Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
6 views
Skip to first unread message
.MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 5:21:46 PM4/5/12
to
The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
It’s well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
health insurance. Still, it’s worth noting the magnitude of the
challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: “Assume for the moment that this”—the
mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have
allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is
so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?” Every premise of
that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal
government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates
back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The
forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are
riding on the outcome of the case are already entered “into commerce,”
because others are likely to pay their health-care costs
..........
No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more
than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be
remembered, is not exactly their strength, either. ?
Read more
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/09/120409taco_talk_toobin#ixzz1rCfLfdea
It’s well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
health insurance. Still, it’s worth noting the magnitude of the
challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: “Assume for the moment that this”—the
mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have
allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is
so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?” Every premise of
that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal
government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates
back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The
forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are
riding on the outcome of the case are already entered “into commerce,”
because others are likely to pay their health-care costs
..........
No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more
than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be
remembered, is not exactly their strength, either. ?
Read more
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/09/120409taco_talk_toobin#ixzz1rCfLfdea
Eddie Haskell
Apr 5, 2012, 5:28:02 PM4/5/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com...
> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>
> It's well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
> General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
> called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
> the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
> health insurance. Still, it's worth noting the magnitude of the
> challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
> Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
> Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
> interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
> by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: "Assume for the moment that this"-the
>
> It's well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
> General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
> called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
> the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
> health insurance. Still, it's worth noting the magnitude of the
> challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
> Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
> Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
> interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
> mandate-"is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have
> allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is
> so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?" Every premise of
> that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal
> government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates
> back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The
> forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are
> riding on the outcome of the case are already entered "into commerce,"
> because others are likely to pay their health-care costs
>
> ..........
>
> No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more
> than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be
> remembered, is not exactly their strength, either. ?
Except that it never happened, moron.
> so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?" Every premise of
> that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal
> government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates
> back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The
> forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are
> riding on the outcome of the case are already entered "into commerce,"
> because others are likely to pay their health-care costs
>
> ..........
>
> No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more
> than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be
> remembered, is not exactly their strength, either. ?
-Eddie Haskell
.MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 5:44:48 PM4/5/12
to
JEFFREY TOOBIN
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/jeffrey_toobin/search?contributorName=jeffrey%20toobin
Good luck with that.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
Eddie Haskell
Apr 5, 2012, 5:46:32 PM4/5/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
-Eddie Haskell
.MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 5:50:58 PM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:46:32 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"
Maybe I'm posting it to see what other people think. Well in this
case.
So you opinion noted.
My opinion Bush and Obama tied as worse Presidents in the history of
the USA.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
case.
So you opinion noted.
My opinion Bush and Obama tied as worse Presidents in the history of
the USA.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
Eddie Haskell
Apr 5, 2012, 6:00:31 PM4/5/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
May as well tell me that Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he's up to no
good. He looks black."
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 5, 2012, 6:01:01 PM4/5/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
-Eddie Haskell
.MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 6:14:52 PM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:01:01 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"
I think you are just like Zepp. That means a Moron is slightly
above you both. :-)))
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
>
above you both. :-)))
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
>
.MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 6:14:57 PM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:00:31 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"
Which of the DNC / MSM cabal said that about Obama again?
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
>
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
>
Bert
Apr 5, 2012, 6:55:19 PM4/5/12
to
In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
<trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
.MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 7:05:46 PM4/5/12
to
On 05 Apr 2012 22:55:19 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>
>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>
>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
Fred E Brown
Apr 5, 2012, 7:06:01 PM4/5/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com...
> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
See Atty General Eric Holders Letter to the 5th Circuit Court
dated April 5, 2012
Holder says Supreme Court's power to review laws is "Beyond Dispute."
Suck wind crybabies
http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/04/05/justice-department-letter-to-5th-circuit-court-appeals/
> It's well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
> General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
> called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
> the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
> health insurance. Still, it's worth noting the magnitude of the
> challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
> Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
> Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
> interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
> mandate-"is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have
Bert
Apr 5, 2012, 7:06:58 PM4/5/12
to
In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv...@4ax.com .MattB.
So what, if any, was the purpose of your original post?
.MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 7:17:38 PM4/5/12
to
Fred E Brown
Apr 5, 2012, 7:26:01 PM4/5/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com...
> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>
> It's well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
> General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
> called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
> the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
> health insurance. Still, it's worth noting the magnitude of the
> challenge that he was facing.
Yeah, he was totally unprepared to argue a case two years in the making.
>
> It's well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
> General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
> called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
> the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
> health insurance. Still, it's worth noting the magnitude of the
> challenge that he was facing.
BoooHoooooo
The key issue in the case is whether
> Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
> Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
> interstate commerce.
Court admits that the power of the courts to review the constitutionality
of legislation is "beyond dispute."
Suck it up, libtards
Message has been deleted
lsrlts
Apr 5, 2012, 7:37:54 PM4/5/12
to
On 4/5/2012 4:32 PM, China Blue Water Navy wrote:
> Now the supremes are set to piss off the people
> that have been defending their independence.
"Independence" to be *compelled* to do business with private vendors?
> Now the supremes are set to piss off the people
> that have been defending their independence.
"Independence" to be *compelled* to do business with private vendors?
lsrlts
Apr 5, 2012, 7:45:10 PM4/5/12
to
On 4/5/2012 4:06 PM, Fred E Brown wrote:
> Holder says Supreme Court's power to review laws is "Beyond Dispute."
Did he say it fast and furiously?
> Holder says Supreme Court's power to review laws is "Beyond Dispute."
Fred E Brown
Apr 5, 2012, 8:00:01 PM4/5/12
to
"China Blue Water Navy" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-52481...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <XnsA02CB64FB8F...@216.250.188.140>,
> Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>
>> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>
> Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'. One
>
>> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>
>> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>
> decision
> they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off the
> people
> that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate court
> is
> running scared.
You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.
Judicial activism is a judge legislating from the bench.
The courts reviewing the constitutionality of legislation is not judicial
activism.
Too many ignorant, uneducated people here getting the definitions between
the
two terms confused.
The courts job is not to review legislation to see if it is "good for
people", it's
job is to determine if the legislation is constitutional.
> --
> My name Indigo Montoya. | R'lyeh 38o57'6.5''S 102o51'16''E.
> You flamed my father. | I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Prepare to be spanked. | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Stop posting that! | At least I can stay in character.
lsrlts
Apr 5, 2012, 8:04:33 PM4/5/12
to
First. Post
Apr 5, 2012, 8:50:10 PM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:17:38 -0700, .MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>
court has no business making healthcare decisions.
THEY ARE NOT REVIEWING HEALTHCARE. THEY ARE REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
A LAW THAT REQUIRES THE POPULATION TO PURCHASE A SPECIFIC PRODUCT OR BE
PUNISHED.
And as far as all the hell raising about what the judges believe or don't
believe is concerned, It appears to be fairly obvious that the loudest mouths
that are already berating the SCOTUS prior to them even ruling on the matter
belong to those that already know that the government cannot force every man
woman and child in the nation to purchase a product as a consequence of
citizenship. What they are really pissed about is the fact that it is going to
be reviewed by the SCOTUS and they never thought it would go that far.
Obama knows his little healthcare law is unconstitutional or he wouldn't have
been so quick to make his dumbassed pre-judgement on what the court will decide
and jumped their ass in public over it.
Those wanting to piss about what the SCOTUS might decide are behaving just
exactly like elementary school brats sitting in the office waiting to see the
principal bitching about what punishment they know they're about to get.
And it is simply laughable that Obama actually said that he needs to be
re-elected so he can appoint two more liberal judges to the SCOTUS.
For 8 years straight we heard time and time again how Bush supposedly wanted to
be a dictator because of a stupid joke he made.
Now we have a president that ain't joking about it in the least.
wrote:
>On 05 Apr 2012 23:06:58 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv...@4ax.com .MattB.
>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05 Apr 2012 22:55:19 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>
>>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>>> private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>>
>>So what, if any, was the purpose of your original post?
>
> I'm interested in the opinion of others.
Since you asked. You posted a snippet from an article talking about how the
>On 05 Apr 2012 23:06:58 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv...@4ax.com .MattB.
>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05 Apr 2012 22:55:19 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>
>>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>>> private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>>
>>So what, if any, was the purpose of your original post?
>
> I'm interested in the opinion of others.
court has no business making healthcare decisions.
THEY ARE NOT REVIEWING HEALTHCARE. THEY ARE REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
A LAW THAT REQUIRES THE POPULATION TO PURCHASE A SPECIFIC PRODUCT OR BE
PUNISHED.
And as far as all the hell raising about what the judges believe or don't
believe is concerned, It appears to be fairly obvious that the loudest mouths
that are already berating the SCOTUS prior to them even ruling on the matter
belong to those that already know that the government cannot force every man
woman and child in the nation to purchase a product as a consequence of
citizenship. What they are really pissed about is the fact that it is going to
be reviewed by the SCOTUS and they never thought it would go that far.
Obama knows his little healthcare law is unconstitutional or he wouldn't have
been so quick to make his dumbassed pre-judgement on what the court will decide
and jumped their ass in public over it.
Those wanting to piss about what the SCOTUS might decide are behaving just
exactly like elementary school brats sitting in the office waiting to see the
principal bitching about what punishment they know they're about to get.
And it is simply laughable that Obama actually said that he needs to be
re-elected so he can appoint two more liberal judges to the SCOTUS.
For 8 years straight we heard time and time again how Bush supposedly wanted to
be a dictator because of a stupid joke he made.
Now we have a president that ain't joking about it in the least.
.MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 9:15:23 PM4/5/12
to
Think Obama might know that part of the bill is likely to be
considered Unconstitutional.
Just my opinion ;-))
2938 Dead
Apr 5, 2012, 9:14:17 PM4/5/12
to
>
>
>
>>-Eddie Haskell
>>
>>
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
.MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 9:17:58 PM4/5/12
to
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 01:14:17 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
What has anything here have to do with race?
The quote from the 911 call is edited and out of context. FACT.
Obama and Bush are the worse Presidents we have ever had.
wrote:
The quote from the 911 call is edited and out of context. FACT.
Obama and Bush are the worse Presidents we have ever had.
Message has been deleted
lsrlts
Apr 5, 2012, 9:21:19 PM4/5/12
to
On 4/5/2012 6:20 PM, China Blue Water Navy wrote:
> In article<4f7e319a$0$95005$bb4e...@newscene.com>,
>
And when Obama's care is under review...
> In article<4f7e319a$0$95005$bb4e...@newscene.com>,
> "Fred E Brown"<frede...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> "China Blue Water Navy"<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-52481...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article<XnsA02CB64FB8F...@216.250.188.140>,
>>> Bert<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>
>>> Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'. One
>>> decision
>>> they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off the
>>> people
>>> that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate court
>>> is
>>> running scared.
>>
>> You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.
>
> It's when Republican don't like a decision.
>
>> "China Blue Water Navy"<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-52481...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article<XnsA02CB64FB8F...@216.250.188.140>,
>>> Bert<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>
>>> Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'. One
>>> decision
>>> they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off the
>>> people
>>> that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate court
>>> is
>>> running scared.
>>
>> You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.
>
>
And when Obama's care is under review...
Foxtrot
Apr 5, 2012, 9:26:50 PM4/5/12
to
.MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>
>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>
> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
Ever occur to you that their politics would influence how they
interpret the Constitution?
>Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>
>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>
> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
interpret the Constitution?
MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 9:33:40 PM4/5/12
to
the Constitution is when I see a problem. The left and right.
Foxtrot
Apr 5, 2012, 9:45:32 PM4/5/12
to
they're overriding it, isn't it? That's why the court is isolated from
popular opinion.
MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 10:13:12 PM4/5/12
to
well.
Do I like Corporations being a person NO, Do I like this mess with
the Super Pacs No, Do I like the government being able to strip search
people at will No.
Do you agree with everything they have ever done?
DogDiesel
Apr 5, 2012, 11:26:15 PM4/5/12
to
"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
news:2ehsn7t4kta4bj5pc...@4ax.com...
dictator politics , Have trampled the Constitution, and wrecked
America for damn near 100 fucking years.
So eat fucking shit ,
you Commie bastards.
You stupid Sobs should of let the states run it.
And stop giving everything away to foreigners
You Cocksuckers.
'
DogDiesel
Apr 5, 2012, 11:29:24 PM4/5/12
to
"lsrlts" <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote in message
news:jllacf$c94$2...@dont-email.me...
So Yea, motherfucker . You are free to do business with private business.
Or not.
And go to the emergency room.
Or pay for your own healthcare.
Or let the states run it.
Or fuckoff.
2938 Dead
Apr 5, 2012, 11:30:52 PM4/5/12
to
from his seething hatred of black people.
You're a disgraceful piece of shit.
DogDiesel
Apr 5, 2012, 11:31:35 PM4/5/12
to
"> The courts job is not to review legislation to see if it is "good for
> people", it's
> job is to determine if the legislation is constitutional.
>
>
And they haven't been been doing in damn near a hundred fucking
years.
The whole time the Courts was in liberal smash the Constitution mode.
.MattB.
Apr 5, 2012, 11:36:06 PM4/5/12
to
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 03:30:52 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com>
I don't hate even you. Pity feel sorry for yes.
man dared to disagree with you. Forgot 3/4 white.
>>
>> Obama and Bush are the worse Presidents we have ever had.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>-Eddie Haskell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>?Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
>>>inevitable? -JFK
>
>You're a disgraceful piece of shit.
Now go back to your little racist friends and tell them a white
>You're a disgraceful piece of shit.
man dared to disagree with you. Forgot 3/4 white.
>>
>> Obama and Bush are the worse Presidents we have ever had.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>-Eddie Haskell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>inevitable? -JFK
2938 Dead
Apr 6, 2012, 1:49:45 AM4/6/12
to
Imagine that.
> '
Foxtrot
Apr 6, 2012, 4:49:15 AM4/6/12
to
>>MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
>>>Yes and that is not a problem, When their politics/religion override
>>>the Constitution is when I see a problem. The left and right.
>>
>>It's your interpretation of the Constitution that determines whether
>>they're overriding it, isn't it?
>
> Hell no. I'm not even close to knowing the Constitution that
>well.
>
> Do I like Corporations being a person NO,
Because you don't like corporations--which are financed by normal
>>>Yes and that is not a problem, When their politics/religion override
>>>the Constitution is when I see a problem. The left and right.
>>
>>It's your interpretation of the Constitution that determines whether
>>they're overriding it, isn't it?
>
> Hell no. I'm not even close to knowing the Constitution that
>well.
>
> Do I like Corporations being a person NO,
Americans investing for their futures--to be treated as humans.
>Do I like this mess with
>the Super Pacs No,
>Do I like the government being able to strip search
>people at will No.
searching is needed. If you're too pompous to allow profiling then blue
haired grandmas from Iowa must be searched as much as single men
speaking Arabic carrying korans with one way tickets.
> Do you agree with everything they have ever done?
MattB.
Apr 6, 2012, 5:39:04 AM4/6/12
to
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 01:49:15 -0700, Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>
>>>MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
>>>>Yes and that is not a problem, When their politics/religion override
>>>>the Constitution is when I see a problem. The left and right.
>>>
>>>It's your interpretation of the Constitution that determines whether
>>>they're overriding it, isn't it?
>>
>> Hell no. I'm not even close to knowing the Constitution that
>>well.
>>
>> Do I like Corporations being a person NO,
>
>Because you don't like corporations--which are financed by normal
>Americans investing for their futures--to be treated as humans.
You have it right companies are owned by persons the company
>MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>
>>>MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
>>>>Yes and that is not a problem, When their politics/religion override
>>>>the Constitution is when I see a problem. The left and right.
>>>
>>>It's your interpretation of the Constitution that determines whether
>>>they're overriding it, isn't it?
>>
>> Hell no. I'm not even close to knowing the Constitution that
>>well.
>>
>> Do I like Corporations being a person NO,
>
>Because you don't like corporations--which are financed by normal
>Americans investing for their futures--to be treated as humans.
itself isn't a person. I own part of one and I am the person not the
company.
>
>>Do I like this mess with
>>the Super Pacs No,
>
>Agree with you there.
>
>>Do I like the government being able to strip search
>>people at will No.
>
>If you don't want terrorists freely murdering people, then proactive
>searching is needed. If you're too pompous to allow profiling then blue
>haired grandmas from Iowa must be searched as much as single men
>speaking Arabic carrying korans with one way tickets.
support profiling. When 95% of all terrorist acts are committed by
Muslims that isn't profiling that is a fact.
If we give up all our freedoms the terrorist have already won.
>
>> Do you agree with everything they have ever done?
>
>You're an ideologue. Good intentions but stupid.
Maybe
>> Do you agree with everything they have ever done?
>
>You're an ideologue. Good intentions but stupid.
>
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:11:27 AM4/6/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:01:01 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"
> <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:fp4sn7tehjr1c0lhg...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:46:32 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"
>>> <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:vd4sn790abao0vhba...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:28:02 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"
>>>>> <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:fp4sn7tehjr1c0lhg...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:46:32 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"
>>> <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:vd4sn790abao0vhba...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:28:02 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"
>>>>> <hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
> I think you are just like Zepp. That means a Moron is slightly
> above you both. :-)))
You think that because you're a moron.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:12:29 AM4/6/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
> On 05 Apr 2012 23:06:58 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv...@4ax.com .MattB.
>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv...@4ax.com .MattB.
>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05 Apr 2012 22:55:19 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>
>>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>>> private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>>
>>>
>>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>>> private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>>
>>So what, if any, was the purpose of your original post?
>
> I'm interested in the opinion of others.
It's our opinion that you're a moron.
>
> I'm interested in the opinion of others.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:15:28 AM4/6/12
to
"First. Post" <OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:rcesn7di898i4ut6g...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:17:38 -0700, .MattB.
> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 05 Apr 2012 23:06:58 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05 Apr 2012 22:55:19 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>>
>>>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>>>> private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>>>
>>>So what, if any, was the purpose of your original post?
>>
>> I'm interested in the opinion of others.
>
> Since you asked. You posted a snippet from an article talking about how
> the
> court has no business making healthcare decisions.
The article was written by an obvious Hussein Youth lackey and Matt is a
> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 05 Apr 2012 23:06:58 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05 Apr 2012 22:55:19 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>>
>>>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>>>> private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>>>
>>>So what, if any, was the purpose of your original post?
>>
>> I'm interested in the opinion of others.
>
> Since you asked. You posted a snippet from an article talking about how
> the
> court has no business making healthcare decisions.
moron for posting it.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:17:13 AM4/6/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
constitution?
Damn you're a moron.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:20:09 AM4/6/12
to
"2938 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jlm05o$61c$1...@dont-email.me...
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:26:15 -0400, DogDiesel wrote:
>
>> "Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
>> news:2ehsn7t4kta4bj5pc...@4ax.com...
>>> .MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>>
>>>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>>>>private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>>>
>>> Ever occur to you that their politics would influence how they
>>> interpret the Constitution?
>>>
>>>
>> Yup, And your liberal dictating Scotus , and its liberal
>> motherfucking dictator politics , Have trampled the Constitution,
>> and wrecked America for damn near 100 fucking years.
>>
>> So eat fucking shit ,
>>
>> you Commie bastards.
>>
>> You stupid Sobs should of let the states run it.
>>
>> And stop giving everything away to foreigners
>>
>> You Cocksuckers.
>
> And yet, despite heroes like you, the South still got it's ass kicked.
Duh fuck?
>
>> "Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
>> news:2ehsn7t4kta4bj5pc...@4ax.com...
>>> .MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>>
>>>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>>>>private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>>>
>>> Ever occur to you that their politics would influence how they
>>> interpret the Constitution?
>>>
>>>
>> Yup, And your liberal dictating Scotus , and its liberal
>> motherfucking dictator politics , Have trampled the Constitution,
>> and wrecked America for damn near 100 fucking years.
>>
>> So eat fucking shit ,
>>
>> you Commie bastards.
>>
>> You stupid Sobs should of let the states run it.
>>
>> And stop giving everything away to foreigners
>>
>> You Cocksuckers.
>
> And yet, despite heroes like you, the South still got it's ass kicked.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:24:26 AM4/6/12
to
"Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4f7e319a$0$95005$bb4e...@newscene.com...
a lying Hussein shill and picked up her twisted propaganda lie from
Hussein's Goebbels speech the other day. She was watching and when he lied
about what we conservatives believe she said to herself, yeah, that's a good
lie. I'll tell that one too.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:27:52 AM4/6/12
to
news:jllg17$grh$2...@dont-email.me...
Explain to us why anyone should give a shit, you uncivilized and immoral
racist bone-nosed Sambo fuck?
"Well, he [Zimmerman] just shot and killed a kid for no reason at all."
-2915 Dead, Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:59 PM
"Typical white person"
-Hussein
"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."
-Hussein
Hussein's associations:
Rev. Wright, whose church Hussein attended and supported financially for
over
20 years:
"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is
controlled by rich white people."
Rev. Lowery, hand picked by Hussein to deliver the inaugural benediction:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in
the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when
black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when
yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white
will embrace what is right."
Sonia Sotomayor, Hussein's pick for the SC:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences
would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn't lived that life."
From Hussein's book:
"White man's greed runs a world in need."
Prof. Gates, anti-white racist who Obama says is a friend of his.
Obama advisor Van Jones:
"Only Suburban White Kids Shoot Up Schools"
"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child"
"White polluters steered poison into minority communities"
"Coates, who said he was testifying before the commission as a whistle
blower and in violation of his Justice supervisor's instructions, said that
there is a "hostile atmosphere" in the civil rights division that did not
"reflect race neutral policies." He said the country's major civil rights
organizations are also biased against race-neutral enforcement."
http://tinyurl.com/3x5ts8o
"In emotional and personal testimony, an ex-Justice official who quit over
the handling of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther
Party accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil
rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white
victims. "
http://tinyurl.com/3x8q42h
-Eddie Haskell
racist bone-nosed Sambo fuck?
"Well, he [Zimmerman] just shot and killed a kid for no reason at all."
-2915 Dead, Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:59 PM
"Typical white person"
-Hussein
"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."
-Hussein
Hussein's associations:
Rev. Wright, whose church Hussein attended and supported financially for
over
20 years:
"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is
controlled by rich white people."
Rev. Lowery, hand picked by Hussein to deliver the inaugural benediction:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in
the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when
black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when
yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white
will embrace what is right."
Sonia Sotomayor, Hussein's pick for the SC:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences
would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn't lived that life."
From Hussein's book:
"White man's greed runs a world in need."
Prof. Gates, anti-white racist who Obama says is a friend of his.
Obama advisor Van Jones:
"Only Suburban White Kids Shoot Up Schools"
"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child"
"White polluters steered poison into minority communities"
"Coates, who said he was testifying before the commission as a whistle
blower and in violation of his Justice supervisor's instructions, said that
there is a "hostile atmosphere" in the civil rights division that did not
"reflect race neutral policies." He said the country's major civil rights
organizations are also biased against race-neutral enforcement."
http://tinyurl.com/3x5ts8o
"In emotional and personal testimony, an ex-Justice official who quit over
the handling of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther
Party accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil
rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white
victims. "
http://tinyurl.com/3x8q42h
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:34:17 AM4/6/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
EVERYTHING has to do with race. Astronomy has to do with race. Mathematics
has to do with race. The automotive industry has to do race. Just pick up a
copy of Louis Farrakhan's "Final Call" aka "Why it's Whitey's Fault and
you'll understand Kunta Kinte's mentality completely.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:39:21 AM4/6/12
to
news:jllo14$3nj$4...@dont-email.me...
Stop acting like a bunch uncivilized mob rule third-world apes and a threat
to our legal system and country and maybe you wouldn't be hated. As it is
the way you fuckers act one can only reach the conclusion that you WANT to
be hated so you can cry racism as an eternal crutch.
Now, go fuck yourself. You fool no one.
to our legal system and country and maybe you wouldn't be hated. As it is
the way you fuckers act one can only reach the conclusion that you WANT to
be hated so you can cry racism as an eternal crutch.
Now, go fuck yourself. You fool no one.
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:40:15 AM4/6/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:45:05 AM4/6/12
to
"lsrlts" <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote in message
> On 4/5/2012 5:00 PM, Fred E Brown wrote:
>>
>> "China Blue Water Navy" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-52481...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article <XnsA02CB64FB8F...@216.250.188.140>,
>>> Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> "China Blue Water Navy" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-52481...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article <XnsA02CB64FB8F...@216.250.188.140>,
>>> Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>
>>> Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'.
>>> One decision
>>> they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off
>>> the people
>>> that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate
>>> court is
>>> running scared.
>>
>> You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.
>> Judicial activism is a judge legislating from the bench.
>> The courts reviewing the constitutionality of legislation is not
>> judicial activism.
>> Too many ignorant, uneducated people here getting the definitions
>> between the
>> two terms confused.
>> The courts job is not to review legislation to see if it is "good for
>> people", it's
>> job is to determine if the legislation is constitutional.
>>
>>
> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'.
>>> One decision
>>> they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off
>>> the people
>>> that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate
>>> court is
>>> running scared.
>>
>> You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.
>> Judicial activism is a judge legislating from the bench.
>> The courts reviewing the constitutionality of legislation is not
>> judicial activism.
>> Too many ignorant, uneducated people here getting the definitions
>> between the
>> two terms confused.
>> The courts job is not to review legislation to see if it is "good for
>> people", it's
>> job is to determine if the legislation is constitutional.
>>
>>
It's all part of the left's fascist playbook to distort what we
conservatives believe because their own beliefs are indefensible.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:51:37 AM4/6/12
to
news:chine.bleu-F1CF4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <4f7e319a$0$95005$bb4e...@newscene.com>,
down a perfectly constitutional law because you simply don't like it, while
you now lie and pretend it's when the court strikes down an unconstitutional
law that you like.
I think it's important to note here, folks, that China Shit Head here is
black as the ace of spades. Getting a clue yet? Ever notice how black
talking heads on political shows like Marc Lamont Hill can dissemble their
lying brains out like no white man could dream?
-Eddie Haskell
> In article <4f7e319a$0$95005$bb4e...@newscene.com>,
> "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> "China Blue Water Navy" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-52481...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > In article <XnsA02CB64FB8F...@216.250.188.140>,
>> > Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>> >> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>> >>
>> >> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>> >
>> > Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'. One
>> > decision
>> > they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off
>> > the
>> > people
>> > that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate
>> > court
>> > is
>> > running scared.
>>
>> You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.
>
>
>> "China Blue Water Navy" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-52481...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > In article <XnsA02CB64FB8F...@216.250.188.140>,
>> > Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com .MattB.
>> >> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>> >>
>> >> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>> >
>> > Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'. One
>> > decision
>> > they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off
>> > the
>> > people
>> > that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate
>> > court
>> > is
>> > running scared.
>>
>> You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.
>
> It's when Republican don't like a decision.
Nice lie, motherfucker. Judicial activism is when YOU lawless fucks strike
down a perfectly constitutional law because you simply don't like it, while
you now lie and pretend it's when the court strikes down an unconstitutional
law that you like.
I think it's important to note here, folks, that China Shit Head here is
black as the ace of spades. Getting a clue yet? Ever notice how black
talking heads on political shows like Marc Lamont Hill can dissemble their
lying brains out like no white man could dream?
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 10:53:18 AM4/6/12
to
"Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4f7e24e2$0$94976$bb4e...@newscene.com...
>
> ".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com...
> ".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:223sn7h8cufarf25l...@4ax.com...
>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>
> See Atty General Eric Holders Letter to the 5th Circuit Court
>
> dated April 5, 2012
>
> Holder says Supreme Court's power to review laws is "Beyond Dispute."
>
> Suck wind crybabies
Got his ass handed to him and was made a fool of and had to backpedal for
Hussein the fucking idiot. Congratulations.
-Eddie Haskell
Bert
Apr 6, 2012, 11:43:09 AM4/6/12
to
In news:2pgsn7phvqga5stak...@4ax.com .MattB.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
<trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
> We don't need more liberal Judges we need 2 moderate Judges.
Moderately interested in upholding the Constitution?
> We don't need more liberal Judges we need 2 moderate Judges.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 12:39:13 PM4/6/12
to
"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA02D6D0A7FF...@216.250.188.140...
> In news:2pgsn7phvqga5stak...@4ax.com .MattB.
> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We don't need more liberal Judges we need 2 moderate Judges.
>
> Moderately interested in upholding the Constitution?
Thank you.
> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We don't need more liberal Judges we need 2 moderate Judges.
>
> Moderately interested in upholding the Constitution?
-Eddie Haskell
.MattB.
Apr 6, 2012, 1:28:30 PM4/6/12
to
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:11:27 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"
That is still way above You and Zepp. Seems Republicans agree as
the Tea Party is going down in Flames. Now we can focus on the other
Zepp in the White House. Tea Party and Obama gone we might stand a
chance of getting America united again.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
the Tea Party is going down in Flames. Now we can focus on the other
Zepp in the White House. Tea Party and Obama gone we might stand a
chance of getting America united again.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 2:04:48 PM4/6/12
to
".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
earth is going to save this country by uniting with democrats. They are
corrupt to the core and downright anti-American.
Goddamn you're stupid.
The right has to WIN and the left has to be crushed. The idea that they
would unite with us is utterly fucking insane. Do you live in a fucking
cave?
Goddamn you're stupid.
You know what? I get it now. You think if the tea party is gone then
democrats will be more reasonable. That's as fucking stupid as siting down
with Iran for talks with no preconditions.
Goddamn you're stupid.
Let me tell you something, numbnuts. RINOs ain't gonna do it. They will NOT
going save this country. They don't have the balls or even the understanding
of how serious this is. The only entity that sees the writing on the wall
and loves this country and the principles that it was founded on and wants
to save them are tea partiers. The people you support are luke warm nothings
that will preside over our demise only a bit more slowing that the left
will.
Goddamn you're stupid.
-Eddie Haskell
.MattB.
Apr 6, 2012, 2:43:49 PM4/6/12
to
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 13:04:48 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"
Then I am Stupid with many Americans and can enjoy seeing the Tea
Party fall. The Far left has shown themselves to be racist in the
extreme and gun runners to drug gangs. Far Left loves Hugo Chavez
type of government.
Next get the Far right and Far left out of Congress so it can do
more than take away rights. They do agree to that.
We need a voice of reason. Sadly no candidate for the WH fits that
and Obama is not to be trusted. Sadly Obama knows how to push the far
Right's buttons and get them to respond as he chooses. Soon the Tea
Party will be limited to the Freed Phelps types and the Koch
worshippers.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
Party fall. The Far left has shown themselves to be racist in the
extreme and gun runners to drug gangs. Far Left loves Hugo Chavez
type of government.
Next get the Far right and Far left out of Congress so it can do
more than take away rights. They do agree to that.
We need a voice of reason. Sadly no candidate for the WH fits that
and Obama is not to be trusted. Sadly Obama knows how to push the far
Right's buttons and get them to respond as he chooses. Soon the Tea
Party will be limited to the Freed Phelps types and the Koch
worshippers.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
Message has been deleted
ozark...@yahoo.com
Apr 6, 2012, 3:07:54 PM4/6/12
to
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:21:46 -0700, .MattB.
<trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>
>It’s well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
>General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
>called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
>the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
>health insurance. Still, it’s worth noting the magnitude of the
>challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
>Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
>Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
>interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
>by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: “Assume for the moment that this”—the
<trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>
>It’s well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
>General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
>called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
>the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
>health insurance. Still, it’s worth noting the magnitude of the
>challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
>Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
>Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
>interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
>mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have
>allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is
>so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?” Every premise of
>that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal
>government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates
>back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The
>forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are
>riding on the outcome of the case are already entered “into commerce,”
>because others are likely to pay their health-care costs
>
>..........
>
>No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more
>than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be
>remembered, is not exactly their strength, either. ?
They aren't. They are just doing their job and reining in the out of
>so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?” Every premise of
>that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal
>government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates
>back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The
>forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are
>riding on the outcome of the case are already entered “into commerce,”
>because others are likely to pay their health-care costs
>
>..........
>
>No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more
>than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be
>remembered, is not exactly their strength, either. ?
control obama.
.MattB.
Apr 6, 2012, 3:16:35 PM4/6/12
to
President that forgets the Constitution. Seems it is King Obama that
has contempt for the SC and their job.
First. Post
Apr 6, 2012, 4:40:38 PM4/6/12
to
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:16:35 -0700, .MattB. <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com>
wrote:
It's OK for Obama to disagree with any court decision.
It's OK for him to be disappointed and even pissed about it.
It is not OK for him to spout off with a public attack on the court.
No, there's nothing illegal about it, it just shows really low class and a
selfish spoiled brat mentality. It is yet another degradation to the office of
the president.
wrote:
It's OK for him to be disappointed and even pissed about it.
It is not OK for him to spout off with a public attack on the court.
No, there's nothing illegal about it, it just shows really low class and a
selfish spoiled brat mentality. It is yet another degradation to the office of
the president.
Message has been deleted
2938 Dead
Apr 6, 2012, 4:54:26 PM4/6/12
to
Not that the drooling fascists you have strutting around pretending to be
judges are above criticism, mind you.
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
bobby sanders
Apr 6, 2012, 4:56:19 PM4/6/12
to
.MattB. <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
The Supreme Court refuses to ban abortion and ban our wommin folk from
> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
buying birth control with their health insurance.
What do you expect from a bunch of activist judges, especially that
asshole Roberts who doesn't even know the Presidential Oath. What
third world shit hole is that asshole from anyway? He sure wasn't
educated in the good old US of A.
Eddie Haskell
Apr 6, 2012, 5:16:08 PM4/6/12
to
news:jlnl61$17a$3...@dont-email.me...
Have you ever though of responding with anything other than your playing
stupid routine?
Oh, wait..
-Eddie Haskell
stupid routine?
Oh, wait..
-Eddie Haskell
.MattB.
Apr 6, 2012, 5:31:35 PM4/6/12
to
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:52:28 -0700, China Blue Water Navy
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <01lun71dgitktequo...@4ax.com>,
There not President. Then again Obama isn't much of one. Selling
Guns to drug Lords and all.
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <01lun71dgitktequo...@4ax.com>,
> First. Post <OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> It's OK for Obama to disagree with any court decision.
>> It's OK for him to be disappointed and even pissed about it.
>> It is not OK for him to spout off with a public attack on the court.
>> No, there's nothing illegal about it, it just shows really low class and a
>> selfish spoiled brat mentality. It is yet another degradation to the office
>> of
>> the president.
>
>And when Perry and Gingrich do it?
>
>> It's OK for Obama to disagree with any court decision.
>> It's OK for him to be disappointed and even pissed about it.
>> It is not OK for him to spout off with a public attack on the court.
>> No, there's nothing illegal about it, it just shows really low class and a
>> selfish spoiled brat mentality. It is yet another degradation to the office
>> of
>> the president.
>
There not President. Then again Obama isn't much of one. Selling
Guns to drug Lords and all.
Joe Buck Simpson
Apr 6, 2012, 5:50:30 PM4/6/12
to
MattB. wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:52:28 -0700, China Blue Water Navy
>
> <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:52:28 -0700, China Blue Water Navy
>
> >In article <01lun71dgitktequo5gq7tg9516knv0...@4ax.com>,
> > First. Post <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's OK for Obama to disagree with any court decision.
> >> It's OK for him to be disappointed and even pissed about it.
> >> It is not OK for him to spout off with a public attack on the court.
> >> No, there's nothing illegal about it, it just shows really low class and a
> >> selfish spoiled brat mentality. It is yet another degradation to the office
> >> of
> >> the president.
>
> >And when Perry and Gingrich do it?
>
> There not President. Then again Obama isn't much of one. Selling
> Guns to drug Lords and all.
I preferred Reagan, he sold arms to our enemies and Ollie North took
>
> >> It's OK for Obama to disagree with any court decision.
> >> It's OK for him to be disappointed and even pissed about it.
> >> It is not OK for him to spout off with a public attack on the court.
> >> No, there's nothing illegal about it, it just shows really low class and a
> >> selfish spoiled brat mentality. It is yet another degradation to the office
> >> of
> >> the president.
>
> >And when Perry and Gingrich do it?
>
> There not President. Then again Obama isn't much of one. Selling
> Guns to drug Lords and all.
the blame.
A great man. When Republicans do it, it's fine and we need to support
it.
--
Joe Buck
.MattB.
Apr 6, 2012, 7:25:33 PM4/6/12
to
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:40:38 -0500, First. Post
history.
MattB.
Apr 6, 2012, 9:05:26 PM4/6/12
to
On 06 Apr 2012 15:43:09 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>In news:2pgsn7phvqga5stak...@4ax.com .MattB.
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We don't need more liberal Judges we need 2 moderate Judges.
>
>Moderately interested in upholding the Constitution?
You could be on the far left or far right. I do't think the
>In news:2pgsn7phvqga5stak...@4ax.com .MattB.
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We don't need more liberal Judges we need 2 moderate Judges.
>
>Moderately interested in upholding the Constitution?
founding fathers would have supported either.
RichTravsky
Apr 6, 2012, 11:33:19 PM4/6/12
to
Foxtrot wrote:
>
> MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
>
> >Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
> >
> >>MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
> >>>Yes and that is not a problem, When their politics/religion override
> >>>the Constitution is when I see a problem. The left and right.
> >>
> >>It's your interpretation of the Constitution that determines whether
> >>they're overriding it, isn't it?
> >
> > Hell no. I'm not even close to knowing the Constitution that
> >well.
> >
> > Do I like Corporations being a person NO,
>
> Because you don't like corporations--which are financed by normal
> Americans investing for their futures--to be treated as humans.
Corporations are not human.
> >Do I like this mess with
> >the Super Pacs No,
>
> Agree with you there.
What, superpacs aren't people?
> >Do I like the government being able to strip search
> >people at will No.
>
> If you don't want terrorists freely murdering people, then proactive
> searching is needed. If you're too pompous to allow profiling then blue
> haired grandmas from Iowa must be searched as much as single men
> speaking Arabic carrying korans with one way tickets.
>
> > Do you agree with everything they have ever done?
>
> You're an ideologue. Good intentions but stupid.
The irony...
>
> MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
>
> >Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
> >
> >>MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
> >>>Yes and that is not a problem, When their politics/religion override
> >>>the Constitution is when I see a problem. The left and right.
> >>
> >>It's your interpretation of the Constitution that determines whether
> >>they're overriding it, isn't it?
> >
> > Hell no. I'm not even close to knowing the Constitution that
> >well.
> >
> > Do I like Corporations being a person NO,
>
> Because you don't like corporations--which are financed by normal
> Americans investing for their futures--to be treated as humans.
Corporations are not human.
> >Do I like this mess with
> >the Super Pacs No,
>
> Agree with you there.
What, superpacs aren't people?
> >Do I like the government being able to strip search
> >people at will No.
>
> If you don't want terrorists freely murdering people, then proactive
> searching is needed. If you're too pompous to allow profiling then blue
> haired grandmas from Iowa must be searched as much as single men
> speaking Arabic carrying korans with one way tickets.
>
> > Do you agree with everything they have ever done?
>
> You're an ideologue. Good intentions but stupid.
The irony...
RichTravsky
Apr 7, 2012, 1:09:29 AM4/7/12
to
Mike Flannigan wrote:
>
> ".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> ".MattB." <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in message
> > The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
> >
> > It's well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
> > General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
> > called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
> > the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
> > health insurance. Still, it's worth noting the magnitude of the
> > challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
> > Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
> > Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
> > interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
> > by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: "Assume for the moment that this"-the
> >
> > It's well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
> > General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
> > called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
> > the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
> > health insurance. Still, it's worth noting the magnitude of the
> > challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
> > Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
> > Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
> > interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
> > mandate-"is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have
> > allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is
> > so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?" Every premise of
> > that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal
> > government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates
> > back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The
> > forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are
> > riding on the outcome of the case are already entered "into commerce,"
> > because others are likely to pay their health-care costs
> >
> > so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?" Every premise of
> > that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal
> > government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates
> > back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The
> > forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are
> > riding on the outcome of the case are already entered "into commerce,"
> > because others are likely to pay their health-care costs
> >
> > No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more
> > than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be
> > remembered, is not exactly their strength, either. ?
>
> > than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be
> > remembered, is not exactly their strength, either. ?
>
> Except that it never happened, moron.
>
> -Eddie Haskell
>
Ah. Con-servatives bonding. How cute.
RT
RichTravsky
Apr 7, 2012, 1:14:58 AM4/7/12
to
".MattB." wrote:
>
> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>
> It’s well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
> General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
> called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
> the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
> health insurance. Still, it’s worth noting the magnitude of the
> challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
> Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
> Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
> interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
> by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: “Assume for the moment that this”—the
>
> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>
> It’s well known by now that Donald Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor
> General, had an off day at the Supreme Court last Tuesday, when he was
> called on to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate,
> the part of the Affordable Care Act which requires people to buy
> health insurance. Still, it’s worth noting the magnitude of the
> challenge that he was facing. The key issue in the case is whether
> Congress, in passing the law, exceeded its powers under the Commerce
> Clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to regulate
> interstate commerce. Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli
> mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have
> allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is
> so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?” Every premise of
> that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal
> government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates
> back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The
> forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are
> riding on the outcome of the case are already entered “into commerce,”
> because others are likely to pay their health-care costs
>
> No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more
> than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be
> remembered, is not exactly their strength, either. ?
>
Why did con-servatives propose the same thing?
> so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?” Every premise of
> that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal
> government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates
> back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The
> forty million uninsured Americans whose chances for coverage are
> riding on the outcome of the case are already entered “into commerce,”
> because others are likely to pay their health-care costs
>
> No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more
> than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be
> remembered, is not exactly their strength, either. ?
>
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182
History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision
The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have
originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993,
Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual
health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent
Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT),
Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO).
In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing
the mandate.
...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/republicans-hatched-idea-obamas-health-insurance-mandate/
Republicans Hatched Idea for Obama's Health Insurance Mandate
Republicans were for President Obama's requirement that Americans get
health insurance before they were against it.
The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's
been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an
alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul
in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.
Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the Republican presidential
nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as
Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a
personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest
Republican senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's
plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he
did as governor and should be repealed.
...
Foxtrot
Apr 7, 2012, 5:03:08 AM4/7/12
to
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>Foxtrot wrote:
>>
>> MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
>> > Do I like Corporations being a person NO,
>>
>> Because you don't like corporations--which are financed by normal
>> Americans investing for their futures--to be treated as humans.
>
>Corporations are not human.
To libs, corporations are pilferers and rapists, not decent people
>Foxtrot wrote:
>>
>> MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
>> > Do I like Corporations being a person NO,
>>
>> Because you don't like corporations--which are financed by normal
>> Americans investing for their futures--to be treated as humans.
>
>Corporations are not human.
who are responsibly preparing for their financial independence. It's
important for them to make that distinction because it allows them
to savage capitalism.
RichTravsky
Apr 9, 2012, 12:32:17 AM4/9/12
to
Foxtrot wrote:
>
> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> >Foxtrot wrote:
> >>
> >> MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
> >> > Do I like Corporations being a person NO,
> >>
> >> Because you don't like corporations--which are financed by normal
> >> Americans investing for their futures--to be treated as humans.
> >
> >Corporations are not human.
>
> To libs, corporations are pilferers and rapists, not decent people
Like that Apple plant in China...
>
> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> >Foxtrot wrote:
> >>
> >> MattB. <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote:
> >> > Do I like Corporations being a person NO,
> >>
> >> Because you don't like corporations--which are financed by normal
> >> Americans investing for their futures--to be treated as humans.
> >
> >Corporations are not human.
>
> To libs, corporations are pilferers and rapists, not decent people
> who are responsibly preparing for their financial independence. It's
> important for them to make that distinction because it allows them
> to savage capitalism.
RT
Eddie Haskell
Apr 9, 2012, 11:08:03 AM4/9/12
to
"MattB." <trdel...@gmail.com.......> wrote in message
news:gi4vn71946q0ns0le...@4ax.com...
tea partiers today. That's something you don't seem to comprehend.
-Eddie Haskell
.MattB.
Apr 9, 2012, 1:54:12 PM4/9/12
to
Here are 2 quotes from a founding Father.
" I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. "
"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion,
in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. "
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
Foxtrot
Apr 9, 2012, 4:13:10 PM4/9/12
to
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>Foxtrot wrote:
>>
>> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>Foxtrot wrote:
>>
>> >Corporations are not human.
>> who are responsibly preparing for their financial independence. It's
>> important for them to make that distinction because it allows them
>> to savage capitalism.
>
>Corporations are NOT human. Do you understand the distinction?
put their kids through college. Corporations seek profits so their
investors can put their kids through college.
Do you see a similarity?
Bert
Apr 9, 2012, 4:48:15 PM4/9/12
to
In news:kXCgr.184880$zf6....@unlimited.newshosting.com "Eddie Haskell"
today's discourse, as well as what the "tea partiers" stand for, as well
as what the founders stood for.
> That's something you don't seem to comprehend.
Pot, kettle, ... well, you know the rest.
But then, you're
> -Eddie Haskell
<hfhf...@ssassw.com> wrote:
> The founders were on the far right in today's terms. In fact, they
> would be tea partiers today.
You're obviously confused about what the term "far right" means in
> The founders were on the far right in today's terms. In fact, they
> would be tea partiers today.
today's discourse, as well as what the "tea partiers" stand for, as well
as what the founders stood for.
> That's something you don't seem to comprehend.
But then, you're
> -Eddie Haskell
linuxgal
Apr 9, 2012, 10:07:29 PM4/9/12
to
Eddie Haskell wrote:
>
> The founders were on the far right in today's terms. In fact, they would be
> tea partiers today. That's something you don't seem to comprehend.
>
Paul Revere'd the right to bear arms, do you?
>
> The founders were on the far right in today's terms. In fact, they would be
> tea partiers today. That's something you don't seem to comprehend.
>
2938 Dead
Apr 9, 2012, 10:43:18 PM4/9/12
to
Eddie Haskell
Apr 10, 2012, 4:04:55 PM4/10/12
to
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4F826651...@hotmMOVEail.com...
-Eddie Haskell
Message has been deleted
RichTravsky
Apr 10, 2012, 11:19:17 PM4/10/12
to
DUH
Foxtrot
Apr 11, 2012, 4:17:14 AM4/11/12
to
to put their kids through colleges. It's that simple, Twatsky. You can't
dehumanize these decent people just because you despise capitalism.
Message has been deleted
RichTravsky
Apr 13, 2012, 11:25:23 PM4/13/12
to
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
He's con-servative, what did you expect. No consideration for those families
the companies harm through the manufacture of their products.
How about these families, what hope do they have of putting their kids
through colleges?
http://www.bostonhaitian.com/node/5
Haitian government raises minimum wage to $5.50 per day
June 24, 2009 by Wadner Pierre
Haitian labor activists applauded the Preval administration's decision to
raise the minimum wage in Haiti from 70 to 200 gourdes ($5.50 USD) per day.
However, the increase has been strongly opposed by Haitian industrialists.
Georges Sassine, president of ADIH (an association of Haitian industrialists)
warned that the wage increase would cost tens of thousands of jobs.
...
> b) Businesses are not (presently) acting in the best interests of
> America---they were allowed by Republicans to make money in a manner
> OTHER than creation of jobs.
>
> c) businesses have had increased productivity---yet paid workers LESS
> every year since the 80's ---all due to Reagonomics and GOP control of
> government
>
> d) When profit and greed are the only motivations for business and
> industry---people are seeing what it's caused.
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:17:14 -0700, Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
> >>Corporations are not people. Being RUN by people does not MAKE them people.
> >
> >You can't attack businesses without harming families who are saving
> >to put their kids through colleges. It's that simple, Twatsky. You can't
> >dehumanize these decent people just because you despise capitalism.
> >
>
> a) That's not even a decent use of fallacy argument, ya dumb fuckwit.
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:17:14 -0700, Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
> >>Corporations are not people. Being RUN by people does not MAKE them people.
> >
> >You can't attack businesses without harming families who are saving
> >to put their kids through colleges. It's that simple, Twatsky. You can't
> >dehumanize these decent people just because you despise capitalism.
> >
>
He's con-servative, what did you expect. No consideration for those families
the companies harm through the manufacture of their products.
How about these families, what hope do they have of putting their kids
through colleges?
http://www.bostonhaitian.com/node/5
Haitian government raises minimum wage to $5.50 per day
June 24, 2009 by Wadner Pierre
Haitian labor activists applauded the Preval administration's decision to
raise the minimum wage in Haiti from 70 to 200 gourdes ($5.50 USD) per day.
However, the increase has been strongly opposed by Haitian industrialists.
Georges Sassine, president of ADIH (an association of Haitian industrialists)
warned that the wage increase would cost tens of thousands of jobs.
...
> b) Businesses are not (presently) acting in the best interests of
> America---they were allowed by Republicans to make money in a manner
> OTHER than creation of jobs.
>
> c) businesses have had increased productivity---yet paid workers LESS
> every year since the 80's ---all due to Reagonomics and GOP control of
> government
>
> d) When profit and greed are the only motivations for business and
> industry---people are seeing what it's caused.
Foxtrot
Apr 14, 2012, 5:01:07 PM4/14/12
to
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
>>>Corporations are not people. Being RUN by people does not MAKE them people.
>>
>>You can't attack businesses without harming families who are saving
>>to put their kids through colleges. It's that simple, Twatsky. You can't
>>dehumanize these decent people just because you despise capitalism.
>>
>
>c) businesses have had increased productivity---yet paid workers LESS
>every year since the 80's ---all due to Reagonomics and GOP control of
>government
Exactly where is it mandated that they be unproductive? Do you
understand that lower productivity increases the cost of doing
business which moves jobs abroad?
Why do you think the automobile factories left America?
>d) When profit and greed are the only motivations for business and
>industry---people are seeing what it's caused.
Business and the people have a symbiotic relationship. They need
each other. When one squeezes the other, it hurts both of them.
The liberal economic model: Me want your money, give to me now.
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
>>>Corporations are not people. Being RUN by people does not MAKE them people.
>>
>>You can't attack businesses without harming families who are saving
>>to put their kids through colleges. It's that simple, Twatsky. You can't
>>dehumanize these decent people just because you despise capitalism.
>>
>
>a) That's not even a decent use of fallacy argument, ya dumb fuckwit.
>
>
>b) Businesses are not (presently) acting in the best interests of
>America---they were allowed by Republicans to make money in a manner
>OTHER than creation of jobs.
Exactly which law requires them to create jobs?
>America---they were allowed by Republicans to make money in a manner
>OTHER than creation of jobs.
>c) businesses have had increased productivity---yet paid workers LESS
>every year since the 80's ---all due to Reagonomics and GOP control of
>government
understand that lower productivity increases the cost of doing
business which moves jobs abroad?
Why do you think the automobile factories left America?
>d) When profit and greed are the only motivations for business and
>industry---people are seeing what it's caused.
each other. When one squeezes the other, it hurts both of them.
The liberal economic model: Me want your money, give to me now.
RichTravsky
Apr 16, 2012, 12:58:30 AM4/16/12
to
Foxtrot wrote:
>
> Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> >Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>Corporations are not people. Being RUN by people does not MAKE them people.
> >>
> >>You can't attack businesses without harming families who are saving
> >>to put their kids through colleges. It's that simple, Twatsky. You can't
> >>dehumanize these decent people just because you despise capitalism.
> >
> >a) That's not even a decent use of fallacy argument, ya dumb fuckwit.
> >
> >b) Businesses are not (presently) acting in the best interests of
> >America---they were allowed by Republicans to make money in a manner
> >OTHER than creation of jobs.
>
> Exactly which law requires them to create jobs?
Hard to stay in business without employees...
>
> Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> >Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>Corporations are not people. Being RUN by people does not MAKE them people.
> >>
> >>You can't attack businesses without harming families who are saving
> >>to put their kids through colleges. It's that simple, Twatsky. You can't
> >>dehumanize these decent people just because you despise capitalism.
> >
> >a) That's not even a decent use of fallacy argument, ya dumb fuckwit.
> >
> >b) Businesses are not (presently) acting in the best interests of
> >America---they were allowed by Republicans to make money in a manner
> >OTHER than creation of jobs.
>
> Exactly which law requires them to create jobs?
> >c) businesses have had increased productivity---yet paid workers LESS
> >every year since the 80's ---all due to Reagonomics and GOP control of
> >government
>
> Exactly where is it mandated that they be unproductive? Do you
> understand that lower productivity increases the cost of doing
> business which moves jobs abroad?
>
> Why do you think the automobile factories left America?
> >d) When profit and greed are the only motivations for business and
> >industry---people are seeing what it's caused.
>
> Business and the people have a symbiotic relationship. They need
> each other. When one squeezes the other, it hurts both of them.
>
> The liberal economic model: Me want your money, give to me now.
supply is concentrated...
RT
0 new messages