Re: {BS} O'Donnell jeered by law students

[edspyhill01]

On Oct 29, 5:55 pm, kachina <a...@b.c> wrote:
> Hachiroku <anonym...@not-for-mail.invalid> said stuff on 29 Oct 2010:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:09:43 +0000, kachina wrote:
>
> >> Hachiroku <anonym...@not-for-mail.invalid> said stuff on 29 Oct 2010:
>
> >>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:11:20 +0000, kachina wrote:
>
> >>>> Hachiroku <anonym...@not-for-mail.invalid> said stuff on 28 Oct
> >>>> 2010:
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:13:18 +0000, kachina wrote:
>
> >>>>>> pandora <pand...@peak.org> said stuff on 28 Oct 2010:
>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:45:16 +0000, kachina wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Hachiroku <anonym...@not-for-mail.invalid> said stuff on 28 Oct
> >>>>>>>> 2010:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 02:54:48 +0000, kachina wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Steampunk <St...@head.com> said stuff on 26 Oct 2010:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:49:47 +0000, kachina wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Steampunk <St...@head.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:rPnwo.13319$V12....@newsfe05.iad:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:33:37 +0000, spooge wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steampunk <St...@head.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:JI7wo.15106$li.1...@newsfe22.iad:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:08:37 -0400, Kali wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <HU6wo.11128$FM2.9...@newsfe16.iad>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steampunk St...@head.com says...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:58:44 -0400, Kali wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <i9q356$m0...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Respondant exam...@example.invalid says...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> pandora wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Would-be theocrats, Bill. You know, people like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Huckabee who want to replace the Constitution with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the Christian Bible, and less strikingly, people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > like Hachoo and Punk who don't understand the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > principle of separation of church and state, where
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > it comes from, and why it should remain sacred in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > democracy.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who's a Theocrat? I'm a Constitutionalist, who thinks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Constitution should be pared down to it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original intent, instead of all the piling-on that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been done to it.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretending for a moment that you can interpret the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "intent", without the written arguments of its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original authors explaining their intent: Which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution do you want to "pare down" to? The one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allows slavery? How about the one that prohibited
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sale of alcohol? Or the one that only allows white
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> men to vote? Which amendments would you pick and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose, Mr. Constitutionalist?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a non-thinking member of the Human Race, aren't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? Your handlers will be pleased.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet when you have been presented with a well
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoned, educated question you are unable to respond
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except with an unintelligent non-answer.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't bother with idiotic questions such as the one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented. It's completely ludicrous. Let's see if one of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can tell me why.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> because you are a poseur and an idiot who tries to pass
> >>>>>>>>>>>> itself off as superior, whilst failing miserably?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping at least one of you could have reasoned it out,
> >>>>>>>>>>> but the answer appears to have eluded all of you.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There is only one Constitution, not 'versions'.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I had hoped there would have been one person with the
> >>>>>>>>>>> ability to see that, but alas, I was sadly mistaken.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> translation, "blah, blah, blah, you don't live up to my high
> >>>>>>>>>> expectations, blah."
>
> >>>>>>>>>> nobody is required to play by your rules.
>
> >>>>>>>>> And yet, you Liberals insist we play by yours.
>
> >>>>>>>> why do you assume that i am a liberal? why do you lump all
> >>>>>>>> liberals into one group, as if all liberals agree on
> >>>>>>>> everything, and all have the same expectations?
>
> >>>>>>>> why do you conservatives hang onto the 2-party system and the
> >>>>>>>> us-vs-you mentality? why do you prefer a system based on fear?
>
> >>>>>>>> we are playing by the democrat rules for awhile. before that we
> >>>>>>>> were playing by the republican rules. it's all the same game,
> >>>>>>>> and the people writing the rules are the rich and powerful. the
> >>>>>>>> game is to keep us busy fighting liberals vs conservatives, so
> >>>>>>>> that we don't notice that it doesn't really matter, binky.
>
> >>>>>>>> i do have to admit that the liberal rules do look less
> >>>>>>>> dishonorable than the conservative rules.
>
> >>>>>>> I prefer the rules to be as few as possible AND to allow
> >>>>>>> freedoms for the largest numbers of people possible.  I also
> >>>>>>> prefer rules that are progressive in nature and not regressive
> >>>>>>> as cons seem to prefer.
>
> >>>>>> i like the rules to help as many as possible, to harm as few as
> >>>>>> possible, and to restrict as little as possible. i also prefer
> >>>>>> progressive to regressive. i prefer education to legislation.
>
> >>>>> So, when it comes down to it, we're really not too far apart. Just
> >>>>> that you tend to the Liberal and I tend to the Conservative.
>
> >>>>> When I take one of those on line 'tests', I come out to the right
> >>>>> of center and to the Libertarian. But I think a lot of the
> >>>>> Libertarians are k00ks...
>
> >>>> i think we need to get rid of the whole system where money buys the
> >>>> election. fund it from the government, severely limit amounts, no
> >>>> donations, no buying votes. anybody who can get a certain number of
> >>>> names on a petition can run.
>
> >>>> no political party system.
>
> >>> Hmmmm. Interesting take. I think I would agree with that, except
> >>> that modern campaigns can run into hundreds of millions of dollars.
> >>> The deeper your pockets, the better the chances of being elected.
>
> >>> There was an effort made to limit contributions, but of course, it
> >>> has loopholes. Even Obama made use of the loopholes during his
> >>> campaign. IIRC, it was McCain/Feingold? IIRC, McCain made use of the
> >>> loopholes himself.
>
> >>> It is a pretty good idea, but there would have to be limits,
> >>> otherwise the Feds woud go broke funding some of these campaigns.
>
> >>> There's also something I have mentioned in the past in the Toyota
> >>> group, and that is the cheerleading being done by the Media left. I
> >>> don't think Obama would have been elected without George
> >>> Stephanopolous, Cokey Roberts, David Gregory, Brian Williams, Katie
> >>> Couric, Meredith Viera, Matt Lauer, all of NPR, MSNBC, CNN,...
>
> >> very strict limits, with the penalty for breaking the limits being
> >> eliminated from the election.
>
> >> as to the rest, stop being stuck in the bipartisan system, sneezy.
> >> there is nothing that one side has done that the other side didn't
> >> do. ever. it's been going on a long time, just getting worse with
> >> time. as for the liberal media, sheesh, stay with some of my
> >> conservative southern relatives for a while, and you will realize
> >> that it is possible to only watch and listen to conservative media if
> >> you want.
>
> >> i'm tired of the whining. it's broken. let's fix it.
>
> > Any suggestions?
>
> sure, spread the word. let's all leave the parties, start running write-
> in candidates, stop donating to political parties. vote your conscience,
> not the lesser of 2 evils, and speak out.
>
> --
> @}`-,--   *with bells and motley*- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Can we first reverse the recent supreme court ruling that allows
untracable corporate spending in elections?

[Jane_Galt]

kachina <a@b.c> wrote :

>>>
>>> i'm tired of the whining. it's broken. let's fix it.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>>
>
> sure, spread the word. let's all leave the parties, start running write-
> in candidates, stop donating to political parties. vote your conscience,
> not the lesser of 2 evils, and speak out.
>

Most people dont want to do what it would take to really fix things.

Prepare for the big collapse.

--
- Jane Galt

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means
of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by
force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and
suicide." -- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons"

[Jane_Galt]

kachina <a@b.c> wrote :

> "Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@gulch.xyz> said stuff on 30 Oct 2010:

>
>> kachina <a@b.c> wrote :
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm tired of the whining. it's broken. let's fix it.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> sure, spread the word. let's all leave the parties, start running
>>> write- in candidates, stop donating to political parties. vote your
>>> conscience, not the lesser of 2 evils, and speak out.
>>>
>>
>> Most people dont want to do what it would take to really fix things.
>>
>> Prepare for the big collapse.
>>
>>
>

> i was born prepared, hon. i'm apache.
>

Wouldnt know. A lot of people ( not just a lot of native Americans ) have
become essentially welfare wards of the state. Government knows how to
enslave people that way.

Socialism doesnt believe in racial slavery, they just enslave most people
equally, with the ruling elite at the top.