Pat
> Robertson or, for that matter, Santorum hyping Romney's Mormon
> religion at every opportunity, was unthinkable everywhere else.
irrelevant. we're talking about the federal constitution.
> What's your point?
>
> > into the constitution; so how would you know
>
> Seven (7) Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
> ministers and priests running for public office and anything like Pat
> Robertson or, for that matter, Santorum hyping Romney's Mormon
> religion at every opportunity, was unthinkable everywhere else.
Nickname unavailable
May 8, 2012, 10:16:43 PM5/8/12
to
Nickname unavailable
May 8, 2012, 10:18:13 PM5/8/12
to
On May 2, 12:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing! Where is your
> documentation of *any* of the founders besides Thomas Jefferson
> writing about "the separation of church and state"?
>
> Do you even know what the word "respecting" means in the first
> amendment to the Constitution?
>
> > Ditto for
> > Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> Elaborate, please.
>
> By the way, do you think a mandate by the federal government to force
> everyone to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional?
>
mandates are constitutional.
> On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> You've divined the intent of the founders? Amazing! Where is your
> documentation of *any* of the founders besides Thomas Jefferson
> writing about "the separation of church and state"?
>
> Do you even know what the word "respecting" means in the first
> amendment to the Constitution?
>
> > Ditto for
> > Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> Elaborate, please.
>
> By the way, do you think a mandate by the federal government to force
> everyone to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional?
>
> [Careful: I do not claim a state law to that effect would be in
> violation of the US Constitution. ]
>
> > Why Oh Why do liberal Dems keep calling Scalia an originalist?
>
> Why not?
>
Bill Graham
May 9, 2012, 12:04:26 AM5/9/12
to
religions were one of those problems. Today, we are experiencing the same
kinde of problems with religion and its recognition by the state. Why (for
exdample) is thee a special tax table for, "married couples" in the IRS form
1040? Did some religious lobby get congress to put it there? And if so,
isn't this a problem with, congress making laws that, "respect an
establishment of religion"? As an atheist, it disturbs me that the word,
"marriage" is even used in any government document, either state or federal.
Marriage is a religious ritual, and as such, the state should have nothing
to do with it, much less giving tax breaks to those who practice it.
Bret Cahill
May 9, 2012, 12:07:55 AM5/9/12
to
> > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> > > > Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> > > the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
>
> > Nor did they place the text "individualist ownership of guns" either.
>
> i didn't claim those words were.
Do you claim to disagree with everything passed by congress that isn't
> > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> > > > Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> > > the founders never placed the text: "separation of church and state",
>
> > Nor did they place the text "individualist ownership of guns" either.
>
> i didn't claim those words were.
specifically in the constitution?
What about the Louisiana purchase? That's not in the constitution
either.
You think we should sell it back to France?
> what is your point?
> > What's your point?
>
> > > into the constitution; so how would you know
>
> > Seven (7) Revolutionary era state constitutions had an outright ban on
> > ministers and priests running for public office and anything like Pat
> > Robertson or, for that matter, Santorum hyping Romney's Mormon
> > religion at every opportunity, was unthinkable everywhere else.
>
> irrelevant. we're talking about the federal constitution.
to understand the context.
The context is that everything said by and about the Revolutionary
Americans indicates that 99% of Revolutionary Americans agreed with
Jefferson on separation of church and state.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
May 9, 2012, 12:19:52 AM5/9/12
to
church and state.
It gives the 0.001% sponsored media yet another opportunity to Jerry
Springerize the political debate off of disparity of wealth and off of
other vital economic issues and onto yet another culture war.
Ain't that clever?
Ain't that slicker 'n snot?
The early state constitutions also banned atheists from holding public
office. This was smart too as you don't want _anyone_ distracting the
political debate off of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
May 9, 2012, 12:20:53 AM5/9/12
to
> > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> > Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> > Why Oh Why do liberal Dems keep calling Scalia an originalist?
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> he should be called a tory:)
The Tories weren't two bit shills like Scalio, Thomas and Roberts.
> > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene. Ditto for
> > Scalia giving the police all kids of unconstitutional power.
>
> > Why Oh Why do liberal Dems keep calling Scalia an originalist?
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> he should be called a tory:)
Bret Cahill
william mosco
May 9, 2012, 7:40:24 PM5/9/12
to
> <33d3c2af-b3e3-4391-9fe5-9394ea958...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
jimmy's last act of defiance is always the projection angle.
Nickname unavailable
May 9, 2012, 7:42:58 PM5/9/12
to
william mosco
May 9, 2012, 7:35:54 PM5/9/12
to
never said so nor implied such a thing. as a matter of fact, the
first amendment actually guarantees a right to public prayer, no
matter what the religion.
james g. keegan jr.
May 10, 2012, 3:51:09 AM5/10/12
to
In article
<a979edcd-b250-4343...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
es-be-impeached
http://kochwatch.org/index.php?q=node/138
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4g6A-c3AVA
http://godlessliberals.com/Politics/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-a-sca
lia-conflict-of-interest-on-citizens-united.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/02/scalia-chaos-reigns-in-corruption-cases
/
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/judge-antonin-scalia-talks-tea-parte
rs-
a simple google search reveals hundreds of other cases, plagiarist.
are you still pretending to be a phd or do you just admire scalia's
corruption?
<a979edcd-b250-4343...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
> >
> > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
> >
> > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > school,
>
> I did. Did you?
>
> If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
http://fresnofamous.com/01/05/11/republican-justice-antonin-scalia-deserv
> On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
> >
> > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
> >
> > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > school,
>
> I did. Did you?
>
> If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
es-be-impeached
http://kochwatch.org/index.php?q=node/138
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4g6A-c3AVA
http://godlessliberals.com/Politics/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-a-sca
lia-conflict-of-interest-on-citizens-united.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/02/scalia-chaos-reigns-in-corruption-cases
/
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/judge-antonin-scalia-talks-tea-parte
rs-
a simple google search reveals hundreds of other cases, plagiarist.
are you still pretending to be a phd or do you just admire scalia's
corruption?
william mosco
May 10, 2012, 7:16:09 AM5/10/12
to
> <a979edcd-b250-4343-862e-133cd6d19...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> lia-conflict-of-interest-on-citizens-united.html
why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
http://news.investors.com/article/591798/201111151910/elena-kagan-must-be-recused-in-obamacare-case.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > school,
>
> > I did. Did you?
>
> > If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> > which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
>
> http://fresnofamous.com/01/05/11/republican-justice-antonin-scalia-de...
>
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > school,
>
> > I did. Did you?
>
> > If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> > which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
>
> es-be-impeached
>
> http://kochwatch.org/index.php?q=node/138
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4g6A-c3AVA
>
> http://godlessliberals.com/Politics/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-a...
>
> http://kochwatch.org/index.php?q=node/138
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4g6A-c3AVA
>
> lia-conflict-of-interest-on-citizens-united.html
why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
http://news.investors.com/article/591798/201111151910/elena-kagan-must-be-recused-in-obamacare-case.htm
Gary Forbis
May 10, 2012, 9:28:14 AM5/10/12
to
I especially like the last sentence:
Thomas should stay. There's no conflict of interest. Kagan,
though, has to recuse herself if for no other reason than to
protect the integrity of the court.
I needed a laugh.
william mosco
May 10, 2012, 7:06:17 PM5/10/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
glad you got one.
james g. keegan jr.
May 15, 2012, 1:31:51 AM5/15/12
to
james g. keegan jr.
May 15, 2012, 1:32:28 AM5/15/12
to
In article
<c9257494-20e4-418b...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
read more of silly billy's posts and you'll see much more of the same.
<c9257494-20e4-418b...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
james g. keegan jr.
May 15, 2012, 1:33:04 AM5/15/12
to
In article
<b689c98d-e891-47d1...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
<b689c98d-e891-47d1...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 4:14 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <33d3c2af-b3e3-4391-9fe5-9394ea958...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
> >
> > > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
> >
> > > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > > school, plagiarist?
> >
> > > stop embarrassing yourself, i'm beginning to feel bad for you.
> >
> > projection at its finest.
>
> jimmy's last act of defiance is always the projection angle.
whereas billy's is always a new lie.
> On May 6, 4:14 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <33d3c2af-b3e3-4391-9fe5-9394ea958...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
> >
> > > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
> >
> > > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > > school, plagiarist?
> >
> > > stop embarrassing yourself, i'm beginning to feel bad for you.
> >
> > projection at its finest.
>
> jimmy's last act of defiance is always the projection angle.
pnyikos
May 22, 2012, 9:13:20 AM5/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
> <72da8439-b9f7-4548-92ba-8d64e773f...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
What's dishonest about asking for a link? You obviously didn't care
what the link was about.
Peter Nyikos
what the link was about.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 22, 2012, 9:36:03 AM5/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 10, 7:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 3:51 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a979edcd-b250-4343-862e-133cd6d19...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> > > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > > school,
>
> > > I did. Did you?
Keegan still hasn't hinted at any link with the concept of separation
> On May 10, 3:51 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a979edcd-b250-4343-862e-133cd6d19...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> > > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > > school,
>
> > > I did. Did you?
of church and state, even if his urls turn out to show something.
> > > If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> > > which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
recuse himself in an unidentified alleged conflict of interest.
> >http://fresnofamous.com/01/05/11/republican-justice-antonin-scalia-de...
> > es-be-impeached
>
> >http://kochwatch.org/index.php?q=node/138
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4g6A-c3AVA
>
> >http://godlessliberals.com/Politics/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-a...
> > lia-conflict-of-interest-on-citizens-united.html
>
> why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
> with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
> interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
>
> http://news.investors.com/article/591798/201111151910/elena-kagan-must-be-recused-in-obamacare-case.htm
accompanyiing text gives no hint as to what the alleged conflicts of
interest were, you took us to a site where it is all there in black
and white, and readable in a jiffy by a speed reader like myself.
And the text is really hard-hitting:
___________ excerpts___________
Supreme Court: Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare's
creation recuse herself from the court's review of that law? Of
course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn't
be on the court anyway.
If Justice Elena Kagan were a person of character, she would sit out
the Supreme Court's hearing of the challenge to the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act.
But during her confirmation hearings in June of last year, she
indicated she would not. And since this Monday, when the court
announced it would take the case, she has done nothing to suggest she
will recuse herself after all. Nor has the court made any statement
about her recusal, a convention it usually follows when a justice
takes himself or herself off a case.
Here are the facts on Kagan: She was the administration's solicitor
general when ObamaCare became law last year. She has acknowledged that
she was at a meeting in which state litigation against ObamaCare was
discussed, though she said she was not involved in any legal responses
concerning the states' litigation.
We also know that Kagan enthusiastically supported ObamaCare. This is
made clear in emails released last week by the Justice Department.
"I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing," Kagan wrote on
the day ObamaCare passed the House in an email to Laurence Tribe, the
Harvard law professor who was working at that time in the Obama
Justice Department.
...
Nearly lost in this is the possibility that Kagan lied during her
confirmation. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had not
been asked about the legal issues of ObamaCare nor had she offered any
views on them. The emails, however, seem to tell a different story.
Two exclamation points plainly show that in her legal opinion,
ObamaCare was constitutional.
...
The case against Thomas, however, is weak. He didn't work for a White
House that pressed for the law. Nor is there a record of his
disclosing an opinion on it. His only link is his wife, who's been
involved with groups opposed to ObamaCare.
============ end of excerpts
No mention of Scalia. I can only conclude that jimmy keegan is afraid
to tell us what the alleged conflict of interest is in his case.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 22, 2012, 9:45:50 AM5/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net, wm5...@gmail.com
CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
On May 10, 7:06 pm, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 9:28 am, Gary Forbis <forbisga...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 4:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here I've snipped a number of things I talked about in my first reply
to you, Bill, a few minutes ago.
> > > why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
> > > with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
> > > interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
>
> > >http://news.investors.com/article/591798/201111151910/elena-kagan-must-be-recused-in-obamacare-case.htm
I've quoted a lot from here in my first reply. Good solid site, Bill.
> > I especially like the last sentence:
...and I'm sure he hated the ones before, including the ones
immediately preceding the one he cherry-picked:
The case against Thomas, however, is weak.
He didn't work for a White House that pressed
for the law. Nor is there a record of his disclosing
an opinion on it. His only link is his wife,
who's been involved with groups opposed
to ObamaCare.
Laughter and selective deletia are his only weapons, it seems.
Peter Nyikos
On May 10, 7:06 pm, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 9:28 am, Gary Forbis <forbisga...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 4:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
to you, Bill, a few minutes ago.
> > > why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
> > > with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
> > > interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
>
I've quoted a lot from here in my first reply. Good solid site, Bill.
> > I especially like the last sentence:
immediately preceding the one he cherry-picked:
The case against Thomas, however, is weak.
He didn't work for a White House that pressed
for the law. Nor is there a record of his disclosing
an opinion on it. His only link is his wife,
who's been involved with groups opposed
to ObamaCare.
> > Thomas should stay. There's no conflict of interest. Kagan,
> > though, has to recuse herself if for no other reason than to
> > protect the integrity of the court.
>
> > I needed a laugh.
>
> glad you got one.
> > though, has to recuse herself if for no other reason than to
> > protect the integrity of the court.
>
> > I needed a laugh.
>
Laughter and selective deletia are his only weapons, it seems.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 22, 2012, 9:38:27 AM5/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
> <c9257494-20e4-418b-a91f-a68c4b429...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >http://kochwatch.org/index.php?q=node/138
No text, just a headline. Since Keegan is a pathological liar,
anything he posts which has no text is automatically suspect.
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4g6A-c3AVA
No text, just a headline. Since Keegan is a pathological liar,
anything he posts which has no text is automatically suspect.
> > > >http://godlessliberals.com/Politics/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-a...
> > > > lia-conflict-of-interest-on-citizens-united.html
Corrupted url. I did find the correct one, but it just took me to
another video accompanied by an allegation by Rachel Maddow [who could
be a Keeanoid liar for all I know] claiming some unidentified
confllict of interest.
I refuse to spend valuable time looking at a YouTube video which might
have as llittle to do with conflict of interest as Keegan's laughable
"evidence" that I am a plagiarist, exposed in the thread which the
following post inaugurated:
Subject: Pathological Liar of the Month (July 2010):
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/f91b0bde06325f20
> > > why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
> > > with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
> > > interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
>
> > >http://news.investors.com/article/591798/201111151910/elena-kagan-must-be-recused-in-obamacare-case.htm
> > I needed a laugh.
>
> read more of silly billy's posts and you'll see much more of the same.
Good solid pieces of evidence, as opposed to videos whose content you
seem to be completely ignorant of.
Peter Nyikos
> Gary Forbis <forbisga...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 4:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 10, 3:51 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <a979edcd-b250-4343-862e-133cd6d19...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > > > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> > > > > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > > > > school,
>
> > > > > I did. Did you?
>
> > > > > If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> > > > > which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
>
> > > >http://fresnofamous.com/01/05/11/republican-justice-antonin-scalia-de...
> > > > es-be-impeached
Corrupted url. Couldn't figure out what went in the ellipsis.
>
> > On May 10, 4:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 10, 3:51 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <a979edcd-b250-4343-862e-133cd6d19...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > > > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> > > > > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > > > > school,
>
> > > > > I did. Did you?
>
> > > > > If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> > > > > which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
>
> > > >http://fresnofamous.com/01/05/11/republican-justice-antonin-scalia-de...
> > > > es-be-impeached
> > > >http://kochwatch.org/index.php?q=node/138
No text, just a headline. Since Keegan is a pathological liar,
anything he posts which has no text is automatically suspect.
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4g6A-c3AVA
No text, just a headline. Since Keegan is a pathological liar,
anything he posts which has no text is automatically suspect.
> > > >http://godlessliberals.com/Politics/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-a...
> > > > lia-conflict-of-interest-on-citizens-united.html
Corrupted url. I did find the correct one, but it just took me to
another video accompanied by an allegation by Rachel Maddow [who could
be a Keeanoid liar for all I know] claiming some unidentified
confllict of interest.
I refuse to spend valuable time looking at a YouTube video which might
have as llittle to do with conflict of interest as Keegan's laughable
"evidence" that I am a plagiarist, exposed in the thread which the
following post inaugurated:
Subject: Pathological Liar of the Month (July 2010):
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/f91b0bde06325f20
> > > why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
> > > with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
> > > interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
>
>
> > I especially like the last sentence:
>
> > Thomas should stay. There's no conflict of interest. Kagan,
> > though, has to recuse herself if for no other reason than to
> > protect the integrity of the court.
This suggests strongly that Forbis only sees what he wants to see.
> > I especially like the last sentence:
>
> > Thomas should stay. There's no conflict of interest. Kagan,
> > though, has to recuse herself if for no other reason than to
> > protect the integrity of the court.
> > I needed a laugh.
>
> read more of silly billy's posts and you'll see much more of the same.
seem to be completely ignorant of.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 22, 2012, 10:08:10 AM5/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net, ospr...@hotmail.com, what...@homemail.com, wm5...@gmail.com
> <a979edcd-b250-4343-862e-133cd6d19...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > school,
>
> > I did. Did you?
>
> > If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> > which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
Here I've deleted four urls which I've already commented on, in reply
to the pathological liar posting as "james g. keegan, jr." and also in
reply to Bill Mosco.
> http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/02/scalia-chaos-reigns-in-corruption-cases
Let me guess: You googled "corruption" and "Scalia" and found an url
that had the two words together, but never bothered to actually look
at the site. Correct?
Here's the headline and the first few sentences:
Scalia: “Chaos” reigns in corruption cases
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting from the
Supreme Court’s refusal on Monday to
review a Chicago public corruption case,
complained that the federal law governing
such cases is so loosely worded that it
could even be used against “a salaried employee’s
phoning in sick to go to a ball game.”
And, in case that isn't enough to tell an addlepated maniac like you
what the article is really all about, here's a little more:
He contended that the Court should
take on the task of interpreting the fraud law,
and deciding whether, in fact, it is unconstitutional.
“It seems to me quite irresponsible
to let the current chaos prevail,” he wrote.
> http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/judge-antonin-scalia-talks-tea-p...
> rs-
Corrupted url. Do you have the guts -- or even the KNOWLEDGE -- to
let us know what the linked page was supposed to be all about..
> a simple google search reveals hundreds of other cases,
...where "scalia" appear in an url along with a word like
"corruption"? Don't make me laugh!
> are you still pretending to be a phd
I have a Ph.D. [see below] as well as a professorship [ibid.] and I
can prove it to you. You, on the other hand, cannot even prove that
you aren't senile and stupid.
"Spartakus" was able to make you look comparatively un-senile and un-
stupid with his shameless bootlicking of you together with a sometimes
urbane and erudite way of writing that helped him maintain his
dishonest facade of what I call "counterfeit sincerity".
Now you have no one who can make you even appear to be a decent or
likable human being.
>or do you just admire scalia's
> corruption?
Do you ever read anything (or, in the case of videos, listen to
anything) before you post its url?
Peter Nyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
>
> > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
>
> > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > school,
>
> > I did. Did you?
>
> > If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> > which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
to the pathological liar posting as "james g. keegan, jr." and also in
reply to Bill Mosco.
> http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/02/scalia-chaos-reigns-in-corruption-cases
Let me guess: You googled "corruption" and "Scalia" and found an url
that had the two words together, but never bothered to actually look
at the site. Correct?
Here's the headline and the first few sentences:
Scalia: “Chaos” reigns in corruption cases
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting from the
Supreme Court’s refusal on Monday to
review a Chicago public corruption case,
complained that the federal law governing
such cases is so loosely worded that it
could even be used against “a salaried employee’s
phoning in sick to go to a ball game.”
And, in case that isn't enough to tell an addlepated maniac like you
what the article is really all about, here's a little more:
He contended that the Court should
take on the task of interpreting the fraud law,
and deciding whether, in fact, it is unconstitutional.
“It seems to me quite irresponsible
to let the current chaos prevail,” he wrote.
> http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/judge-antonin-scalia-talks-tea-p...
> rs-
Corrupted url. Do you have the guts -- or even the KNOWLEDGE -- to
let us know what the linked page was supposed to be all about..
> a simple google search reveals hundreds of other cases,
"corruption"? Don't make me laugh!
> are you still pretending to be a phd
can prove it to you. You, on the other hand, cannot even prove that
you aren't senile and stupid.
"Spartakus" was able to make you look comparatively un-senile and un-
stupid with his shameless bootlicking of you together with a sometimes
urbane and erudite way of writing that helped him maintain his
dishonest facade of what I call "counterfeit sincerity".
Now you have no one who can make you even appear to be a decent or
likable human being.
>or do you just admire scalia's
> corruption?
anything) before you post its url?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 22, 2012, 10:18:35 AM5/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 22, 10:08 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I have a Ph.D. [see below] as well as a professorship [ibid.] and I
> can prove it to you.
I forgot to use my extended virtual .sig in the preceding post, but
> I have a Ph.D. [see below] as well as a professorship [ibid.] and I
> can prove it to you.
here it is, below. [and, if you are reading this in Google, it
appears below the first post, just not in the expected place.]
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
deadrat
May 22, 2012, 2:03:56 PM5/22/12
to
<snip/>
james g. keegan jr.
May 23, 2012, 2:40:00 AM5/23/12
to
In article
<840fcf74-2d7b-4fbe...@h41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
faced with overwhelming evidence that his claims were false, the
plagiarist posting as peter nyikos falls into a state of denial.
is anyone surprised?
<840fcf74-2d7b-4fbe...@h41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
plagiarist posting as peter nyikos falls into a state of denial.
is anyone surprised?
james g. keegan jr.
May 23, 2012, 2:41:01 AM5/23/12
to
In article
<a7671f60-1104-47c5...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
claims against crook scalia, some of which you responded to plagiarist.
<a7671f60-1104-47c5...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
and scads of proof has been posted in that time period documenting the
> CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
claims against crook scalia, some of which you responded to plagiarist.
james g. keegan jr.
May 23, 2012, 2:42:04 AM5/23/12
to
In article
<05215ff8-2e6a-4ab6...@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
<05215ff8-2e6a-4ab6...@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 10, 7:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 3:51 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <a979edcd-b250-4343-862e-133cd6d19...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
> >
> > > > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
> >
> > > > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > > > school,
> >
> > > > I did. Did you?
>
> Keegan still hasn't hinted at any
you previously responded to proof proving that you are lying, plagiarist.
> On May 10, 7:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 3:51 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <a979edcd-b250-4343-862e-133cd6d19...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
> >
> > > > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
> >
> > > > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > > > school,
> >
> > > > I did. Did you?
>
> Keegan still hasn't hinted at any
james g. keegan jr.
May 23, 2012, 2:43:14 AM5/23/12
to
In article
<d9550a9d-4343-4a07...@b1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
you should have read the thread before you posted such a transparently
dishonest question, plagiarist.
<d9550a9d-4343-4a07...@b1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
dishonest question, plagiarist.
Gary Forbis
May 23, 2012, 3:05:28 AM5/23/12
to
On May 22, 6:45 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
>
> On May 10, 7:06 pm, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 9:28 am, Gary Forbis <forbisga...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On May 10, 4:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here I've snipped a number of things I talked about in my first reply
> to you, Bill, a few minutes ago.
>
> > > > why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
> > > > with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
> > > > interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
>
> > > >http://news.investors.com/article/591798/201111151910/elena-kagan-mus...
> CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
>
> On May 10, 7:06 pm, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 9:28 am, Gary Forbis <forbisga...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On May 10, 4:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here I've snipped a number of things I talked about in my first reply
> to you, Bill, a few minutes ago.
>
> > > > why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
> > > > with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
> > > > interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
>
>
> I've quoted a lot from here in my first reply. Good solid site, Bill.
>
> > > I especially like the last sentence:
>
> ...and I'm sure he hated the ones before, including the ones
> immediately preceding the one he cherry-picked:
>
> The case against Thomas, however, is weak.
> He didn't work for a White House that pressed
> for the law. Nor is there a record of his disclosing
> an opinion on it. His only link is his wife,
> who's been involved with groups opposed
> to ObamaCare.
Financial entanglement is the worst form. Thomas
> I've quoted a lot from here in my first reply. Good solid site, Bill.
>
> > > I especially like the last sentence:
>
> ...and I'm sure he hated the ones before, including the ones
> immediately preceding the one he cherry-picked:
>
> The case against Thomas, however, is weak.
> He didn't work for a White House that pressed
> for the law. Nor is there a record of his disclosing
> an opinion on it. His only link is his wife,
> who's been involved with groups opposed
> to ObamaCare.
stood to gain financially from his ruling. How is that weak?
Then there are the Koch brother's retreats:
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/clarence-thomas-fails-disclose-citizens-uni
james g. keegan jr.
May 27, 2012, 5:05:47 AM5/27/12
to
In article
<86dde94d-bbcd-4a03...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
plagiarist. nice of you to admit it here, though.
<86dde94d-bbcd-4a03...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Here I've deleted four urls which I've already commented on, in reply
> to the pathological liar posting as "james g. keegan, jr." and also in
> reply to Bill Mosco.
>
you often deleted proof that you were lying about one thing or another,
> Here I've deleted four urls which I've already commented on, in reply
> to the pathological liar posting as "james g. keegan, jr." and also in
> reply to Bill Mosco.
>
plagiarist. nice of you to admit it here, though.
pnyikos
May 31, 2012, 2:42:40 PM5/31/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
>
> > Well done, Bill! Unlike Keegan's corrupted urls and videos whose
> > accompanyiing text gives no hint as to what the alleged conflicts of
> > interest were, you took us to a site where it is all there in black
> > and white, and readable in a jiffy by a speed reader like myself.
>
> > And the text is really hard-hitting:
>
> > ___________ excerpts___________
>
> > Supreme Court: Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare's
> > creation recuse herself from the court's review of that law? Of
> > course.
>
> Why?
> <snip/>
Do you know the meaning of the word "recuse," or does it have to be
> > Well done, Bill! Unlike Keegan's corrupted urls and videos whose
> > accompanyiing text gives no hint as to what the alleged conflicts of
> > interest were, you took us to a site where it is all there in black
> > and white, and readable in a jiffy by a speed reader like myself.
>
> > And the text is really hard-hitting:
>
> > ___________ excerpts___________
>
> > Supreme Court: Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare's
> > creation recuse herself from the court's review of that law? Of
> > course.
>
> Why?
> <snip/>
explained to you?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
May 31, 2012, 2:56:11 PM5/31/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
> <a7671f60-1104-47c5-8fa7-7ef51fc38...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
any credible evidence for the claim that Scalia is a crook, or even
that he ought to recuse himself.
Meanwhile, you covered yourself in doo-doo by not checking the
contents of a site whose url you posted, or else lying about it, as I
demonstrated in the following post:
____________ begin repost_____________
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics, alt.politics, misc.legal,
alt.abortion, alt.news-media
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 07:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Why Do Liberal Dems Keep Flattering A Revisionist Like
Scalia By Calling Him An "Originalist?"
On May 10, 3:51 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <a979edcd-b250-4343-862e-133cd6d19...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
> > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
> > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > school,
> > I did. Did you?
> > If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> > which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
Let me guess: You googled "corruption" and "Scalia" and found an url
that had the two words together, but never bothered to actually look
at the site. Correct?
Here's the headline and the first few sentences:
Scalia: “Chaos” reigns in corruption cases
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting from the
Supreme Court’s refusal on Monday to
review a Chicago public corruption case,
complained that the federal law governing
such cases is so loosely worded that it
could even be used against “a salaried employee’s
phoning in sick to go to a ball game.”
And, in case that isn't enough to tell an addlepated maniac like you
what the article is really all about, here's a little more:
He contended that the Court should
take on the task of interpreting the fraud law,
and deciding whether, in fact, it is unconstitutional.
“It seems to me quite irresponsible
to let the current chaos prevail,” he wrote.
> http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/judge-antonin-scalia-talks-tea-p...
> rs-
Corrupted url. Do you have the guts -- or even the KNOWLEDGE -- to
let us know what the linked page was supposed to be all about..
at http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/c6744f83efd7748f
> plagiarist.
"plagiarist" is a lie I have refuted many times, like here:
Subject: Pathological Liar of the Month (July 2010):
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/f91b0bde06325f20
and most recently, almost exactly one hour ago, from a different
angle:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/9152d32ec1836dc4?dmode=source
Message-ID:
<df257f2f-5f3f-4d52...@i19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
>
> and scads of proof has been posted in that time period documenting the
> claims against crook scalia, some of which you responded to
People documented the fact that those cliams, have been made, but not
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
>
> and scads of proof has been posted in that time period documenting the
> claims against crook scalia, some of which you responded to
any credible evidence for the claim that Scalia is a crook, or even
that he ought to recuse himself.
Meanwhile, you covered yourself in doo-doo by not checking the
contents of a site whose url you posted, or else lying about it, as I
demonstrated in the following post:
____________ begin repost_____________
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics, alt.politics, misc.legal,
alt.abortion, alt.news-media
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 07:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Why Do Liberal Dems Keep Flattering A Revisionist Like
Scalia By Calling Him An "Originalist?"
On May 10, 3:51 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <a979edcd-b250-4343-862e-133cd6d19...@a5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 3, 4:18 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b2e33ba3-f5c4-44d5-82da-1780ac890...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 2, 11:42 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The founders would have considered Scalia attempts to weaken
> > > > > separation of church and state nothing short of obscene.
> > > > You've divined the intent of the founders?
> > > didn't you learn about the separation of church and state in grammar
> > > school,
> > I did. Did you?
> > If so, you should be able to find at least two attempts by Scalia
> > which a founding father would demonstrably be appalled at.
Here I've deleted four urls which I've already commented on, in reply
to the pathological liar posting as "james g. keegan, jr." and also in
reply to Bill Mosco.
> http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/02/scalia-chaos-reigns-in-corruption-c...
to the pathological liar posting as "james g. keegan, jr." and also in
reply to Bill Mosco.
Let me guess: You googled "corruption" and "Scalia" and found an url
that had the two words together, but never bothered to actually look
at the site. Correct?
Here's the headline and the first few sentences:
Scalia: “Chaos” reigns in corruption cases
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting from the
Supreme Court’s refusal on Monday to
review a Chicago public corruption case,
complained that the federal law governing
such cases is so loosely worded that it
could even be used against “a salaried employee’s
phoning in sick to go to a ball game.”
And, in case that isn't enough to tell an addlepated maniac like you
what the article is really all about, here's a little more:
He contended that the Court should
take on the task of interpreting the fraud law,
and deciding whether, in fact, it is unconstitutional.
“It seems to me quite irresponsible
to let the current chaos prevail,” he wrote.
> http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/judge-antonin-scalia-talks-tea-p...
> rs-
Corrupted url. Do you have the guts -- or even the KNOWLEDGE -- to
let us know what the linked page was supposed to be all about..
> a simple google search reveals hundreds of other cases,
...where "scalia" appear in an url along with a word like
"corruption"? Don't make me laugh!
"corruption"? Don't make me laugh!
> are you still pretending to be a phd
I have a Ph.D. [see below] as well as a professorship [ibid.] and I
can prove it to you. You, on the other hand, cannot even prove that
you aren't senile and stupid.
"Spartakus" was able to make you look comparatively un-senile and un-
stupid with his shameless bootlicking of you together with a sometimes
urbane and erudite way of writing that helped him maintain his
dishonest facade of what I call "counterfeit sincerity".
Now you have no one who can make you even appear to be a decent or
likable human being.
you aren't senile and stupid.
"Spartakus" was able to make you look comparatively un-senile and un-
stupid with his shameless bootlicking of you together with a sometimes
urbane and erudite way of writing that helped him maintain his
dishonest facade of what I call "counterfeit sincerity".
Now you have no one who can make you even appear to be a decent or
likable human being.
>or do you just admire scalia's
> corruption?
> corruption?
Do you ever read anything (or, in the case of videos, listen to
anything) before you post its url?
Peter Nyikos
================ end of post archived
anything) before you post its url?
Peter Nyikos
at http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/c6744f83efd7748f
> plagiarist.
"plagiarist" is a lie I have refuted many times, like here:
Subject: Pathological Liar of the Month (July 2010):
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/f91b0bde06325f20
angle:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/9152d32ec1836dc4?dmode=source
Message-ID:
<df257f2f-5f3f-4d52...@i19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
pnyikos
May 31, 2012, 3:22:29 PM5/31/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On May 23, 3:05 am, Gary Forbis <forbisga...@msn.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 6:45 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
>
> > On May 10, 7:06 pm, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 9:28 am, Gary Forbis <forbisga...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 10, 4:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here I've snipped a number of things I talked about in my first reply
> > to you, Bill, a few minutes ago.
>
> > > > > why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
> > > > > with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
> > > > > interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
>
> > > > >http://news.investors.com/article/591798/201111151910/elena-kagan-mus...
>
> > I've quoted a lot from here in my first reply. Good solid site, Bill.
>
> > > > I especially like the last sentence:
>
> > ...and I'm sure he hated the ones before, including the ones
> > immediately preceding the one he cherry-picked:
>
> > The case against Thomas, however, is weak.
> > He didn't work for a White House that pressed
> > for the law. Nor is there a record of his disclosing
> > an opinion on it. His only link is his wife,
> > who's been involved with groups opposed
> > to ObamaCare.
>
> Financial entanglement is the worst form. Thomas
> stood to gain financially from his ruling.
Which one? in what way? Documentation, please:
> On May 22, 6:45 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
>
> > On May 10, 7:06 pm, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 9:28 am, Gary Forbis <forbisga...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 10, 4:16 am, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here I've snipped a number of things I talked about in my first reply
> > to you, Bill, a few minutes ago.
>
> > > > > why didn't you post a link demonstrating a direct conflict of interest
> > > > > with elana kagan and obama care along with this non-direct conflict of
> > > > > interest of thomas's wife and obamacare?
>
> > > > >http://news.investors.com/article/591798/201111151910/elena-kagan-mus...
>
> > I've quoted a lot from here in my first reply. Good solid site, Bill.
>
> > > > I especially like the last sentence:
>
> > ...and I'm sure he hated the ones before, including the ones
> > immediately preceding the one he cherry-picked:
>
> > The case against Thomas, however, is weak.
> > He didn't work for a White House that pressed
> > for the law. Nor is there a record of his disclosing
> > an opinion on it. His only link is his wife,
> > who's been involved with groups opposed
> > to ObamaCare.
>
> Financial entanglement is the worst form. Thomas
> stood to gain financially from his ruling.
> Then there are the Koch brother's retreats:
> http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/clarence-thomas-fails-disclose-citizens-uni
something at the bottom of the webpage about Koch brothers, but the
word "Thomas" does not appear in the linked article,
http://blueamerica.crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/koch-brothers-give-candidates-million
And the only place "Thomas" appears on the whole page is in the
following announcement:
Blue America Welcomes Trevor Thomas (D-MI)
Let me guess: you did a james g. keegan, jr. style web-search,
entering "crooks" and "Thomas" and "Koch" and, like keegan, you didn't
bother to check out the url that scored the most hits.
As for what YOUR link says about him: the money there was spent by
citizens who were afraid, and rightly so, that a massively
hypocritical campaign would be waged against Thomas; the article does
not even allege that Thomas got as much as one thin dime of what was
spent.
It reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes case of the dog that did not bark
in the night.
Read the comments on the article, especially the one by ricky —
2/16/11 9:05am and the unanswered one by The Last Word — 2/16/11
9:07am a few posts down. Sure, there are lots of rabidly anti-Thomas
comments in there, but most of them are just spleen-venting.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
Jun 2, 2012, 1:31:49 AM6/2/12
to
In article
<7591f721-0da0-4a4d...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
suppose we could quibble and refer to the paragraph above as a compound
lie.
<7591f721-0da0-4a4d...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 23, 2:41 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a7671f60-1104-47c5-8fa7-7ef51fc38...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
> >
> > and scads of proof has been posted in that time period documenting the
> > claims against crook scalia, some of which you responded to
>
> People documented the fact that those cliams, have been made, but not
> any credible evidence for the claim that Scalia is a crook, or even
> that he ought to recuse himself.
your post was cut following your first three lies plagiarist, although i
> On May 23, 2:41 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a7671f60-1104-47c5-8fa7-7ef51fc38...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
> >
> > and scads of proof has been posted in that time period documenting the
> > claims against crook scalia, some of which you responded to
>
> People documented the fact that those cliams, have been made, but not
> any credible evidence for the claim that Scalia is a crook, or even
> that he ought to recuse himself.
suppose we could quibble and refer to the paragraph above as a compound
lie.
pnyikos
Jun 4, 2012, 2:12:01 PM6/4/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
> <7591f721-0da0-4a4d-b860-031e092c2...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
You are such a pathetic has-been [or should I say never-was] and
pathological liar that you regularly use baseless falsehoods as a
substitute for evidence. And that is what you have done here, you
plagiarist.
As for your counter-charge of "plagiarist" against me, the following
two posts in combination decisively refute that:
Subject: Pathological Liar of the Month (July 2010):
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/f91b0bde06325f20
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/9152d32ec1836dc4
Peter Nyikos
pathological liar that you regularly use baseless falsehoods as a
substitute for evidence. And that is what you have done here, you
plagiarist.
As for your counter-charge of "plagiarist" against me, the following
two posts in combination decisively refute that:
Subject: Pathological Liar of the Month (July 2010):
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/f91b0bde06325f20
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
Jun 5, 2012, 2:47:46 AM6/5/12
to
In article
<b157af16-9b95-4252...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
<b157af16-9b95-4252...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 1:31 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7591f721-0da0-4a4d-b860-031e092c2...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 2:41 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <a7671f60-1104-47c5-8fa7-7ef51fc38...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
> >
> > > > and scads of proof has been posted in that time period documenting the
> > > > claims against crook scalia, some of which you responded to
> >
> > > People documented the fact that those cliams, have been made, but not
> > > any credible evidence for the claim that Scalia is a crook, or even
> > > that he ought to recuse himself.
> >
> > your post was cut following your first three lies plagiarist, although i
> > suppose we could quibble and refer to the paragraph above as a compound
> > lie.
>
> You are such a pathetic has-been [or should I say never-was] and
> pathological liar that you regularly use baseless falsehoods as a
> substitute for evidence.
your post was cut following our first new lie, plagiarist.
> On Jun 2, 1:31 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7591f721-0da0-4a4d-b860-031e092c2...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 2:41 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <a7671f60-1104-47c5-8fa7-7ef51fc38...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > CC: Bill, because almost two weeks have passed since he posted this.
> >
> > > > and scads of proof has been posted in that time period documenting the
> > > > claims against crook scalia, some of which you responded to
> >
> > > People documented the fact that those cliams, have been made, but not
> > > any credible evidence for the claim that Scalia is a crook, or even
> > > that he ought to recuse himself.
> >
> > your post was cut following your first three lies plagiarist, although i
> > suppose we could quibble and refer to the paragraph above as a compound
> > lie.
>
> You are such a pathetic has-been [or should I say never-was] and
> pathological liar that you regularly use baseless falsehoods as a
> substitute for evidence.
0 new messages