info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How we KNOW you don't have a right to just whatever arms you want
61 views
Skip to first unread message
Rudy Canoza
Jun 9, 2022, 12:39:32 PM6/9/22
to
We *know* this because the courts have said so. They've said so both in
particular instances, and as a matter of broad legal principle, i.e., what *the
law* is.
They have said so in particular cases because states have passed some weapons
bans and bans on e.g. large capacity magazines, and federal appellate courts
have *always* upheld them when challenged.
And they have said so as a comprehensive, irrefutable statement of *the law*
when Scalia said in Heller:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
What Scalia said is *correct*, *definitive* and *not in rational dispute*. It
is *the law* that you don't have a right to just whatever guns or arms you want.
This has been *the law* for centuries, and it is not going to change.
It may be the case that, at present, there is no law prohibiting possession of,
say, functioning rocket propelled grenades, but that doesn't mean you have a
"right" to have them. Why not? Because such a law might be passed, and if it
is, it *will* be upheld by every court. What would that mean? It would mean
that the law does not infringe your right to arms. And what would *that* mean?
It would mean that you don't have a *right* to that particular arm. That's what
it means.
And this is not "limiting" your rights. This is operating *within* the
*inherent* limits of the right. If you think you have a "right" to just
whatever arms you wish, then you fundamentally do not understand the right to
arms...because you are wrong.
You do not have a right to just whatever arms you want, no matter how much you
stamp your little fag foot and shriek "yeah, we do." *No*, you don't, and this
is settled. This is...*the law*.
particular instances, and as a matter of broad legal principle, i.e., what *the
law* is.
They have said so in particular cases because states have passed some weapons
bans and bans on e.g. large capacity magazines, and federal appellate courts
have *always* upheld them when challenged.
And they have said so as a comprehensive, irrefutable statement of *the law*
when Scalia said in Heller:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
What Scalia said is *correct*, *definitive* and *not in rational dispute*. It
is *the law* that you don't have a right to just whatever guns or arms you want.
This has been *the law* for centuries, and it is not going to change.
It may be the case that, at present, there is no law prohibiting possession of,
say, functioning rocket propelled grenades, but that doesn't mean you have a
"right" to have them. Why not? Because such a law might be passed, and if it
is, it *will* be upheld by every court. What would that mean? It would mean
that the law does not infringe your right to arms. And what would *that* mean?
It would mean that you don't have a *right* to that particular arm. That's what
it means.
And this is not "limiting" your rights. This is operating *within* the
*inherent* limits of the right. If you think you have a "right" to just
whatever arms you wish, then you fundamentally do not understand the right to
arms...because you are wrong.
You do not have a right to just whatever arms you want, no matter how much you
stamp your little fag foot and shriek "yeah, we do." *No*, you don't, and this
is settled. This is...*the law*.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
THE son of the First Cause
Jun 9, 2022, 1:08:41 PM6/9/22
to
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:06:24 AM UTC-7, % wrote:
> >> You do not have a right to just whatever arms you want, no matter how much you
> >> stamp your little fag foot and shriek "yeah, we do." *No*, you don't, and this
> >> is settled. This is...*the law*.
> >
> > In case you ever encounter a scary bug, like you, this comes in handy:
> >> You do not have a right to just whatever arms you want, no matter how much you
> >> stamp your little fag foot and shriek "yeah, we do." *No*, you don't, and this
> >> is settled. This is...*the law*.
> >
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmalTsg4FAA
> >
> hey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYgnOc6Cd34
%
Jun 9, 2022, 1:10:29 PM6/9/22
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
JWS
Jun 9, 2022, 1:46:17 PM6/9/22
to
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 11:39:32 AM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> How we KNOW you don't have a right to just whatever arms you want
I have Charles Atlas arms.
> How we KNOW you don't have a right to just whatever arms you want
I have Charles Atlas arms.
%
Jun 9, 2022, 2:14:59 PM6/9/22
to
Just Wondering
Jun 9, 2022, 2:27:47 PM6/9/22
to
On 6/9/2022 10:53 AM, Bill Schultz wrote:
> And the fact that you keep shrieking about it means you're desperately
> trying to convince yourself. That's delicious.
> Oh, and, you're a dwarf.
>
You spelled "wizened little troll" wrong.
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 09:39:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> We *know* this because the courts have said so.
>
> No, they have not. This is settled.
>
>> We *know* this because the courts have said so.
>
> And the fact that you keep shrieking about it means you're desperately
> trying to convince yourself. That's delicious.
> Oh, and, you're a dwarf.
>
You spelled "wizened little troll" wrong.
JWS
Jun 9, 2022, 3:15:34 PM6/9/22
to
and not about deeds.
So the issue would be: "have i over-
stepped my bounds?"
%
Jun 9, 2022, 4:53:01 PM6/9/22
to
Message has been deleted
Gronk
Jun 14, 2022, 11:34:02 PM6/14/22
to
Bill Schultz wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 09:39:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We *know* this because the courts have said so.
>
> wrote:
>
>> We *know* this because the courts have said so.
>
> No, they have not. This is settled.
Don't you know about the Heller decision?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jun 15, 2022, 5:53:10 AM6/15/22
to
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 21:33:58 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>Bill Schultz wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 09:39:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We *know* this because the courts have said so.
>>
>> No, they have not. This is settled.
>
>Don't you know about the Heller decision?
Don't you?
wrote:
>Bill Schultz wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 09:39:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We *know* this because the courts have said so.
>>
>> No, they have not. This is settled.
>
>Don't you know about the Heller decision?
Gronk
Jun 20, 2022, 1:48:41 AM6/20/22
to
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example,
concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the
Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession
of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government
buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the
commercial sale of arms. "
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jun 20, 2022, 6:16:08 AM6/20/22
to
On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 23:48:36 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
So? Who is arguing that felons or mentally ill should have guns?
wrote:
Scout
Jun 20, 2022, 8:05:21 AM6/20/22
to
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:t5i0bh5p8j45mmv31...@4ax.com...
before the court and had their rights limited by Due Process under the 5th
Amendment.
That's a vastly different situation than simply unilaterally and arbitrarily
depriving all American's of their rights.
Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated that
such could NOT be done.
Siri Cruise
Jun 20, 2022, 8:16:45 AM6/20/22
to
In article <t8pnps$v0d$2...@dont-email.me>,
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Chen sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated that
> such could NOT be done.
And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated that
> such could NOT be done.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Chen sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jun 20, 2022, 8:32:04 AM6/20/22
to
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 05:16:21 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <t8pnps$v0d$2...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated that
>> such could NOT be done.
>
>And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
No, they can't.
wrote:
>In article <t8pnps$v0d$2...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated that
>> such could NOT be done.
>
>And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
Blue Lives Matter
Jun 20, 2022, 8:59:57 AM6/20/22
to
lordofal...@gmail.com
Jun 20, 2022, 9:19:35 AM6/20/22
to
On 6/9/2022 12:53 PM, Bill Schultz wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 09:39:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 09:39:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We *know* this because the courts have said so.
>
>
> No, they have not. This is settled.
>
>
> And the fact that you keep shrieking about it means you're desperately
> trying to convince yourself. That's delicious.
>
> Oh, and, you're a dwarf.
>
Jewish News of N. California
> trying to convince yourself. That's delicious.
>
> Oh, and, you're a dwarf.
>
The communist tyrant Joseph Stalin was known as an anti-Semite who
planned wide-scale purges against the Jews in his latter days. But
that may not have prevented him from having an affair with a Jewish
woman and of taking care of her daughter until her mother died.
According to some evidence, Stalin may have even married the woman …
It’s still not clear if this was just an affair or whether the couple
actually married because all documents pertaining to Stalin’s personal
life were confiscated in the 1920s, and Stalin personally destroyed
“incriminating” documents. The official version of his biography,
published in the U.S.S.R., mentions two women: Yekaterina Svanidze,
who died of tuberculosis, and Nadezhda Alliluyeva, who committed
suicide. Indirect evidence shows that [Ana] Rubinstein may also have
been a legal wife.
https://jweekly.com/2007/09/27/did-stalin-have-a-jewish-wife-and-stepdaughter/
Just Wondering
Jun 20, 2022, 3:36:46 PM6/20/22
to
On 6/20/2022 6:16 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>
> if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
>
If I was as abjectly ignorant about natural rights as are you,
>
> if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
>
I wouldn't publicly advertise that fact like you do.
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 20, 2022, 9:59:04 PM6/20/22
to
>In article <t8pnps$v0d$2...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated that
>> such could NOT be done.
>
>And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
The Senate does not have the power to reverse SCOTUS decisions.
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated that
>> such could NOT be done.
>
>And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
Swill
--
Fostergate, CattleFuturesgate, Travelgate,
Filegate, Troopergate, Whitewater, BenghaziGate,
EmailGate, Uraniumgate - the list of GOP manufactured "scandals"
involving Hillary that have never amounted to
anything goes back for decades. The rightwing fear
of her just goes on and on............
- On "Hillarygate" from Usenet poster
Scout
Jun 21, 2022, 9:23:36 AM6/21/22
to
"Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-2C90D...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <t8pnps$v0d$2...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated that
>> such could NOT be done.
>
> And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
The Senate can't override SCOTUS much less the Constitution of the United
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated that
>> such could NOT be done.
>
> And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
States of America.
However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a political
football...
Which BTW is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. So they won't
be.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
Siri Cruise
Jun 21, 2022, 9:41:17 AM6/21/22
to
In article <t8sgoj$4o7$4...@dont-email.me>,
the courts with no opposition. And the supreme court he packed
has abandonned stare decisi. Next time democrats control the
senate they can use the new rules to repack courts.
> However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a political
> football...
Too bad nobody warned off Moscow Mitch. You bitch and moan, as
above, that democrats can use the new republican rules, but not
when republicans did.
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> > And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
>
> The Senate can't override SCOTUS much less the Constitution of the United
> States of America.
Moscow Mitch established new rules that a +1 majority can pack
> > And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
>
> The Senate can't override SCOTUS much less the Constitution of the United
> States of America.
the courts with no opposition. And the supreme court he packed
has abandonned stare decisi. Next time democrats control the
senate they can use the new rules to repack courts.
> However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a political
> football...
above, that democrats can use the new republican rules, but not
when republicans did.
Mitchell Holman
Jun 21, 2022, 9:47:37 AM6/21/22
to
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:t8sgoj$4o7$4...@dont-email.me:
>
>
> "Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-2C90D...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <t8pnps$v0d$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated
>>> that such could NOT be done.
>>
>> And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
>
> The Senate can't override SCOTUS much less the Constitution of the
> United States of America.
>
> However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a
> political
> football...
>
> Which BTW is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. So they
> won't be.
>
> "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Where is "consent of the governed" when
a state legislature can overturn an election
if they don't like the result?
Arizona bill would allow legislature to
overturn election results
01/27/22
An arch conservative member of Arizona’s
state House of Representatives has proposed
a mammoth overhaul of the state’s voting
procedures that would allow legislators to
overturn the results of a primary or general
election after months of unfounded allegations
and partisan audits.
The bill, introduced by state Rep. John
Fillmore (R), would substantially change the
way Arizonans vote by eliminating most early
and absentee voting and requiring people to
vote in their home precincts, rather than at
vote centers set up around the state.
Most dramatically, Fillmore’s bill would
require the legislature to hold a special
session after an election to review election
processes and results, and to "accept or
reject the election results."
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/591597-arizona-bill-would-allow-
legislature-to-overturn-election-results/
news:t8sgoj$4o7$4...@dont-email.me:
>
>
> "Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-2C90D...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <t8pnps$v0d$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated
>>> that such could NOT be done.
>>
>> And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
>
> The Senate can't override SCOTUS much less the Constitution of the
> United States of America.
>
> However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a
> political
> football...
>
> Which BTW is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. So they
> won't be.
>
> "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
a state legislature can overturn an election
if they don't like the result?
Arizona bill would allow legislature to
overturn election results
01/27/22
An arch conservative member of Arizona’s
state House of Representatives has proposed
a mammoth overhaul of the state’s voting
procedures that would allow legislators to
overturn the results of a primary or general
election after months of unfounded allegations
and partisan audits.
The bill, introduced by state Rep. John
Fillmore (R), would substantially change the
way Arizonans vote by eliminating most early
and absentee voting and requiring people to
vote in their home precincts, rather than at
vote centers set up around the state.
Most dramatically, Fillmore’s bill would
require the legislature to hold a special
session after an election to review election
processes and results, and to "accept or
reject the election results."
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/591597-arizona-bill-would-allow-
legislature-to-overturn-election-results/
Scout
Jun 21, 2022, 11:19:56 AM6/21/22
to
news:chine.bleu-520E6...@news.eternal-september.org...
I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>> However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a
>> political
>> football...
>
> Too bad nobody warned off Moscow Mitch. You bitch and moan, as
> above, that democrats can use the new republican rules, but not
> when republicans did.
Why not.. Democrats forced similar rules on the Republicans.
They were the ones that made such nominations a political issue. Now, you're
complaining because Republicans finished what Democrats started?
> In article <t8sgoj$4o7$4...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> > And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
>>
>> The Senate can't override SCOTUS much less the Constitution of the United
>> States of America.
>
> Moscow Mitch established new rules that a +1 majority can pack
> the courts with no opposition. And the supreme court he packed
> has abandonned stare decisi. Next time democrats control the
> senate they can use the new rules to repack courts.
Assuming enough justices retire or die to allow that.
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> > And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
>>
>> The Senate can't override SCOTUS much less the Constitution of the United
>> States of America.
>
> Moscow Mitch established new rules that a +1 majority can pack
> the courts with no opposition. And the supreme court he packed
> has abandonned stare decisi. Next time democrats control the
> senate they can use the new rules to repack courts.
I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>> However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a
>> political
>> football...
>
> Too bad nobody warned off Moscow Mitch. You bitch and moan, as
> above, that democrats can use the new republican rules, but not
> when republicans did.
They were the ones that made such nominations a political issue. Now, you're
complaining because Republicans finished what Democrats started?
Siri Cruise
Jun 21, 2022, 2:26:25 PM6/21/22
to
In article <t8snil$cgu$1...@dont-email.me>,
> I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
> option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
Liar. Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
adults had to act to get some judges appointed. Then when he got
the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
then packed the courts.
> They were the ones that made such nominations a political issue. Now, you're
> complaining because Republicans finished what Democrats started?
No, they sidn't liar. And once Roe v Wade is reverse,
congratulations, stare decisi is voided and all the decisions
you're so happy with are up to who packed the courts last.
And you'll keep whining how unfair it is.
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> > Moscow Mitch established new rules that a +1 majority can pack
> > the courts with no opposition. And the supreme court he packed
> > has abandonned stare decisi. Next time democrats control the
> > senate they can use the new rules to repack courts.
>
> Assuming enough justices retire or die to allow that.
Congress can increase the number of judges.
> > Moscow Mitch established new rules that a +1 majority can pack
> > the courts with no opposition. And the supreme court he packed
> > has abandonned stare decisi. Next time democrats control the
> > senate they can use the new rules to repack courts.
>
> Assuming enough justices retire or die to allow that.
> I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
> option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
adults had to act to get some judges appointed. Then when he got
the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
then packed the courts.
> They were the ones that made such nominations a political issue. Now, you're
> complaining because Republicans finished what Democrats started?
congratulations, stare decisi is voided and all the decisions
you're so happy with are up to who packed the courts last.
And you'll keep whining how unfair it is.
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 21, 2022, 6:17:47 PM6/21/22
to
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 08:37:52 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a political
>football...
Siri is a Republican?
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a political
>football...
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 21, 2022, 6:19:17 PM6/21/22
to
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:16:23 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
Those damned Democrats! We got the House, the Senate, the Oval Office
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
and the courts and those mofos STILL run the government!
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 21, 2022, 6:21:30 PM6/21/22
to
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:26:17 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Liar. Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
>to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
>adults had to act to get some judges appointed. Then when he got
>the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
>then packed the courts.
True. McConnell did everything he could to slow the appointments
process under Obama. Remember Mitch's Merrick Garland fiasco? But
when Trump was sworn in he couldn't push appointments fast enough.
wrote:
>Liar. Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
>to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
>adults had to act to get some judges appointed. Then when he got
>the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
>then packed the courts.
process under Obama. Remember Mitch's Merrick Garland fiasco? But
when Trump was sworn in he couldn't push appointments fast enough.
Scout
Jun 22, 2022, 10:39:14 AM6/22/22
to
news:chine.bleu-2BD86...@news.eternal-september.org...
government and start working to end such tyranny.
>
>> I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>> option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>
> Liar.
First you say I'm lying...
> Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
> to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
> adults had to act to get some judges appointed.
Then you admit I was right...
>Then when he got
> the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
> then packed the courts.
Then complain that he did the same thing that Democrats did.
>> They were the ones that made such nominations a political issue. Now,
>> you're
>> complaining because Republicans finished what Democrats started?
>
> No, they sidn't liar.
Yes, they did and your ignorance and/or denial of that does not alter the
facts.
>And once Roe v Wade is reverse,
So? Lots of decisions have been reversed.
> congratulations, stare decisi is voided and all the decisions
> you're so happy with are up to who packed the courts last.
Yep, and you can thank Democrats for that.
See your problem is that once you break that barrier, you don't think
Republicans will go "Ok, if they're going to do that, we will too"
See, that's your real complain that when Democrats break the wall... the
Republicans won't follow them over.
> In article <t8snil$cgu$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> > Moscow Mitch established new rules that a +1 majority can pack
>> > the courts with no opposition. And the supreme court he packed
>> > has abandonned stare decisi. Next time democrats control the
>> > senate they can use the new rules to repack courts.
>>
>> Assuming enough justices retire or die to allow that.
>
> Congress can increase the number of judges.
Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> > Moscow Mitch established new rules that a +1 majority can pack
>> > the courts with no opposition. And the supreme court he packed
>> > has abandonned stare decisi. Next time democrats control the
>> > senate they can use the new rules to repack courts.
>>
>> Assuming enough justices retire or die to allow that.
>
> Congress can increase the number of judges.
government and start working to end such tyranny.
>
>> I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>> option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>
> Liar.
> Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
> to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
> adults had to act to get some judges appointed.
>Then when he got
> the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
> then packed the courts.
>> They were the ones that made such nominations a political issue. Now,
>> you're
>> complaining because Republicans finished what Democrats started?
>
> No, they sidn't liar.
facts.
>And once Roe v Wade is reverse,
> congratulations, stare decisi is voided and all the decisions
> you're so happy with are up to who packed the courts last.
See your problem is that once you break that barrier, you don't think
Republicans will go "Ok, if they're going to do that, we will too"
See, that's your real complain that when Democrats break the wall... the
Republicans won't follow them over.
Scout
Jun 22, 2022, 10:39:15 AM6/22/22
to
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uug4bhhqn1977js7s...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:26:17 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Liar. Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
>>to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
>>adults had to act to get some judges appointed. Then when he got
>>the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
>>then packed the courts.
>
> True. McConnell did everything he could to slow the appointments
> process under Obama. Remember Mitch's Merrick Garland fiasco? But
> when Trump was sworn in he couldn't push appointments fast enough.
Nothing new.... Democrats have done the same.
> wrote:
>
>>Liar. Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
>>to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
>>adults had to act to get some judges appointed. Then when he got
>>the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
>>then packed the courts.
>
> True. McConnell did everything he could to slow the appointments
> process under Obama. Remember Mitch's Merrick Garland fiasco? But
> when Trump was sworn in he couldn't push appointments fast enough.
They made such appointments a political football.. now they are complaining
that Republicans are now playing the same game.
Scout
Jun 22, 2022, 10:39:16 AM6/22/22
to
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jsg4bhp34scs87chp...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:16:23 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>>option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>
> Those damned Democrats! We got the House, the Senate, the Oval Office
> and the courts and those mofos STILL run the government!
Yea, and look how bad it's been for America......
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>>option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>
> Those damned Democrats! We got the House, the Senate, the Oval Office
> and the courts and those mofos STILL run the government!
Siri Cruise
Jun 22, 2022, 11:03:27 AM6/22/22
to
In article <t8v9id$4n0$4...@dont-email.me>,
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
> government and start working to end such tyranny.
Like Lysistrata?
> Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
> government and start working to end such tyranny.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jun 22, 2022, 11:11:44 AM6/22/22
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:03:21 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <t8v9id$4n0$4...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
>> government and start working to end such tyranny.
>
>Like Lysistrata?
You can clear that up with a vinegar douche.
wrote:
>In article <t8v9id$4n0$4...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
>> government and start working to end such tyranny.
>
>Like Lysistrata?
Mitchell Holman
Jun 22, 2022, 1:43:36 PM6/22/22
to
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:t8v9id$4n0$4...@dont-email.me:
>
>
> "Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-2BD86...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <t8snil$cgu$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Moscow Mitch established new rules that a +1 majority can pack
>>> > the courts with no opposition. And the supreme court he packed
>>> > has abandonned stare decisi. Next time democrats control the
>>> > senate they can use the new rules to repack courts.
>>>
>>> Assuming enough justices retire or die to allow that.
>>
>> Congress can increase the number of judges.
>
> Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start
> ignoring government and start working to end such tyranny.
What tyranny?
news:t8v9id$4n0$4...@dont-email.me:
>
>
> "Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-2BD86...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <t8snil$cgu$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Moscow Mitch established new rules that a +1 majority can pack
>>> > the courts with no opposition. And the supreme court he packed
>>> > has abandonned stare decisi. Next time democrats control the
>>> > senate they can use the new rules to repack courts.
>>>
>>> Assuming enough justices retire or die to allow that.
>>
>> Congress can increase the number of judges.
>
> Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start
> ignoring government and start working to end such tyranny.
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 22, 2022, 6:08:06 PM6/22/22
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:39:43 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>Liar. Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
>>>to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
>>>adults had to act to get some judges appointed. Then when he got
>>>the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
>>>then packed the courts.
>>
>> True. McConnell did everything he could to slow the appointments
>> process under Obama. Remember Mitch's Merrick Garland fiasco? But
>> when Trump was sworn in he couldn't push appointments fast enough.
>
>Nothing new.... Democrats have done the same.
>
>They made such appointments a political football.. now they are complaining
>that Republicans are now playing the same game.
Exactly. So why do partisans still go on about it knowing their side
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>Liar. Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
>>>to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
>>>adults had to act to get some judges appointed. Then when he got
>>>the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
>>>then packed the courts.
>>
>> True. McConnell did everything he could to slow the appointments
>> process under Obama. Remember Mitch's Merrick Garland fiasco? But
>> when Trump was sworn in he couldn't push appointments fast enough.
>
>Nothing new.... Democrats have done the same.
>
>They made such appointments a political football.. now they are complaining
>that Republicans are now playing the same game.
does it too?
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 22, 2022, 6:09:13 PM6/22/22
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:36:46 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
>government and start working to end such tyranny.
Congress increasing the number of judges is 'tyranny'?
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
>government and start working to end such tyranny.
When will the nightmare ever stop?
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 22, 2022, 6:10:23 PM6/22/22
to
they aren't doing their jobs anyway.
Scout
Jun 23, 2022, 6:58:03 AM6/23/22
to
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dk47bhtasvp4ifsdq...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:39:43 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Liar. Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
>>>>to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
>>>>adults had to act to get some judges appointed. Then when he got
>>>>the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
>>>>then packed the courts.
>>>
>>> True. McConnell did everything he could to slow the appointments
>>> process under Obama. Remember Mitch's Merrick Garland fiasco? But
>>> when Trump was sworn in he couldn't push appointments fast enough.
>>
>>Nothing new.... Democrats have done the same.
>>
>>They made such appointments a political football.. now they are
>>complaining
>>that Republicans are now playing the same game.
>
> Exactly. So why do partisans still go on about it knowing their side
> does it too?
No, but it is amusing when you complain the other side starts doing what
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Liar. Moscow Mitch was not allowing any new judges and justices
>>>>to be appointed. When he had damaged the courts too much, the
>>>>adults had to act to get some judges appointed. Then when he got
>>>>the majority he ignored all the rules he used to block judges and
>>>>then packed the courts.
>>>
>>> True. McConnell did everything he could to slow the appointments
>>> process under Obama. Remember Mitch's Merrick Garland fiasco? But
>>> when Trump was sworn in he couldn't push appointments fast enough.
>>
>>Nothing new.... Democrats have done the same.
>>
>>They made such appointments a political football.. now they are
>>complaining
>>that Republicans are now playing the same game.
>
> Exactly. So why do partisans still go on about it knowing their side
> does it too?
your side did first.
I mean really, if you're going to change the rules don't you expect the
other side to now play by those same rules you just made up?
Scout
Jun 23, 2022, 6:58:04 AM6/23/22
to
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6o47bh12jsga8dspd...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:40:43 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:jsg4bhp34scs87chp...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:16:23 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>>>>option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>>>
>>> Those damned Democrats! We got the House, the Senate, the Oval Office
>>> and the courts and those mofos STILL run the government!
>>
>>Yea, and look how bad it's been for America......
>
> So how about we stop voting for these incompetent republicans since
> they aren't doing their jobs anyway.
And the Democrats are?
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:jsg4bhp34scs87chp...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:16:23 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>>>>option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>>>
>>> Those damned Democrats! We got the House, the Senate, the Oval Office
>>> and the courts and those mofos STILL run the government!
>>
>>Yea, and look how bad it's been for America......
>
> So how about we stop voting for these incompetent republicans since
> they aren't doing their jobs anyway.
LOL
Scout
Jun 23, 2022, 6:58:05 AM6/23/22
to
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9m47bh5deq9jm3mqd...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:36:46 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
>>government and start working to end such tyranny.
>
> Congress increasing the number of judges is 'tyranny'?
Yes, when it's being done purely to push a particular political agenda.
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
>>government and start working to end such tyranny.
>
> Congress increasing the number of judges is 'tyranny'?
Here's an idea. If one side wants to increase the number of judges.. then
the other side should be the ones who get to nominate them.
Then we would see if increasing the number of judges is actually necessary.
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 23, 2022, 7:57:07 AM6/23/22
to
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 06:48:01 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dk47bhtasvp4ifsdq...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:39:43 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dk47bhtasvp4ifsdq...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:39:43 -0400, "Scout"
>>>They made such appointments a political football.. now they are
>>>complaining that Republicans are now playing the same game.
>>
>> Exactly. So why do partisans still go on about it knowing their side
>> does it too?
>
>No, but it is amusing when you complain the other side starts doing what
>your side did first.
You who? Both sides are guilty of using such tactics. They take
>>>complaining that Republicans are now playing the same game.
>>
>> Exactly. So why do partisans still go on about it knowing their side
>> does it too?
>
>No, but it is amusing when you complain the other side starts doing what
>your side did first.
turns inventing new ways to torture each other.
>I mean really, if you're going to change the rules don't you expect the
>other side to now play by those same rules you just made up?
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 23, 2022, 7:58:39 AM6/23/22
to
increase the number of Justices to allow Biden to nominate a few?
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 23, 2022, 8:00:02 AM6/23/22
to
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 06:48:32 -0400, "Scout"
that happens in government even when the GOP has a lock on the
branches.
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6o47bh12jsga8dspd...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:40:43 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jsg4bhp34scs87chp...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:16:23 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>>>>>option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>>>>
>>>> Those damned Democrats! We got the House, the Senate, the Oval Office
>>>> and the courts and those mofos STILL run the government!
>>>
>>>Yea, and look how bad it's been for America......
>>
>> So how about we stop voting for these incompetent republicans since
>> they aren't doing their jobs anyway.
>
>And the Democrats are?
They must be. You're the one crediting/blaming them for everything
>
>
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6o47bh12jsga8dspd...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:40:43 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jsg4bhp34scs87chp...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:16:23 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>>>>>option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>>>>
>>>> Those damned Democrats! We got the House, the Senate, the Oval Office
>>>> and the courts and those mofos STILL run the government!
>>>
>>>Yea, and look how bad it's been for America......
>>
>> So how about we stop voting for these incompetent republicans since
>> they aren't doing their jobs anyway.
>
>And the Democrats are?
that happens in government even when the GOP has a lock on the
branches.
Siri Cruise
Jun 23, 2022, 9:30:57 AM6/23/22
to
In article <t91gvo$t99$9...@dont-email.me>,
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> Yes, when it's being done purely to push a particular political agenda.
So you accuse Moscow Mitch of tyranny.
> Yes, when it's being done purely to push a particular political agenda.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jun 23, 2022, 9:34:40 AM6/23/22
to
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 06:30:51 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <t91gvo$t99$9...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Put your cite here---->
wrote:
>In article <t91gvo$t99$9...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> Congress increasing the number of judges is 'tyranny'?
>>
>>
>>Yes, when it's being done purely to push a particular political agenda.
>>
>>
>>Here's an idea. If one side wants to increase the number of judges.. then
>>the other side should be the ones who get to nominate them.
>>
>>Then we would see if increasing the number of judges is actually necessary.
>>the other side should be the ones who get to nominate them.
>>
>>Then we would see if increasing the number of judges is actually necessary.
>So you accuse Moscow Mitch of tyranny.
When has he tried to increase the number of judges?
Put your cite here---->
Scout
Jun 24, 2022, 10:27:35 AM6/24/22
to
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bl8bh5j1420e9f0g...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 06:48:32 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:6o47bh12jsga8dspd...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:40:43 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:jsg4bhp34scs87chp...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:16:23 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>>>>>>option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those damned Democrats! We got the House, the Senate, the Oval Office
>>>>> and the courts and those mofos STILL run the government!
>>>>
>>>>Yea, and look how bad it's been for America......
>>>
>>> So how about we stop voting for these incompetent republicans since
>>> they aren't doing their jobs anyway.
>>
>>And the Democrats are?
>
> They must be. You're the one crediting/blaming them for everything
> that happens in government even when the GOP has a lock on the
> branches.
No, I blame those who enacted the laws... and the consequence of those laws.
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:6o47bh12jsga8dspd...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:40:43 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:jsg4bhp34scs87chp...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:16:23 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I will simply note that Democrats started this process of the nuclear
>>>>>>option.. Mitch just completed what the Democrats started.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those damned Democrats! We got the House, the Senate, the Oval Office
>>>>> and the courts and those mofos STILL run the government!
>>>>
>>>>Yea, and look how bad it's been for America......
>>>
>>> So how about we stop voting for these incompetent republicans since
>>> they aren't doing their jobs anyway.
>>
>>And the Democrats are?
>
> They must be. You're the one crediting/blaming them for everything
> that happens in government even when the GOP has a lock on the
> branches.
Scout
Jun 24, 2022, 10:27:36 AM6/24/22
to
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8l8bh1e7aavlle01...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 06:50:30 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:9m47bh5deq9jm3mqd...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:36:46 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
>>>>government and start working to end such tyranny.
>>>
>>> Congress increasing the number of judges is 'tyranny'?
>>
>>Yes, when it's being done purely to push a particular political agenda.
>>
>>Here's an idea. If one side wants to increase the number of judges.. then
>>the other side should be the ones who get to nominate them.
>>
>>Then we would see if increasing the number of judges is actually
>>necessary.
>
> So after Republicans take back the House this fall, are they going to
> increase the number of Justices to allow Biden to nominate a few?
I'm unaware that there is any need for more Justices on the Supreme Court.
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:9m47bh5deq9jm3mqd...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:36:46 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
>>>>government and start working to end such tyranny.
>>>
>>> Congress increasing the number of judges is 'tyranny'?
>>
>>Yes, when it's being done purely to push a particular political agenda.
>>
>>Here's an idea. If one side wants to increase the number of judges.. then
>>the other side should be the ones who get to nominate them.
>>
>>Then we would see if increasing the number of judges is actually
>>necessary.
>
> So after Republicans take back the House this fall, are they going to
> increase the number of Justices to allow Biden to nominate a few?
You've not shown anything that indicates more are necessary.
Scout
Jun 24, 2022, 10:27:37 AM6/24/22
to
news:chine.bleu-AC757...@news.eternal-september.org...
However, I'm not going to blame someone for using the new rules created by
those who did so.
Democrats changed the rules on how the nominations would be done.
Mitch, at most, simply applied those rules to ALL judicial nominations.
If you didn't like the rules, then why were they enacted?
> In article <t91gvo$t99$9...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, when it's being done purely to push a particular political agenda.
>
I'll accuse anyone who does so.
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, when it's being done purely to push a particular political agenda.
>
However, I'm not going to blame someone for using the new rules created by
those who did so.
Democrats changed the rules on how the nominations would be done.
Mitch, at most, simply applied those rules to ALL judicial nominations.
If you didn't like the rules, then why were they enacted?
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 25, 2022, 8:58:16 AM6/25/22
to
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 09:58:50 -0400, "Scout"
You should read slower because you missed the point.
Swill
--
Lock 'im up!
Swill
--
Lock 'im up!
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 25, 2022, 8:59:46 AM6/25/22
to
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:00:46 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>If you didn't like the rules, then why were they enacted?
Because the GOP was blocking all nominations for purely political
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>If you didn't like the rules, then why were they enacted?
reasons and without consideration of merit or qualifications. Hundreds
of appointees were declined Senate interviews.
John Baker
Jun 26, 2022, 12:45:05 PM6/26/22
to
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 08:57:46 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 09:58:50 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:b8l8bh1e7aavlle01...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 06:50:30 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:9m47bh5deq9jm3mqd...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:36:46 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
>>>>>>government and start working to end such tyranny.
>>>>>
>>>>> Congress increasing the number of judges is 'tyranny'?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, when it's being done purely to push a particular political agenda.
>>>>
>>>>Here's an idea. If one side wants to increase the number of judges.. then
>>>>the other side should be the ones who get to nominate them.
>>>>
>>>>Then we would see if increasing the number of judges is actually
>>>>necessary.
>>>
>>> So after Republicans take back the House this fall, are they going to
>>> increase the number of Justices to allow Biden to nominate a few?
Republicans taking back the House is far from a given - especially
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 09:58:50 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:b8l8bh1e7aavlle01...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 06:50:30 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:9m47bh5deq9jm3mqd...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:36:46 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yea, at which point, a lot of people are going to simply start ignoring
>>>>>>government and start working to end such tyranny.
>>>>>
>>>>> Congress increasing the number of judges is 'tyranny'?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, when it's being done purely to push a particular political agenda.
>>>>
>>>>Here's an idea. If one side wants to increase the number of judges.. then
>>>>the other side should be the ones who get to nominate them.
>>>>
>>>>Then we would see if increasing the number of judges is actually
>>>>necessary.
>>>
>>> So after Republicans take back the House this fall, are they going to
>>> increase the number of Justices to allow Biden to nominate a few?
after the J6 hearings and the recent antics of the SCOTUS. There are
tens of millions of pissed off women out there who aren't going down
without a fight.
Gronk
Jun 27, 2022, 12:48:02 AM6/27/22
to
Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 23:48:36 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 21:33:58 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Schultz wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 09:39:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We *know* this because the courts have said so.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they have not. This is settled.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you know about the Heller decision?
>>>
>>> Don't you?
>>
>> What would you like to know?
>>
>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
>>
>> " Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
>> It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example,
>> concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the
>> Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be
>> taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession
>> of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
>> carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government
>> buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the
>> commercial sale of arms. "
>
> So? Who is arguing that felons or mentally ill should have guns?
>
https://fortune.com/2018/02/15/trump-shooting-mental-illness/
President Donald Trump’s tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness of
the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
regulation he repealed last year.
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 23:48:36 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 21:33:58 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Schultz wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 09:39:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We *know* this because the courts have said so.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they have not. This is settled.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you know about the Heller decision?
>>>
>>> Don't you?
>>
>> What would you like to know?
>>
>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
>>
>> " Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
>> It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example,
>> concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the
>> Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be
>> taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession
>> of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
>> carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government
>> buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the
>> commercial sale of arms. "
>
> So? Who is arguing that felons or mentally ill should have guns?
>
https://fortune.com/2018/02/15/trump-shooting-mental-illness/
President Donald Trump’s tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness of
the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
regulation he repealed last year.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jun 27, 2022, 7:51:57 AM6/27/22
to
On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 22:47:56 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
So, nobody. Thanks!
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 28, 2022, 11:21:55 PM6/28/22
to
On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 12:44:57 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:
>Republicans taking back the House is far from a given - especially
>after the J6 hearings and the recent antics of the SCOTUS. There are
>tens of millions of pissed off women out there who aren't going down
>without a fight.
Democrats are going to get their asses kicked because liberals can't
be bothered to turn out the vote.
wrote:
>Republicans taking back the House is far from a given - especially
>after the J6 hearings and the recent antics of the SCOTUS. There are
>tens of millions of pissed off women out there who aren't going down
>without a fight.
be bothered to turn out the vote.
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 28, 2022, 11:23:09 PM6/28/22
to
On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 22:47:56 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>https://fortune.com/2018/02/15/trum
wrote:
I don't have time to read all these old articles.
L8r
Gronk
Jul 4, 2022, 1:13:47 AM7/4/22
to
>
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 4, 2022, 5:56:52 AM7/4/22
to
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 23:13:43 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>> So, nobody. Thanks!
>>
[crickets]
>>
[crickets]
Gronk
Jul 10, 2022, 1:28:13 AM7/10/22
to
>
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 10, 2022, 6:19:42 AM7/10/22
to
On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 23:28:12 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>>>> President Donald Trump’s tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness of
>>> the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
>>> angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
>>> regulation he repealed last year.
>>
>> So, nobody. Thanks!
>>
[crickets]
wrote:
>>>> President Donald Trump’s tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness of
>>> the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
>>> angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
>>> regulation he repealed last year.
>>
>>
[crickets]
Gronk
Jul 17, 2022, 1:02:17 AM7/17/22
to
>> President Donald Trump’s tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness of
>> the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
>> angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
>> regulation he repealed last year.
>
> So, #DirtyDon. Thanks!
>> the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
>> angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
>> regulation he repealed last year.
>
>
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 17, 2022, 6:08:48 AM7/17/22
to
On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 23:02:16 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>>
[crickets]
wrote:
>>>> President Donald Trump’s tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness of
>>> the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
>>> angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
>>> regulation he repealed last year.
>>
>> So, nobody. Thanks!
>>> the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
>>> angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
>>> regulation he repealed last year.
>>
>>
[crickets]
Gronk
Jul 22, 2022, 12:39:43 AM7/22/22
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 22, 2022, 5:51:30 AM7/22/22
to
On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 22:39:41 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>> So, nobody. Thanks!
>>
[crickets]
>>
[crickets]
Viktor Tandofsky
Jul 22, 2022, 6:06:17 AM7/22/22
to
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 9:39:32 AM UTC-7, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> We *know* this because the courts have said so. They've said so both in
> particular instances, and as a matter of broad legal principle, i.e., what *the
> law* is.
>
> They have said so in particular cases because states have passed some weapons
> bans and bans on e.g. large capacity magazines, and federal appellate courts
> have *always* upheld them when challenged.
>
> And they have said so as a comprehensive, irrefutable statement of *the law*
> when Scalia said in Heller:
>
> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
> *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
> not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
> [emphasis added]
>
> What Scalia said is *correct*, *definitive* and *not in rational dispute*. It
> is *the law* that you don't have a right to just whatever guns or arms you want.
> This has been *the law* for centuries, and it is not going to change.
>
> It may be the case that, at present, there is no law prohibiting possession of,
> say, functioning rocket propelled grenades, but that doesn't mean you have a
> "right" to have them. Why not? Because such a law might be passed, and if it
> is, it *will* be upheld by every court. What would that mean? It would mean
> that the law does not infringe your right to arms. And what would *that* mean?
> It would mean that you don't have a *right* to that particular arm. That's what
> it means.
>
> And this is not "limiting" your rights. This is operating *within* the
> *inherent* limits of the right. If you think you have a "right" to just
> whatever arms you wish, then you fundamentally do not understand the right to
> arms...because you are wrong.
>
> You do not have a right to just whatever arms you want, no matter how much you
> stamp your little fag foot and shriek "yeah, we do." *No*, you don't, and this
> is settled. This is...*the law*.
You are ignorant. Numerous states have ruled various guns to be illegal.
> We *know* this because the courts have said so. They've said so both in
> particular instances, and as a matter of broad legal principle, i.e., what *the
> law* is.
>
> They have said so in particular cases because states have passed some weapons
> bans and bans on e.g. large capacity magazines, and federal appellate courts
> have *always* upheld them when challenged.
>
> And they have said so as a comprehensive, irrefutable statement of *the law*
> when Scalia said in Heller:
>
> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
> *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
> not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
> [emphasis added]
>
> What Scalia said is *correct*, *definitive* and *not in rational dispute*. It
> is *the law* that you don't have a right to just whatever guns or arms you want.
> This has been *the law* for centuries, and it is not going to change.
>
> It may be the case that, at present, there is no law prohibiting possession of,
> say, functioning rocket propelled grenades, but that doesn't mean you have a
> "right" to have them. Why not? Because such a law might be passed, and if it
> is, it *will* be upheld by every court. What would that mean? It would mean
> that the law does not infringe your right to arms. And what would *that* mean?
> It would mean that you don't have a *right* to that particular arm. That's what
> it means.
>
> And this is not "limiting" your rights. This is operating *within* the
> *inherent* limits of the right. If you think you have a "right" to just
> whatever arms you wish, then you fundamentally do not understand the right to
> arms...because you are wrong.
>
> You do not have a right to just whatever arms you want, no matter how much you
> stamp your little fag foot and shriek "yeah, we do." *No*, you don't, and this
> is settled. This is...*the law*.
You are ignorant. Numerous states have ruled various guns to be illegal.
Viktor Tandofsky
Jul 22, 2022, 6:08:59 AM7/22/22
to
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 6:47:37 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:t8sgoj$4o7$4...@dont-email.me:
> > news:chine.bleu-2C90D...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> In article <t8pnps$v0d$2...@dont-email.me>,
> >> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated
> >>> that such could NOT be done.
> >>
> >> And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
> >
> > The Senate can't override SCOTUS much less the Constitution of the
> > United States of America.
> >
> > However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a
> > political
> > football...
> >
> > Which BTW is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. So they
> > won't be.
> >
> > "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
> > deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
> Where is "consent of the governed" when
> a state legislature can overturn an election
> if they don't like the result?
>
>
>
>
> Arizona bill would allow legislature to
> overturn election results
> 01/27/22
>
> An arch conservative member of Arizona’s
> state House of Representatives has proposed
> a mammoth overhaul of the state’s voting
> procedures that would allow legislators to
> overturn the results of a primary or general
> election after months of unfounded allegations
> and partisan audits.
>
> The bill, introduced by state Rep. John
> Fillmore (R), would substantially change the
> way Arizonans vote by eliminating most early
> and absentee voting and requiring people to
> vote in their home precincts, rather than at
> vote centers set up around the state.
>
> Most dramatically, Fillmore’s bill would
> require the legislature to hold a special
> session after an election to review election
> processes and results, and to "accept or
> reject the election results."
>
> https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/591597-arizona-bill-would-allow-
> legislature-to-overturn-election-results/
The Constitution gives the states the power to regulate elections.
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:t8sgoj$4o7$4...@dont-email.me:
> > news:chine.bleu-2C90D...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> In article <t8pnps$v0d$2...@dont-email.me>,
> >> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Indeed I seem to recall something in the Heller decision that stated
> >>> that such could NOT be done.
> >>
> >> And if democrats get a Senate majority Heller can be reversed.
> >
> > The Senate can't override SCOTUS much less the Constitution of the
> > United States of America.
> >
> > However, I will acknowledge that you think our rights should be a
> > political
> > football...
> >
> > Which BTW is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. So they
> > won't be.
> >
> > "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
> > deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
> Where is "consent of the governed" when
> a state legislature can overturn an election
> if they don't like the result?
>
>
>
>
> Arizona bill would allow legislature to
> overturn election results
> 01/27/22
>
> An arch conservative member of Arizona’s
> state House of Representatives has proposed
> a mammoth overhaul of the state’s voting
> procedures that would allow legislators to
> overturn the results of a primary or general
> election after months of unfounded allegations
> and partisan audits.
>
> The bill, introduced by state Rep. John
> Fillmore (R), would substantially change the
> way Arizonans vote by eliminating most early
> and absentee voting and requiring people to
> vote in their home precincts, rather than at
> vote centers set up around the state.
>
> Most dramatically, Fillmore’s bill would
> require the legislature to hold a special
> session after an election to review election
> processes and results, and to "accept or
> reject the election results."
>
> https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/591597-arizona-bill-would-allow-
> legislature-to-overturn-election-results/
The Constitution gives the states the power to regulate elections.
Viktor Tandofsky
Jul 22, 2022, 6:11:59 AM7/22/22
to
Mitchell Holman
Jul 22, 2022, 9:03:07 AM7/22/22
to
Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5ce8d4ec-1cab-4705...@googlegroups.com:
Then why did Bush v Gore halt Florida
doing their own recount of their own election?
news:5ce8d4ec-1cab-4705...@googlegroups.com:
doing their own recount of their own election?
Mitchell Holman
Jul 22, 2022, 9:04:07 AM7/22/22
to
Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:93231873-57e5-47d9...@googlegroups.com:
Mitchell Holman
Jul 22, 2022, 9:04:48 AM7/22/22
to
Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0e63705e-7d03-4e42...@googlegroups.com:
Gronk
Jul 29, 2022, 11:37:11 PM7/29/22
to
>>>
[crickets]
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 30, 2022, 7:18:57 AM7/30/22
to
On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 21:37:14 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>
[crickets]
wrote:
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> President Donald Trump’s tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness of
>>> the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
>>> angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
>>> regulation he repealed last year.
>>
>> So, nobody. Thanks!
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> President Donald Trump’s tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness of
>>> the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
>>> angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
>>> regulation he repealed last year.
>>
>>
[crickets]
Gronk
Aug 10, 2022, 12:38:43 AM8/10/22
to
max headroom
Aug 10, 2022, 3:01:16 AM8/10/22
to
In news:tcvcof$1m3cu$1...@dont-email.me, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> typed:
Presidents don't have authority to repeal laws.
Do we have to teach you *everything*?
Do we have to teach you *everything*?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Aug 10, 2022, 6:55:01 AM8/10/22
to
Gronk
Aug 17, 2022, 12:48:58 AM8/17/22
to
https://fortune.com/2018/02/15/trump-shooting-mental-illness/
President Donald Trump’s tweet Thursday highlighting the mental
illness of the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida
high school has angered gun control advocates who point to an
Obama-era gun checks regulation he repealed last year.
President Trump killed a regulation that would have tightened gun
background checks Tuesday, signing a bill to undo one of his
predecessor's executive actions following the San Bernardino shootings
in 2015.
max headroom
Aug 17, 2022, 8:42:37 AM8/17/22
to
In news:tdhrvn$c6d9$2...@dont-email.me, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> typed:
So he signed a bill passed by Congress. Congress has the authority to repeal
laws; presidents don't.
I guess we DO have to explain *everything* to you.
laws; presidents don't.
I guess we DO have to explain *everything* to you.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Aug 17, 2022, 12:00:26 PM8/17/22
to
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 22:48:55 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:57:48 -0700, "max headroom"
>> <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:tcvcof$1m3cu$1...@dont-email.me, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> typed:
>>>
>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 22:39:41 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>>>> President Donald Trump's tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness
>>>> of the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
>>>> >>>> angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
>>>> >>>> regulation he repealed last year.
>>>
>>>> >>> So, #DirtyDon. Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>> [crickets]
>>>
>>> Presidents don't have authority to repeal laws.
>>>
>>> Do we have to teach you *everything*?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>>
>
>How dare you two besmirch Dear Leader!
We were talking about you, dork.
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:57:48 -0700, "max headroom"
>> <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:tcvcof$1m3cu$1...@dont-email.me, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> typed:
>>>
>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 22:39:41 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>>>> President Donald Trump's tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness
>>>> of the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has
>>>> >>>> angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks
>>>> >>>> regulation he repealed last year.
>>>
>>>> >>> So, #DirtyDon. Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>> [crickets]
>>>
>>> Presidents don't have authority to repeal laws.
>>>
>>> Do we have to teach you *everything*?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>>
>
>How dare you two besmirch Dear Leader!
Gronk
Aug 26, 2022, 1:01:18 AM8/26/22
to
Gronk
Aug 26, 2022, 1:01:59 AM8/26/22
to
>
Klaus Schadenfreude
Aug 26, 2022, 6:13:09 AM8/26/22
to
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 23:01:57 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>> He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>>
>
>How dare you two besmirch Dear Leader!
We were talking about you, dork.
wrote:
>> He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>>
>
>How dare you two besmirch Dear Leader!
max headroom
Aug 26, 2022, 2:32:53 PM8/26/22
to
In news:te9k2p$3t8ct$3...@dont-email.me, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> typed:
Incorrectly, because you're wrong.
Gronk
Sep 2, 2022, 1:08:40 AM9/2/22
to
>
Gronk
Sep 2, 2022, 1:09:41 AM9/2/22
to
>
>
Pelosi Could Die Tomorrow
Sep 2, 2022, 3:35:06 AM9/2/22
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Sep 2, 2022, 6:18:56 AM9/2/22
to
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 23:08:43 -0600, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>> He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>>
>
>How dare you two besmirch Dear Leader!
We were talking about you, dork.
>> He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>>
>
>How dare you two besmirch Dear Leader!
max headroom
Sep 3, 2022, 1:09:49 AM9/3/22
to
In news:tes36h$2eu60$4...@dont-email.me, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> typed:
>> Incorrectly, because you're wrong.
[crickets]
Harris Could Die Tomorrow
Sep 5, 2022, 2:55:06 AM9/5/22
to
In article <t1lkg9$34861$3...@news.freedyn.de>
Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Pocahontas would do worse than Hillary Clinton.
>
If Elizabeth Warren "had a penis" would she be president today?
This is among the burning questions contemplated in Electable:
Why America Hasn't Put a Woman in the White House … Yet by NBC
News correspondent Ali Vitali, who spent the 2020 Democratic
primary covering Warren and other prominent female candidates
such as Amy Klobuchar and eventual VP nominee Kamala Harris.
"Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you
had a penis,'" Warren fumed to Vitali after the candidate's
disappointing third-place finish in the Iowa caucus. She ended
her campaign two months later as the last (semi-viable) woman
standing.
Are Democratic voters really that sexist? Probably. Warren has a
history of making things up about herself and telling stories
that are too good to be true, but who's to say? It's a
comforting thought for her supporters—the mainstream journalists
and other college-educated professionals who were "baffled" she
didn't win the primary because all their friends voted for her.
This includes Vitali, who asked Warren after she dropped out of
the race what her "message would be to the women and girls who
feel like [they] are left with two white men to decide between?"
At least that's how it's presented in the book. What the
reporter actually said was "I wonder what your message would be
to the women and girls who feel like we're left with two white
men to decide between." (Emphasis added.) The revised version
sounds more professional.
Vitali, to her credit, avoids the blatant partisan hackery that
many of her fellow journalists are unable to resist when
discussing the subject of women in politics. She highlights the
success of Republican women in earnest, and does not insist on
explaining how it doesn't really count because their policies
are "bad for women." But it's pretty obvious which team she's
pulling for.
Washington Post columnist David Byler correctly observed in 2019
that "many journalists either match the demographic profile of
[Warren's] base or live around people who do," while the
candidate's "view of politics closely matches the prevailing
media view of what politics ‘should' be." It's a view inclined
toward lengthy academic discussions about how sexism prevents
bad female candidates from winning elections.
The book sets out to answer a fairly specific question: Why did
Democratic primary voters choose Joe Biden, as opposed to Warren
or any of the six female candidates who ran, to face Donald
Trump in 2020?
It's not a very difficult question. Democrats really wanted to
beat Trump, and Biden was Barack Obama's vice president for
eight years. Nevertheless, Vitali persists in providing a
lengthy academic analysis based on Ivy League studies of "gender
dynamics" and "sexist undercurrents" to argue the 2020 election
"laid bare some concerning realities" about how "Americans may
still be easily scared off from believing that women can be
viable, trusted, winning options."
Electable was written for college-educated professionals who
enjoy having these discussions and find them meaningful. It was
written by a college-educated professional who works in the
media and covers politics, two industries dominated by college-
educated professionals. It relies on expert commentary and
analysis from college-educated professionals who all basically
agree with each other and are well-versed in the corporate-
academic jargon of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Pages upon pages comprised of slightly different versions of the
following sentence: "‘We think of them as different,' Madeline
Heilman, a psychology professor at New York University and
expert in bias and gender stereotypes, told me of how society
conceptualizes leadership qualities between the genders."
Vitali describes feeling "pressure" to maintain a "level playing
field and uniform metric of assessment" for female candidates
attempting to "topple the patriarchy." She pounds the shift key
for added emphasis to call out the "White Men of Political
Media" who always ruin things, and at one point endeavors to
"unpack [the] arguments" in a Chris Cillizza article. She
recalls emailing colleagues to celebrate a "mainstream
discussion of female rage," and laments the toxicity of
"whitewashed feminism."
The book is well-reported and deeply sourced, so occasionally an
insightful comment slips through. In the words of one anonymous
strategist: "Democrats have to acknowledge we do not fully
understand a good chunk of this country." Indeed they do not.
The results of the 2020 primary suggest Democrats don't fully
understand a good chunk of their own voters, most of whom are
not college-educated professionals who read Rebecca Traister and
celebrate "allyship" and pretend to care about the WNBA.
Christina Reynolds, a former Hillary Clinton staffer, offers a
simple suggestion regarding women who run for public office: "We
don't have to view them as candidates who are women, but just
candidates, right?" Sure, but the Democratic establishment
(which includes most journalists) would never allow it. They are
part of the problem.
"We require women, and women of color, to explain themselves
more to us—which is on us, not on them," a former Kamala Harris
aide tells Vitali. "She'd be asked all the time, ‘What is it
like being a Black woman running for president?'" Yes, because
journalists are obsessed with identity politics and insist on
talking about it. Perhaps this is one of the reasons they are so
out of touch with the general public, the vast majority of which
does not share this weird fixation.
Politics really does attract the most obnoxious people. Vitali
recounts a particularly grim scene she witnessed on the campaign
trail in Iowa in November 2019, when dozens of Warren staffers
decked out in "Liberty Green" (the campaign's official color)
braved the freezing rain outside the convention center in Des
Moines while chanting, "We stan! We stan! We stan a woman with a
plan!"
When Vitali cites studies that show women are less likely than
men to consider running for office or even "to consider elective
office a desirable profession," the implication is that society
is wrong. Maybe women are right.
Women like Jennifer C., for example, who penned the following
review of Electable on Amazon: "Too big. I measured the dog per
the instructions and he falls in the middle of the XL size
range, but it's way too big – slides around and droops terribly.
*NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RETURN OR EXCHANGE* :("
Electable: Why America Hasn't Put a Woman in the White House …
Yet
by Ali Vitali
Dey Street Books, 352 pp., $28.99
https://freebeacon.com/culture/if-pocahontas-had-a-penis/
Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Pocahontas would do worse than Hillary Clinton.
>
If Elizabeth Warren "had a penis" would she be president today?
This is among the burning questions contemplated in Electable:
Why America Hasn't Put a Woman in the White House … Yet by NBC
News correspondent Ali Vitali, who spent the 2020 Democratic
primary covering Warren and other prominent female candidates
such as Amy Klobuchar and eventual VP nominee Kamala Harris.
"Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you
had a penis,'" Warren fumed to Vitali after the candidate's
disappointing third-place finish in the Iowa caucus. She ended
her campaign two months later as the last (semi-viable) woman
standing.
Are Democratic voters really that sexist? Probably. Warren has a
history of making things up about herself and telling stories
that are too good to be true, but who's to say? It's a
comforting thought for her supporters—the mainstream journalists
and other college-educated professionals who were "baffled" she
didn't win the primary because all their friends voted for her.
This includes Vitali, who asked Warren after she dropped out of
the race what her "message would be to the women and girls who
feel like [they] are left with two white men to decide between?"
At least that's how it's presented in the book. What the
reporter actually said was "I wonder what your message would be
to the women and girls who feel like we're left with two white
men to decide between." (Emphasis added.) The revised version
sounds more professional.
Vitali, to her credit, avoids the blatant partisan hackery that
many of her fellow journalists are unable to resist when
discussing the subject of women in politics. She highlights the
success of Republican women in earnest, and does not insist on
explaining how it doesn't really count because their policies
are "bad for women." But it's pretty obvious which team she's
pulling for.
Washington Post columnist David Byler correctly observed in 2019
that "many journalists either match the demographic profile of
[Warren's] base or live around people who do," while the
candidate's "view of politics closely matches the prevailing
media view of what politics ‘should' be." It's a view inclined
toward lengthy academic discussions about how sexism prevents
bad female candidates from winning elections.
The book sets out to answer a fairly specific question: Why did
Democratic primary voters choose Joe Biden, as opposed to Warren
or any of the six female candidates who ran, to face Donald
Trump in 2020?
It's not a very difficult question. Democrats really wanted to
beat Trump, and Biden was Barack Obama's vice president for
eight years. Nevertheless, Vitali persists in providing a
lengthy academic analysis based on Ivy League studies of "gender
dynamics" and "sexist undercurrents" to argue the 2020 election
"laid bare some concerning realities" about how "Americans may
still be easily scared off from believing that women can be
viable, trusted, winning options."
Electable was written for college-educated professionals who
enjoy having these discussions and find them meaningful. It was
written by a college-educated professional who works in the
media and covers politics, two industries dominated by college-
educated professionals. It relies on expert commentary and
analysis from college-educated professionals who all basically
agree with each other and are well-versed in the corporate-
academic jargon of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Pages upon pages comprised of slightly different versions of the
following sentence: "‘We think of them as different,' Madeline
Heilman, a psychology professor at New York University and
expert in bias and gender stereotypes, told me of how society
conceptualizes leadership qualities between the genders."
Vitali describes feeling "pressure" to maintain a "level playing
field and uniform metric of assessment" for female candidates
attempting to "topple the patriarchy." She pounds the shift key
for added emphasis to call out the "White Men of Political
Media" who always ruin things, and at one point endeavors to
"unpack [the] arguments" in a Chris Cillizza article. She
recalls emailing colleagues to celebrate a "mainstream
discussion of female rage," and laments the toxicity of
"whitewashed feminism."
The book is well-reported and deeply sourced, so occasionally an
insightful comment slips through. In the words of one anonymous
strategist: "Democrats have to acknowledge we do not fully
understand a good chunk of this country." Indeed they do not.
The results of the 2020 primary suggest Democrats don't fully
understand a good chunk of their own voters, most of whom are
not college-educated professionals who read Rebecca Traister and
celebrate "allyship" and pretend to care about the WNBA.
Christina Reynolds, a former Hillary Clinton staffer, offers a
simple suggestion regarding women who run for public office: "We
don't have to view them as candidates who are women, but just
candidates, right?" Sure, but the Democratic establishment
(which includes most journalists) would never allow it. They are
part of the problem.
"We require women, and women of color, to explain themselves
more to us—which is on us, not on them," a former Kamala Harris
aide tells Vitali. "She'd be asked all the time, ‘What is it
like being a Black woman running for president?'" Yes, because
journalists are obsessed with identity politics and insist on
talking about it. Perhaps this is one of the reasons they are so
out of touch with the general public, the vast majority of which
does not share this weird fixation.
Politics really does attract the most obnoxious people. Vitali
recounts a particularly grim scene she witnessed on the campaign
trail in Iowa in November 2019, when dozens of Warren staffers
decked out in "Liberty Green" (the campaign's official color)
braved the freezing rain outside the convention center in Des
Moines while chanting, "We stan! We stan! We stan a woman with a
plan!"
When Vitali cites studies that show women are less likely than
men to consider running for office or even "to consider elective
office a desirable profession," the implication is that society
is wrong. Maybe women are right.
Women like Jennifer C., for example, who penned the following
review of Electable on Amazon: "Too big. I measured the dog per
the instructions and he falls in the middle of the XL size
range, but it's way too big – slides around and droops terribly.
*NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RETURN OR EXCHANGE* :("
Electable: Why America Hasn't Put a Woman in the White House …
Yet
by Ali Vitali
Dey Street Books, 352 pp., $28.99
https://freebeacon.com/culture/if-pocahontas-had-a-penis/
Stupid Black Ho
Sep 5, 2022, 3:40:05 AM9/5/22
to
In article <t1nkg2$35f7g$1...@news.freedyn.de>
Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> When will this bitch die from one of the STDs she carries?
>
National Space Council chairwoman's 'big day' ruined as
momentous launch postponed due to engine trouble
Vice President Kamala Harris presided over yet another
humiliating failure on Monday after NASA was forced to postpone
the launch of Artemis I, a giant new rocket the government hopes
will play a key role in putting humans on the moon for the first
time since 1972.
"Today is very much about showing the great work that happened
here," Harris told reporters minutes after the mission was
scrapped due to an engine cooling issue. The vice president, who
chairs the administration's National Space Council, was at the
Kennedy Space Center in Florida to witness the launch. She later
wrote on social media that, "While we hoped to see the launch of
Artemis I today, the attempt provided valuable data as we test
the most powerful rocket in history."
POLITICO had previewed the "big day for Harris" in its Playbook
newsletter. "There have occasionally been snickers about the
fact that the VP chairs the administration’s National Space
Council," wrote reporters Ryan Lizza and Eugene Daniels. "What
exactly does she do in that role anyway? Well, today the
potential upside of that curious assignment will take center
stage."
Alas, like most endeavors involving Harris in recent years, the
launch failed. The Biden-Harris ticket was a success, to be
sure, but only after Harris tried to run for president herself
and ended up quitting before the Iowa caucuses. Her performance
as vice president has been so underwhelming that many Democrats
do not want her to be the party's nominee in 2024 if Biden steps
down.
Despite the administration's best efforts to find a leadership
role for Harris—if only to help pad her résumé—it has become
increasingly clear that Harris doesn't really want to be in
charge of anything. Which is just as well, because she's not
very good at being in charge. That might have something to do
with the fact that members of her staff keep leaving.
After Biden tapped his VP to lead the administration's response
to the immigration crisis on the U.S. southern border, Harris
proceeded to embarrass herself by refusing to visit the border
and laughing about it when asked. "This whole thing about the
border. We've been to the border. We've been to the border,"
Harris told NBC's Lester Holt, who corrected her by pointing out
that she had not been to the border. "And I haven't been to
Europe," Harris cackled. "I don't understand the point that
you're making."
Shortly thereafter, Harris was tasked with leading the
Democratic Party's push for so-called voting rights legislation,
which ultimately fizzled. New York Times reporters Jonathan
Martin and Alexander Burns noted in their book, This Will Not
Pass, that Harris attended several meetings with activists but
declined to reach out to Sens. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Lisa
Murkowski (R., Alaska), whose votes were critical to getting
legislation through the Senate.
Harris was named chair of the National Space Council in May
2021, but it wasn't long before she embarrassed herself in that
role by appearing in a bizarre video discussing the wonders of
"exploring the unknown" with a group of children who were later
revealed to be paid child actors. "To think about so much that's
out there that we still have to learn, like, I love that," she
rambled as the children feigned excitement.
WATCH: Veep Thoughts With Kamala Harris (Vol. 1)
<https://freebeacon.com/democrats/kamala-harris-deep-thoughts/>
WATCH: Veep Thoughts With Kamala Harris (Vol. 2)
<https://freebeacon.com/democrats/veep-thoughts-kamala-harris/>
WATCH: Veep Thoughts With Kamala Harris (Vol. 3)
<https://freebeacon.com/democrats/kamala-harris-veep-thoughts-3/>
Published under: Democratic Party, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, NASA
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/kamala-harris-fails-
again/
Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> When will this bitch die from one of the STDs she carries?
>
National Space Council chairwoman's 'big day' ruined as
momentous launch postponed due to engine trouble
Vice President Kamala Harris presided over yet another
humiliating failure on Monday after NASA was forced to postpone
the launch of Artemis I, a giant new rocket the government hopes
will play a key role in putting humans on the moon for the first
time since 1972.
"Today is very much about showing the great work that happened
here," Harris told reporters minutes after the mission was
scrapped due to an engine cooling issue. The vice president, who
chairs the administration's National Space Council, was at the
Kennedy Space Center in Florida to witness the launch. She later
wrote on social media that, "While we hoped to see the launch of
Artemis I today, the attempt provided valuable data as we test
the most powerful rocket in history."
POLITICO had previewed the "big day for Harris" in its Playbook
newsletter. "There have occasionally been snickers about the
fact that the VP chairs the administration’s National Space
Council," wrote reporters Ryan Lizza and Eugene Daniels. "What
exactly does she do in that role anyway? Well, today the
potential upside of that curious assignment will take center
stage."
Alas, like most endeavors involving Harris in recent years, the
launch failed. The Biden-Harris ticket was a success, to be
sure, but only after Harris tried to run for president herself
and ended up quitting before the Iowa caucuses. Her performance
as vice president has been so underwhelming that many Democrats
do not want her to be the party's nominee in 2024 if Biden steps
down.
Despite the administration's best efforts to find a leadership
role for Harris—if only to help pad her résumé—it has become
increasingly clear that Harris doesn't really want to be in
charge of anything. Which is just as well, because she's not
very good at being in charge. That might have something to do
with the fact that members of her staff keep leaving.
After Biden tapped his VP to lead the administration's response
to the immigration crisis on the U.S. southern border, Harris
proceeded to embarrass herself by refusing to visit the border
and laughing about it when asked. "This whole thing about the
border. We've been to the border. We've been to the border,"
Harris told NBC's Lester Holt, who corrected her by pointing out
that she had not been to the border. "And I haven't been to
Europe," Harris cackled. "I don't understand the point that
you're making."
Shortly thereafter, Harris was tasked with leading the
Democratic Party's push for so-called voting rights legislation,
which ultimately fizzled. New York Times reporters Jonathan
Martin and Alexander Burns noted in their book, This Will Not
Pass, that Harris attended several meetings with activists but
declined to reach out to Sens. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Lisa
Murkowski (R., Alaska), whose votes were critical to getting
legislation through the Senate.
Harris was named chair of the National Space Council in May
2021, but it wasn't long before she embarrassed herself in that
role by appearing in a bizarre video discussing the wonders of
"exploring the unknown" with a group of children who were later
revealed to be paid child actors. "To think about so much that's
out there that we still have to learn, like, I love that," she
rambled as the children feigned excitement.
WATCH: Veep Thoughts With Kamala Harris (Vol. 1)
<https://freebeacon.com/democrats/kamala-harris-deep-thoughts/>
WATCH: Veep Thoughts With Kamala Harris (Vol. 2)
<https://freebeacon.com/democrats/veep-thoughts-kamala-harris/>
WATCH: Veep Thoughts With Kamala Harris (Vol. 3)
<https://freebeacon.com/democrats/kamala-harris-veep-thoughts-3/>
Published under: Democratic Party, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, NASA
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/kamala-harris-fails-
again/
Jew Hating Ho
Sep 5, 2022, 3:50:05 AM9/5/22
to
In article <t1s7gi$383k3$1...@news.freedyn.de>
Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> We could really do without this stupid racist whore.
>
Rashida Tlaib, who has proposed eliminating police departments
and prisons, rats out perp hiding in her backyard
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), a member of the radical left-
wing "Squad," has been one of the Democratic Party's most vocal
critics of law enforcement. She has called for an end to
policing and incarceration in America. The country's police
force, she has argued, is an "inherently and intentionally
racist" institution that condones "government-funded murder" and
"can't be reformed."
Alas, the congresswoman's allies in the movement to abolish the
police and empty federal prisons will be outraged to learn that
Tlaib recently snitched to the Detroit Police Department after
checking her home security system and seeing that an individual
fleeing the cops was hiding in her trash can.
"The congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, happened to look at her
monitoring system and saw the guy in her backyard," one of her
neighbors told the local Fox affiliate in Detroit. "So once we
found out where he was located, she called us back and told us
where he was and we relayed that information to the police."
The male suspect ended up in Tlaib's yard after leading police
on a high-speed chase after witnesses reported an attempted
kidnapping. A woman was also found hiding in a trashcan several
houses down. The pair sped off in an SUV after police
orchestrated a traffic stop. Perhaps they shared Tlaib's view
that police officers are irredeemably violent and did not wish
to become victims of "government-funded murder."
By ratting out the suspect to police, some would argue that
Tlaib was exposing the innocent-until-proven-guilty citizen to a
violent death at the hands of law enforcement. Body camera
footage of the arrest shows at least an "inherently and
intentionally racist" police officer pointing an assault rifle
at the terrified suspect as he emerges from Tlaib's trash can.
Tlaib was a vocal proponent of the BREATHE Act in 2020. The
legislative proposal called for "divesting federal resources
from incarceration and policing," and the abolishment of federal
prisons within 10 years. Her attacks on law enforcement did not
go over well with James Craig, the former chief of the Detroit
Police Department. Craig, who is black, slammed Tlaib's
"disgusting" suggestion that police officers were racist
murderers.
"To say policing should be abolished gives no consideration to
the people who live in our neighborhoods who rely on police to
provide service," he told the Detroit News in 2021. "The people
who live in our city don't want to abolish the police, so the
million-dollar question is: Who does [Tlaib] represent?" Craig
added that he "would love to see [Tlaib] resign" and would even
"throw her a goodbye party."
In addition to her anti-police activism, Tlaib is best known for
being an outspoken anti-Semite whose frequent tirades against
Israel have been condemned by her fellow Democrats. In May, the
congresswoman spoke at a rally in Dearborn, Mich., alongside a
pro-Hamas newspaper publisher who urged Arabs around the world
to "fight within [their] means" to ensure that "Palestine would
be liberated and restored."
Tlaib shared the stage with the publisher, Osama Siblani, who
has an extensive history of praising the anti-Israel terrorist
groups Hamas and Hezbollah."We are the Arabs who are going to
lift Palestinians all the way to victory, whether we are in
Michigan and whether we are in Jenin," he said at the rally.
"They will fight with stones, others will fight with guns,
others will fight with planes, drones, and rockets, others will
fight with their voices, and others will fight with their hands
and say: 詮ree, free Palestine!'"
Published under: Defund the Police, Democratic Party, Michigan,
Rashida Tlaib
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/rashida-tlaib-snitching-scandal/
Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> We could really do without this stupid racist whore.
>
Rashida Tlaib, who has proposed eliminating police departments
and prisons, rats out perp hiding in her backyard
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), a member of the radical left-
wing "Squad," has been one of the Democratic Party's most vocal
critics of law enforcement. She has called for an end to
policing and incarceration in America. The country's police
force, she has argued, is an "inherently and intentionally
racist" institution that condones "government-funded murder" and
"can't be reformed."
Alas, the congresswoman's allies in the movement to abolish the
police and empty federal prisons will be outraged to learn that
Tlaib recently snitched to the Detroit Police Department after
checking her home security system and seeing that an individual
fleeing the cops was hiding in her trash can.
"The congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, happened to look at her
monitoring system and saw the guy in her backyard," one of her
neighbors told the local Fox affiliate in Detroit. "So once we
found out where he was located, she called us back and told us
where he was and we relayed that information to the police."
The male suspect ended up in Tlaib's yard after leading police
on a high-speed chase after witnesses reported an attempted
kidnapping. A woman was also found hiding in a trashcan several
houses down. The pair sped off in an SUV after police
orchestrated a traffic stop. Perhaps they shared Tlaib's view
that police officers are irredeemably violent and did not wish
to become victims of "government-funded murder."
By ratting out the suspect to police, some would argue that
Tlaib was exposing the innocent-until-proven-guilty citizen to a
violent death at the hands of law enforcement. Body camera
footage of the arrest shows at least an "inherently and
intentionally racist" police officer pointing an assault rifle
at the terrified suspect as he emerges from Tlaib's trash can.
Tlaib was a vocal proponent of the BREATHE Act in 2020. The
legislative proposal called for "divesting federal resources
from incarceration and policing," and the abolishment of federal
prisons within 10 years. Her attacks on law enforcement did not
go over well with James Craig, the former chief of the Detroit
Police Department. Craig, who is black, slammed Tlaib's
"disgusting" suggestion that police officers were racist
murderers.
"To say policing should be abolished gives no consideration to
the people who live in our neighborhoods who rely on police to
provide service," he told the Detroit News in 2021. "The people
who live in our city don't want to abolish the police, so the
million-dollar question is: Who does [Tlaib] represent?" Craig
added that he "would love to see [Tlaib] resign" and would even
"throw her a goodbye party."
In addition to her anti-police activism, Tlaib is best known for
being an outspoken anti-Semite whose frequent tirades against
Israel have been condemned by her fellow Democrats. In May, the
congresswoman spoke at a rally in Dearborn, Mich., alongside a
pro-Hamas newspaper publisher who urged Arabs around the world
to "fight within [their] means" to ensure that "Palestine would
be liberated and restored."
Tlaib shared the stage with the publisher, Osama Siblani, who
has an extensive history of praising the anti-Israel terrorist
groups Hamas and Hezbollah."We are the Arabs who are going to
lift Palestinians all the way to victory, whether we are in
Michigan and whether we are in Jenin," he said at the rally.
"They will fight with stones, others will fight with guns,
others will fight with planes, drones, and rockets, others will
fight with their voices, and others will fight with their hands
and say: 詮ree, free Palestine!'"
Published under: Defund the Police, Democratic Party, Michigan,
Rashida Tlaib
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/rashida-tlaib-snitching-scandal/
Jon Wu
Sep 7, 2022, 6:05:06 AM9/7/22
to
In article <t2uvqh$3soah$2...@news.freedyn.de>
Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> We don't care. Kill the asshole.
>
Oklahoma had halted executions in September 2015 when prison
officials realized they had received the wrong lethal drug. It
later came to light that the same wrong drug had been used to
execute an inmate, and executions in the state were put on hold.
So what? The criminal killed somebody to get on death row. A
murderer deserves no mercy. Kill them and get it over with.
Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> We don't care. Kill the asshole.
>
Oklahoma had halted executions in September 2015 when prison
officials realized they had received the wrong lethal drug. It
later came to light that the same wrong drug had been used to
execute an inmate, and executions in the state were put on hold.
So what? The criminal killed somebody to get on death row. A
murderer deserves no mercy. Kill them and get it over with.
John Baker
Sep 7, 2022, 9:44:37 AM9/7/22
to
exonerated by DNA evidence if you had a working brain.
AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Rudy Canoza
Sep 7, 2022, 10:38:59 AM9/7/22
to
to have their vengeance, and they don't give a fuck if the person executed is
actually guilty or not.
I'm always appalled and disgusted with the families of murder victims who
screech and wail when a judge frees a condemned man because irrefutable evidence
shows the man was wrongly convicted. They are truly evil people. "Victim impact
statements" in court should be prohibited.
aaa
Sep 7, 2022, 10:48:22 AM9/7/22
to
>
>
>
--
God's spiritual evidence:
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.
Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
Rudy Canoza
Sep 7, 2022, 10:53:32 AM9/7/22
to
On 9/7/2022 7:47 AM, aaa wrote:
> On 2022-09-07 10:38, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 9/7/2022 6:44 AM, John Baker wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 12:04:21 +0200 (CEST), "Jon Wu"
>>> <jon...@latimes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <t2uvqh$3soah$2...@news.freedyn.de>
>>>> Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't care. Kill the asshole.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oklahoma had halted executions in September 2015 when prison
>>>> officials realized they had received the wrong lethal drug. It
>>>> later came to light that the same wrong drug had been used to
>>>> execute an inmate, and executions in the state were put on hold.
>>>>
>>>> So what? The criminal killed somebody to get on death row. A
>>>> murderer deserves no mercy. Kill them and get it over with.
>>>
>>> You'd be appalled at the number of death row inmates who've been
>>> exonerated by DNA evidence if you had a working brain.
>>>
>>
>> No, those guys are shitbags who don't care about actual innocence. They
>> intend to have their vengeance, and they don't give a fuck if the person
>> executed is actually guilty or not.
>>
>> I'm always appalled and disgusted with the families of murder victims who
>> screech and wail when a judge frees a condemned man because irrefutable
>> evidence shows the man was wrongly convicted. They are truly evil people.
>> "Victim impact statements" in court should be prohibited.
>
> What about OJ?
Nothing about O.J.
> On 2022-09-07 10:38, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 9/7/2022 6:44 AM, John Baker wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 12:04:21 +0200 (CEST), "Jon Wu"
>>> <jon...@latimes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <t2uvqh$3soah$2...@news.freedyn.de>
>>>> Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't care. Kill the asshole.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oklahoma had halted executions in September 2015 when prison
>>>> officials realized they had received the wrong lethal drug. It
>>>> later came to light that the same wrong drug had been used to
>>>> execute an inmate, and executions in the state were put on hold.
>>>>
>>>> So what? The criminal killed somebody to get on death row. A
>>>> murderer deserves no mercy. Kill them and get it over with.
>>>
>>> You'd be appalled at the number of death row inmates who've been
>>> exonerated by DNA evidence if you had a working brain.
>>>
>>
>> No, those guys are shitbags who don't care about actual innocence. They
>> intend to have their vengeance, and they don't give a fuck if the person
>> executed is actually guilty or not.
>>
>> I'm always appalled and disgusted with the families of murder victims who
>> screech and wail when a judge frees a condemned man because irrefutable
>> evidence shows the man was wrongly convicted. They are truly evil people.
>> "Victim impact statements" in court should be prohibited.
>
> What about OJ?
aaa
Sep 7, 2022, 11:03:08 AM9/7/22
to
Polycarp
Sep 7, 2022, 11:13:21 AM9/7/22
to
On Wed, 07 Sep 2022 09:44:28 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:
Actually, he probably *wouldn't* be appalled. The 190 former death-row
prisoners that have been exonerated of all charges since 1973 would be
considered- by him- to be acceptable losses in his quest for revenge
and killing.
Unless one of them was him, of course.
wrote:
prisoners that have been exonerated of all charges since 1973 would be
considered- by him- to be acceptable losses in his quest for revenge
and killing.
Unless one of them was him, of course.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages