Re: Georgetown Slut Dismisses Limbaugh Apology >>> I just don't want to climb into bed with either of you.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/5/2012 6:29 PM, Clave wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> message news:4f5548a2$0$2851$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>> On 3/5/2012 5:14 PM, Clave wrote:
>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>> message news:4f55302e$0$2851$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> Limbaugh is NO leader, he never was and never will be....
>>>
>>> Piss and moan all you want, but the fact is that Senators and Congressmen
>>> bow to him.
>>>
>>> He *is* the de facto leader of the GOP.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> Somehow that was interpreted by you into....
>
> Shut the fuck up, Scotty -- I'll speak for myself.
>
> Jim

You told us that the Supreme Court speaks for you....


I sure wish you'd make up your mind who interprets everything for you.

--
Bread and beer increased prosperity to a level that allowed time for
development of other technology and contributed to the building of
civilizations.[19][20][21][22]

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4f56f114$0$2785$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

> On 3/5/2012 6:29 PM, Clave wrote:

<...>

>> Shut the fuck up, Scotty -- I'll speak for myself.
>

> You told us that the Supreme Court speaks for you....

You lie a lot.

Jim

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Aaaahhhh??? so the supreme court doesn't interpret the constitution and
all the laws for you? But you told us the court has the power to do
that and that you don't have that power to do it for yourself?

Which time were you lying to us?

Do you speak for yourself or does SCOTUS speak for you?


Man-up and tell the truth, for a change....

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4f56fd0a$0$2836$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

> On 3/7/2012 12:38 AM, Clave wrote:
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>> message news:4f56f114$0$2785$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>> On 3/5/2012 6:29 PM, Clave wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>> Shut the fuck up, Scotty -- I'll speak for myself.
>>>
>>> You told us that the Supreme Court speaks for you....
>>
>> You lie a lot.
>

> Aaaahhhh???

Quote me saying the above, Spanky.

You can't, of course, but you don't care because you can't even admit to
yourself that you lie out of sheer habit.

Jim

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/7/2012 12:24 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 6:29 PM, Clave wrote:
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>> message news:4f5548a2$0$2851$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>> On 3/5/2012 5:14 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:4f55302e$0$2851$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>> Limbaugh is NO leader, he never was and never will be....
>>>>
>>>> Piss and moan all you want, but the fact is that Senators and Congressmen
>>>> bow to him.
>>>>
>>>> He *is* the de facto leader of the GOP.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> Somehow that was interpreted by you into....

The Supreme Court has NO power to interpret the Constitution or any
laws, they can only tell us that a law or constitutional power is
outside their jurisdiction, meaning that the laws or powers were NOT
legitimate/real laws so they can't hear the case.


The courts can't modify any law or power to make it legitimate, they
have to either use it as is, or reject it and if rejected then there was
a fault in process or substance that violated the written procedure and
or powers within the constitution.


Because the best law in the world isn't within their jurisdiction if it
was not created using the constitutional procedure, which means the
janitor can write laws but they aren't within the courts jurisdiction
even if they are in the law books.


I can interpret the powers and laws for myself.... I weigh the options
and follow the laws as I see fit. I am NOT limited like the courts.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> On 3/5/2012 6:29 PM, Clave wrote:
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>> message news:4f5548a2$0$2851$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>> On 3/5/2012 5:14 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:4f55302e$0$2851$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>> Limbaugh is NO leader, he never was and never will be....
>>>>
>>>> Piss and moan all you want, but the fact is that Senators and Congressmen
>>>> bow to him.
>>>>
>>>> He *is* the de facto leader of the GOP.
>>>>
>>>> Jim

The Supreme Court has NO power to interpret the Constitution or any
laws, they can only tell us that a law or constitutional power is
outside their jurisdiction, meaning that the laws or powers were NOT
legitimate/real laws so they can't hear the case.


The courts can't modify any law or power to make it legitimate, they
have to either use it as is, or reject it and if rejected then there was
a fault in process or substance that violated the written procedure and
or powers within the constitution.


Because the best law in the world isn't within their jurisdiction if it
was not created using the constitutional procedure, which means the
janitor can write laws but they aren't within the courts jurisdiction
even if they are in the law books.


I can interpret the powers and laws for myself.... I weigh the options
and follow the laws as I see fit. I am NOT limited like the courts.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/7/2012 12:38 AM, Clave wrote:
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>> message news:4f56f114$0$2785$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>> On 3/5/2012 6:29 PM, Clave wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>> Shut the fuck up, Scotty -- I'll speak for myself.
>>>
>>> You told us that the Supreme Court speaks for you....
>>
>> You lie a lot.
>>
>> Jim
>
>Aaaahhhh??? so the supreme court doesn't interpret the constitution and
>all the laws for you?

They don't do it "for you". They do it because the Constitution gives
them the power to do so.

>But you told us the court has the power to do
>that and that you don't have that power to do it for yourself?

That doesn't mean that they are doing it "for you".

>Which time were you lying to us?
>
>Do you speak for yourself or does SCOTUS speak for you?

SCOTUS speaks for the Constitution of the United States.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/7/2012 12:24 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 6:29 PM, Clave wrote:
>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>> message news:4f5548a2$0$2851$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>>> On 3/5/2012 5:14 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:4f55302e$0$2851$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Limbaugh is NO leader, he never was and never will be....
>>>>>
>>>>> Piss and moan all you want, but the fact is that Senators and Congressmen
>>>>> bow to him.
>>>>>
>>>>> He *is* the de facto leader of the GOP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> Somehow that was interpreted by you into....
>
>The Supreme Court has NO power to interpret the Constitution or any
>laws,

You are wrong.

>they can only tell us that a law or constitutional power is
>outside their jurisdiction, meaning that the laws or powers were NOT
>legitimate/real laws so they can't hear the case.

They clear CAN do so because they in fact DO do so.

>The courts can't modify any law or power to make it legitimate, they
>have to either use it as is, or reject it and if rejected then there was
>a fault in process or substance that violated the written procedure and
>or powers within the constitution.

The limits on what the court can do are only those contained in the
Constitution, and even then, they get to decide what the Constitution
says about the matter.

>Because the best law in the world isn't within their jurisdiction if it
>was not created using the constitutional procedure, which means the
>janitor can write laws but they aren't within the courts jurisdiction
>even if they are in the law books.

Of course they are.

>I can interpret the powers and laws for myself.

Your interpretation is worth nothing.

>... I weigh the options and follow the laws as I see fit.

Your choice. If you choose wrong, you will face the consequences.

>I am NOT limited like the courts.

You are limited by your stubborn ignorance and stupidity.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 3:28 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 12:24 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2012 6:29 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:4f5548a2$0$2851$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>>>> On 3/5/2012 5:14 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:4f55302e$0$2851$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Limbaugh is NO leader, he never was and never will be....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Piss and moan all you want, but the fact is that Senators and Congressmen
>>>>>> bow to him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He *is* the de facto leader of the GOP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>> Somehow that was interpreted by you into....
>>
>> The Supreme Court has NO power to interpret the Constitution or any
>> laws,
>
> You are wrong.
>
>> they can only tell us that a law or constitutional power is
>> outside their jurisdiction, meaning that the laws or powers were NOT
>> legitimate/real laws so they can't hear the case.
>
> They clear CAN do so because they in fact DO do so.

Yes and bank robbers can rob banks because they do so, until they are
caught.


Your claim that what we do is OK because we can do it.... is a false
premise.


It is circular logic and typical Liberal-Socialist hokum. Those that
ignore the constitution are NOT free of it.


--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 3:24 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 12:38 AM, Clave wrote:
>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>> message news:4f56f114$0$2785$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>>> On 3/5/2012 6:29 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>>> Shut the fuck up, Scotty -- I'll speak for myself.
>>>>
>>>> You told us that the Supreme Court speaks for you....
>>>
>>> You lie a lot.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> Aaaahhhh??? so the supreme court doesn't interpret the constitution and
>> all the laws for you?
>
> They don't do it "for you". They do it because the Constitution gives
> them the power to do so.
>
>> But you told us the court has the power to do
>> that and that you don't have that power to do it for yourself?
>
> That doesn't mean that they are doing it "for you".
>
>> Which time were you lying to us?
>>
>> Do you speak for yourself or does SCOTUS speak for you?
>
> SCOTUS speaks for the Constitution of the United States.

We call them checks and balances, and they are there so NO one person
party or division of government may have "total control" which is why
the Supreme Court doesn't have TOTAL control over what the constitution
says "or is interpreted to say"...

The Legislature WRITES Bills/laws, the Executive branch vetoes them or
signs them and the courts accept or reject them as either being within
the jurisdiction of the constitution or outside the powers and processes
laid down in the constitution... there is NO interpretation needed,
simply put some laws/powers that don't cut the mustard and are NOT
usable by the Supreme Court, there is NO repair process that the courts
can use to fix the law.

The Courts have the power the same as the President, to accept it or
reject... there is NO Presidential or Court power to change or re-write
or otherwise change the law, it is accept it or don't, if it's outside
the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case or use the law or
recognize the constitutional power they can only rule they have no
jurisdiction... Thereby kicking the process back to the Legislature to
write new law or re-write the law to be voted signed and court
scrutinized to see if the court has jurisdiction to actually us the
law/power.

It's NOT supposed to be "easy" because every law steals our freedom.

[Bob LeChevalier]

Yes they can.

>Your claim that what we do is OK because we can do it.

I said nothing about what is "OK". I was responding to your silly
claims as to what entities have what power.

>... is a false premise.

It's a strawman not under discussion.

>It is circular logic and typical Liberal-Socialist hokum. Those that
>ignore the constitution are NOT free of it.

Odd that there are several billion people in this world who probably
know nothing about the constitution, and thus ignore it constantly,
and yet are quite free of it.

The constitution has effect in this country because the courts enforce
it, and most people accept the courts decisions as binding.

[Bob LeChevalier]

Actually they do. They can be impeached, and over time will be
replaced as new judges are appointed. But neither of those actions
will undo a court decision. The checks and balances provided do not
remove the basic power from the court, just as they do not remove the
power of the commander in chief from the president, or the various
enumerated and implied powers from the Congress.

>The Legislature WRITES Bills/laws, the Executive branch vetoes them or
>signs them and the courts accept or reject them as either being within
>the jurisdiction of the constitution or outside the powers and processes
>laid down in the constitution.

Actually, the primary job of the court is to apply them to cases,
thereby interpreting them for legal effect.

>.. there is NO interpretation needed,

Of course there is.

>simply put some laws/powers that don't cut the mustard and are NOT
>usable by the Supreme Court, there is NO repair process that the courts
>can use to fix the law.

???

The court doesn't try to "fix the law"

>The Courts have the power the same as the President, to accept it or
>reject...

Wrong. Because the courts have the sole power to apply the law to
cases.

>there is NO Presidential or Court power to change or re-write
>or otherwise change the law, it is accept it or don't, if it's outside
>the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case or use the law or
>recognize the constitutional power they can only rule they have no
>jurisdiction.

The court decides what it within its jurisdiction.

>Thereby kicking the process back to the Legislature to
>write new law or re-write the law to be voted signed and court
>scrutinized to see if the court has jurisdiction to actually us the
>law/power.

Any law that the legislature writes is within the court's
jurisdiction.

>It's NOT supposed to be "easy" because every law steals our freedom.

Ideological nonsense.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Then why do they try to get here to live under it?


Why do they sneak across the border by the millions, so they can ignore
our constitution.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/16/2012 6:49 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>> It is circular logic and typical Liberal-Socialist hokum. Those that
>> ignore the constitution are NOT free of it.
>
> Odd that there are several billion people in this world who probably
> know nothing about the constitution, and thus ignore it constantly,
> and yet are quite free of it.

Odd is that you live here and have taken so little from the Constitution.



--
*WHO IS JOHN GALT*

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/16/2012 6:49 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> It is circular logic and typical Liberal-Socialist hokum. Those that
>>> ignore the constitution are NOT free of it.
>>
>> Odd that there are several billion people in this world who probably
>> know nothing about the constitution, and thus ignore it constantly,
>> and yet are quite free of it.
>
>Then why do they try to get here to live under it?

Not that many do. Remember that I said "several billion". US
immigration including illegals is only around 1-2 million a year, less
than .1% of the world population. And there is no especial evidence
that those who come do so because they know of the constitution.

>Why do they sneak across the border by the millions, so they can ignore
>our constitution.

To make money - a prime American value, but not one mentioned in the
Constitution.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/22/2012 11:43 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2012 6:49 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> It is circular logic and typical Liberal-Socialist hokum. Those that
>>>> ignore the constitution are NOT free of it.
>>>
>>> Odd that there are several billion people in this world who probably
>>> know nothing about the constitution, and thus ignore it constantly,
>>> and yet are quite free of it.
>>
>> Then why do they try to get here to live under it?
>
> Not that many do. Remember that I said "several billion". US
> immigration including illegals is only around 1-2 million a year, less
> than .1% of the world population.

I remember a few Pirates that learned about the constitution from a
S>E>A>L> team and then Binladen was taught about it and so were the guys
in GITMO and there was the ones that drones hit with missiles.... They
all got a bit of intensive training on what we can and can't do
constitutionally.


I would say that a lot more than you think, actually know about the
constitution.

And there is no especial evidence
> that those who come do so because they know of the constitution.

They know of he freedom created by it..... they learn how it was
created after they get here where they are free to learn those things,
China will dump you in a prison if you look up freedom RIGHTS on the
internet.

--
*WHO IS JOHN GALT*

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/22/2012 11:43 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2012 6:49 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> It is circular logic and typical Liberal-Socialist hokum. Those that
>>>>> ignore the constitution are NOT free of it.
>>>>
>>>> Odd that there are several billion people in this world who probably
>>>> know nothing about the constitution, and thus ignore it constantly,
>>>> and yet are quite free of it.
>>>
>>> Then why do they try to get here to live under it?
>>
>> Not that many do. Remember that I said "several billion". US
>> immigration including illegals is only around 1-2 million a year, less
>> than .1% of the world population.
>
>I remember a few Pirates that learned about the constitution from a
>S>E>A>L> team and then Binladen was taught about it and so were the guys
>in GITMO and there was the ones that drones hit with missiles.... They
>all got a bit of intensive training on what we can and can't do
>constitutionally.

I doubt if either those pirates or bin Ladin considered the
constitution or that they learned anything about it from the
aforementioned events.

>I would say that a lot more than you think, actually know about the
>constitution.

You say a lot of things that aren't so.

And you are still a few billion short of supporting your claim.

> And there is no especial evidence
>> that those who come do so because they know of the constitution.
>
>They know of he freedom created by it.

Do they?

>.... they learn how it was
>created after they get here where they are free to learn those things,

Some do, some don't. But they don't likely learn before they come.

>China will dump you in a prison if you look up freedom RIGHTS on the
>internet.

I doubt it. More than likely, they'll just block all the sites that
you might wish they could look at.

America puts 33% more people in prison than China does, despite their
having 4 times our population.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri-crime-prisoners

On a per capita basis, China is in the middle of the pack near
Australia and Canada, and less than Spain, New Zealand, Israel, and
half the level of their nominally "free" counterpart in Taiwan.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita