Discussion:
Leftist Fran Lebowitz: "Biden Should Dissolve The Supreme Court"
Add Reply
Ubiquitous
2024-10-01 08:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.

Lebowitz made the remarks during an appearance on liberal comedian Bill
Maher’s HBO show “Real Time” on Friday.

“It’s so disgraceful, this court, that it shouldn’t even be allowed to be
called the Supreme Court,” Lebowitz fumed. “It isn’t. It’s an insult to
Motown to call it the Supreme Court. It’s not even a court.”

She falsely claimed that the Supreme Court ruled that presidents can act as
kings and do not have to obey the law, which is not what the court ruled.

She said, “When they passed that law, that ruling, where they said, ‘You’re
not the president, there’s a king,’ which is what that ruling is, you can do
whatever you want, you can never be held responsible, I thought, ‘You know,
Biden is still the president. No one seems to notice.’ But I think Biden
should dissolve the Supreme Court.”

“Dissolve the Supreme Court?” Maher fired back. “Come on.”

Lebowitz responded: “I’m the president, I’m the king now, like you said, and
go home!”

WATCH:

Bill Maher guest Fran Lebowitz declares SCOTUS is “so disgraceful
it shouldn’t even be allowed to be called the Supreme Court, it’s
an insult to Motown…It’s Trump’s harem.” President “Biden should
dissolve the Supreme Court.” #StartTheClock
pic.twitter.com/kCgjqD4kHc

— Brent Baker ???? ???? (@BrentHBaker) September 28, 2024

--
Let's go Brandon!
BTR1701
2024-10-01 19:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and fire
the Supreme Court.

I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.

Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
moviePig
2024-10-01 20:40:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
BTR1701
2024-10-01 21:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?

Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
moviePig
2024-10-01 21:35:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob. You should be
pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out personal freedom.
BTR1701
2024-10-01 22:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.

Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out personal
freedom.
As in?

(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken from my by
Democrats.)
moviePig
2024-10-02 15:28:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out personal
freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken from my by
Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more concerned
here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your girlfriend's, my daughter's...
BTR1701
2024-10-02 18:13:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they
taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and
fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court
whenever
it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed
teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out personal
freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken from my by
Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more concerned
here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the same reason I
do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the federal government power
over health care, so it's properly a matter of state and local jurisdiction
per the 10th Amendment-- but she supports it for her own reasons.

Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more important
than someone else's.
moviePig
2024-10-02 19:36:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President
Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like
the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they
taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and
fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything
resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court
whenever
it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the
NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed
teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out personal
freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken from my by
Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more concerned
here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the same reason I
do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the federal government power
over health care, so it's properly a matter of state and local jurisdiction
per the 10th Amendment-- but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more important
than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
BTR1701
2024-10-02 19:46:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President
Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like
the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they
taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts
wizard and
fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything
resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court
whenever
it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the
NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed
teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools,
but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is
how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer
why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out personal
freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken from my by
Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more concerned
here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the same reason I
do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the federal government power
over health care, so it's properly a matter of state and local jurisdiction
per the 10th Amendment-- but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more important
than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I, Section 8
power of the federal government exactly how?

And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose which
AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time Democrats allow their
base to rampage through the city.
moviePig
2024-10-02 20:56:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
BTR1701
2024-10-02 21:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the government's
freedom to meddle, remember?
trotsky
2024-10-04 09:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the government's
freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
You're being a lying sack o' shit as usual.
moviePig
2024-10-04 16:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's
freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
Post by trotsky
You're being a lying sack o' shit as usual.
BTR1701
2024-10-04 18:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
moviePig
2024-10-04 19:05:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
BTR1701
2024-10-04 19:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?

I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
moviePig
2024-10-04 20:33:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
First, let me check to see if we're now answering questions:

How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
BTR1701
2024-10-04 21:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.

Now my turn:

What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?

I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
moviePig
2024-10-04 21:58:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.
Beg pardon? Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a serious
question)?
Post by BTR1701
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
BTR1701
2024-10-04 22:09:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to
meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article
I, Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to
choose which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the
next time Democrats allow their base to rampage through the
city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.
Beg pardon? Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a serious
question)?
Yes, the same way your answer to "How far along in a pregnancy should a
woman be allowed to abort?" ("As far along as she wants") is apparently
a serious answer to a serious question.

Now my turn:

What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?

I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
moviePig
2024-10-05 16:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to
meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article
I, Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to
choose which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the
next time Democrats allow their base to rampage through the
city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.
Beg pardon? Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a serious
question)?
Yes, the same way your answer to "How far along in a pregnancy should a
woman be allowed to abort?" ("As far along as she wants") is apparently
a serious answer to a serious question.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
I think you know I'll answer your question (in more detail than you'll
want and you won't have to remind me). But I'm still unclear on your
response to mine:

You seem to hear exaggeration in my allowing a woman to control *every*
aspect of her pregnancy. (There's none.) Does your comparison mean you
actually *wouldn't* allow individuals access to unlimited lethal power?
trotsky
2024-10-07 06:48:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's
happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not
grant
the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would
be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to
meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article
I, Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to
choose which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the
next time Democrats allow their base to rampage through the
city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass
destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.
Beg pardon?  Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a serious
question)?
Yes, the same way your answer to "How far along in a pregnancy should a
woman be allowed to abort?" ("As far along as she wants") is apparently
a serious answer to a serious question.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
I think you know I'll answer your question (in more detail than you'll
want and you won't have to remind me).  But I'm still unclear on your
You seem to hear exaggeration in my allowing a woman to control *every*
aspect of her pregnancy.
If you think a woman can decide to abort in the third trimester without
a doctor's edict you're not making sense.
moviePig
2024-10-07 17:06:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's
happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit
I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not
grant
the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th
Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would
be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to
meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article
I, Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to
choose which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the
next time Democrats allow their base to rampage through the
city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.
Beg pardon?  Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a serious
question)?
Yes, the same way your answer to "How far along in a pregnancy should a
woman be allowed to abort?" ("As far along as she wants") is apparently
a serious answer to a serious question.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
I think you know I'll answer your question (in more detail than you'll
want and you won't have to remind me).  But I'm still unclear on your
You seem to hear exaggeration in my allowing a woman to control
*every* aspect of her pregnancy.
If you think a woman can decide to abort in the third trimester without
a doctor's edict you're not making sense.
Until delivery, only *her* beliefs matter. Yours or mine are irrelevant.
trotsky
2024-10-08 09:56:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's
happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were
taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit
I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not
for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not
grant
the
federal government power over health care, so it's
properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th
Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom
would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than
"freedom to
meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an
Article
I, Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to
choose which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the
next time Democrats allow their base to rampage through the
city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.
Beg pardon?  Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a serious
question)?
Yes, the same way your answer to "How far along in a pregnancy should a
woman be allowed to abort?" ("As far along as she wants") is apparently
a serious answer to a serious question.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
I think you know I'll answer your question (in more detail than
you'll want and you won't have to remind me).  But I'm still unclear
You seem to hear exaggeration in my allowing a woman to control
*every* aspect of her pregnancy.
If you think a woman can decide to abort in the third trimester
without a doctor's edict you're not making sense.
Until delivery, only *her* beliefs matter. Yours or mine are irrelevant.
Interesting, sometimes you sound pretty smart and others like a fucking
moron. Tell the group what part of this you take umbrage to:

Fetus as Human Being: Where is the Cut-off Point? - PMC
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC3713799
by S Dabbagh · 2009 · Cited by 8 — According to them, the fetus which is
16 weeks can be regarded as human being because of ensoulment. It
follows from this that one is authorized ...


I'm not for sure, but I believe intentionally aborting a fetus in the
third trimester would be considered murder in all 50 states.
moviePig
2024-10-08 19:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's
happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were
taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit
I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not
for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does
not grant
the
federal government power over health care, so it's
properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th
Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom
would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than
"freedom to
meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an
Article
I, Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to
choose which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the
next time Democrats allow their base to rampage through the
city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.
Beg pardon?  Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a serious
question)?
Yes, the same way your answer to "How far along in a pregnancy should a
woman be allowed to abort?" ("As far along as she wants") is apparently
a serious answer to a serious question.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
I think you know I'll answer your question (in more detail than
you'll want and you won't have to remind me).  But I'm still unclear
You seem to hear exaggeration in my allowing a woman to control
*every* aspect of her pregnancy.
If you think a woman can decide to abort in the third trimester
without a doctor's edict you're not making sense.
Until delivery, only *her* beliefs matter. Yours or mine are irrelevant.
Interesting, sometimes you sound pretty smart and others like a fucking
Fetus as Human Being: Where is the Cut-off Point? - PMC
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC3713799
by S Dabbagh · 2009 · Cited by 8 — According to them, the fetus which is
16 weeks can be regarded as human being because of ensoulment. It
follows from this that one is authorized ...
I'm not for sure, but I believe intentionally aborting a fetus in the
third trimester would be considered murder in all 50 states.
Iirc, Buddhists say "ensoulment" occurs at the third trimester, which
has long seemed to me a reasonable guess. But it's still just a
religious *belief* ...and thus has no place in American legislation.
trotsky
2024-10-09 08:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's
happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were
taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit
I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not
for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does
not grant
the
federal government power over health care, so it's
properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th
Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom
would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than
"freedom to
meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion
an Article
I, Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my
freedom to
choose which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the
next time Democrats allow their base to rampage through the
city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary
citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass
destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.
Beg pardon?  Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a serious
question)?
Yes, the same way your answer to "How far along in a pregnancy should a
woman be allowed to abort?" ("As far along as she wants") is apparently
a serious answer to a serious question.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
I think you know I'll answer your question (in more detail than
you'll want and you won't have to remind me).  But I'm still
You seem to hear exaggeration in my allowing a woman to control
*every* aspect of her pregnancy.
If you think a woman can decide to abort in the third trimester
without a doctor's edict you're not making sense.
Until delivery, only *her* beliefs matter. Yours or mine are irrelevant.
Interesting, sometimes you sound pretty smart and others like a
Fetus as Human Being: Where is the Cut-off Point? - PMC
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC3713799
by S Dabbagh · 2009 · Cited by 8 — According to them, the fetus which
is 16 weeks can be regarded as human being because of ensoulment. It
follows from this that one is authorized ...
I'm not for sure, but I believe intentionally aborting a fetus in the
third trimester would be considered murder in all 50 states.
Iirc, Buddhists say "ensoulment" occurs at the third trimester, which
has long seemed to me a reasonable guess.  But it's still just a
religious *belief* ...and thus has no place in American legislation.
I just picked that because it's an easy concept to grasp. Are you just
not cognizant of the endless discussion of when life begins for a fetus?
You sound like your head is firmly ensconced up your ass at this point.
moviePig
2024-10-09 15:43:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's
happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that
were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I
admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe.
Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does
not grant
the
federal government power over health care, so it's
properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th
Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom
would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than
"freedom to
meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion
an Article
I, Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my
freedom to
choose which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my
home the
next time Democrats allow their base to rampage
through the
city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary
citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose
supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass
destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go
on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that
freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a
'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
How much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have access to?
I already answered that. You just didn't like my answer.
Beg pardon?  Was "all that he wants" your serious answer (to a serious
question)?
Yes, the same way your answer to "How far along in a pregnancy should a
woman be allowed to abort?" ("As far along as she wants") is apparently
a serious answer to a serious question.
What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
I just want to get a baseline established so we can then compare it to
your own posts and see how they stack up.
I think you know I'll answer your question (in more detail than
you'll want and you won't have to remind me).  But I'm still
You seem to hear exaggeration in my allowing a woman to control
*every* aspect of her pregnancy.
If you think a woman can decide to abort in the third trimester
without a doctor's edict you're not making sense.
Until delivery, only *her* beliefs matter. Yours or mine are irrelevant.
Interesting, sometimes you sound pretty smart and others like a
Fetus as Human Being: Where is the Cut-off Point? - PMC
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC3713799
by S Dabbagh · 2009 · Cited by 8 — According to them, the fetus which
is 16 weeks can be regarded as human being because of ensoulment. It
follows from this that one is authorized ...
I'm not for sure, but I believe intentionally aborting a fetus in the
third trimester would be considered murder in all 50 states.
Iirc, Buddhists say "ensoulment" occurs at the third trimester, which
has long seemed to me a reasonable guess.  But it's still just a
religious *belief* ...and thus has no place in American legislation.
I just picked that because it's an easy concept to grasp.  Are you just
not cognizant of the endless discussion of when life begins for a fetus?
 You sound like your head is firmly ensconced up your ass at this point.
There's "endless discussion" of how many angels can stand on the head of
a pin. There, too, even the question itself is without material
substance, just like "the beginning of life".

trotsky
2024-10-05 08:29:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
All we have to go on is common sense ...as opposed to reflexively
screeching about what's not explicit in the Constitution.
That's a terrible answer, but Twat should have given you the correct
one: that's what the Supreme Court does.
trotsky
2024-10-05 08:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
However much they choose to. Freedom to choose supersedes the
government's freedom to meddle, remember?
Not when it comes to lethal force and weapons of mass destruction.
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
Great point. The govt. has ever reason to meddle when it comes to
meddle re: weaponry a citizen can have and no reason to meddle because
of bodily autonomy. Pretty simple, so I can see why you're having trouble.
BTR1701
2024-10-05 16:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
But the Founders, in their great wisdom, never mentioned WMDs...!
They didn't mention abortion, either, so all we have to go on is the
Constitution According to MoviePig, which teaches us that freedom to
choose supersedes the government's freedom to meddle.
Great point. The govt. has ever reason to meddle when it comes to
meddle
Here we have Hutt channeling Kammie Kameleon. That's a word salad worthy
of a cackle!
trotsky
2024-10-03 09:22:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact that the
majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that allows him
to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it pisses him
off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
None. The Second Amendment was perverted to allow the gun industry to
profit. Twat knows this but lacks the male genitalia to say it.
trotsky
2024-10-04 09:08:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by moviePig
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week
that President Joe Biden should dissolve the U.S.
Supreme Court because she does not like the fact that the
majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law
class where they taught us where to find the
Constitution's grant of power to the president that allows him
to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't
see anything resembling "The president shall have the
power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it pisses him
off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the
Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some
green-haired, nose-ringed teenager said this, because
they're just a product of our public schools, but
this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious
scholar, and *this* is how she thinks our government
runs?
"Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old
humorist who's as pissed about the Supreme Court as the
rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning
that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed
about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to
sell out personal freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken
from my by Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more
concerned here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your
girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the
same reason I do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the
federal government power over health care, so it's properly a
matter of state and local jurisdiction per the 10th Amendment--
but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more
important than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I,
Section 8 power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose
which AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time
Democrats allow their base to rampage through the city.
Well, how much lethal firepower should an ordinary citizen have
access to?
Obviously TWAT thinks RPGs fall under the 2nd Amendment umbrella too.
trotsky
2024-10-04 09:07:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President
Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like
the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they
taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts
wizard and
fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything
resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court
whenever
it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the
NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed
teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools,
but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is
how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer
why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out personal
freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken from my by
Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more concerned
here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the same reason I
do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the federal government power
over health care, so it's properly a matter of state and local jurisdiction
per the 10th Amendment-- but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more important
than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
And that somehow magically makes health care/abortion an Article I, Section 8
power of the federal government exactly how?
And in any event, I'm glad you're on board with my freedom to choose which
AR-15 style rifle I want to defend my home the next time Democrats allow their
base to rampage through the city.
Do you have an AR15 now or are you mentally masturbating as usual?
Followup question: did you get an assault weapon when you joined up with
the white supremacists?
trotsky
2024-10-03 09:20:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
    On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
      On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
      Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that
President
Joe Biden
      should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does
not like
the fact
      that the majority of justices are constitutional
originalists.
      I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class
where they
  taught us
      where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the
president that
  allows
      him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a
Hogwarts wizard and
    fire
      the Supreme Court.
      I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see
anything
  resembling
      "The president shall have the power to dissolve the
Supreme Court
whenever
    it
      pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink
that the
  NATIONAL
      TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
      Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired,
nose-ringed
  teenager
      said this, because they're just a product of our public
schools,
but this
      Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and
*this* is
how she
      thinks our government runs?
    "Serious scholar"?  She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist
who's as pissed
    about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
    Why should I be pissed about the Court?
    Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices,
including the
    leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that
doesn't answer
why I
    should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
  You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
  Sotomayor is a boob, too.
  Next?
  You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell
out personal
  freedom.
  As in?
  (Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken from my by
  Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more concerned
here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the same reason I
do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the federal government power
over health care, so it's properly a matter of state and local jurisdiction
per the 10th Amendment-- but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more important
than someone else's.
Because "freedom to choose" is more important than "freedom to meddle".
Damn, I wish I'd thought of that.
trotsky
2024-10-03 09:15:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President
Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like
the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they
taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and
fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything
resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court
whenever
it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the
NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed
teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out personal
freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken from my by
Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more concerned
here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe.
How much do inflatable dolls cost these days?
trotsky
2024-10-04 09:00:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President
Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like
the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they
taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and
fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything
resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court
whenever
it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the
NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed
teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
You should be pissed about Thomas because he's a boob.
Sotomayor is a boob, too.
Next?
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out personal
freedom.
As in?
(Under this Court, I've regained freedoms that were taken from my by
Democrats.)
Congrats on your restored personal freedoms. I admit I'm more concerned
here with *others'* freedoms, e.g., your girlfriend's, my daughter's...
My girlfriend supports the Court's repeal of Roe. Not for the same reason I
do-- i.e., that the Constitution does not grant the federal government power
over health care, so it's properly a matter of state and local jurisdiction
per the 10th Amendment-- but she supports it for her own reasons.
Nevertheless, I don't see why one person's freedom would be more important
than someone else's.
You should get pregnant and find out you stupid fuck.
Ubiquitous
2024-10-02 17:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
You should be pissed about the Court because it's happy to sell out
personal freedom.
Which hasn't happened, although the Biden-Harris admin certainly is
doing its best.

--
Let's go Brandon!
trotsky
2024-10-02 10:19:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they taught us
where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that allows
him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts wizard and fire
the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything resembling
"The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme Court whenever it
pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible ink that the NATIONAL
TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed teenager
said this, because they're just a product of our public schools, but this
Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this* is how she
thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts? So do all the other justices, including the
leftist ones. I'd be in favor of banning that, but that doesn't answer why I
should be pissed about *this* Court versus previous ones.
https://theweek.com/in-depth/1022846/a-running-list-of-clarence-thomas-scandals

A running list of Clarence Thomas' many scandals

The Supreme Court justice has 'engaged in a yearslong pattern of
behaving in ways that other justices, and many elected politicians, do not'


Hey, what's a few scandals between SCOTUS justices amirite?


Thomas is the most unethical Justice in the history of SCOTUS, which
should have the highest level of ethics on Planet Earth. Now tell the
group succinctly that you were too motherfucking stupid to understand
this in the first place. Borrow someone's testicles if necessary.
Ubiquitous
2024-10-02 17:23:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe
Biden should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like
the fact that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they
taught us where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the
president that allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand
like a Hogwarts wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything
resembling "The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme
Court whenever it pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond
of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed
teenager said this, because they're just a product of our public
schools, but this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar,
and *this* is how she thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
Why should I be pissed about the Court?
Because Thomas takes gifts?
Thatn is debatable and most likely false, althought it's a fact that
Sotomoyer uses her position to her her crappy books
Post by BTR1701
So do all the other justices, including the leftist ones. I'd be in favor of
banning that, but that doesn't answer why I should be pissed about *this*
Court versus previous ones.
The premise of your question is incorrect. They've done nothing wrong.

--
Let's go Brandon!
Ubiquitous
2024-10-03 08:30:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ubiquitous
Leftist author Fran Lebowitz said late last week that President Joe Biden
should dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court because she does not like the fact
that the majority of justices are constitutional originalists.
I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law class where they taught
us where to find the Constitution's grant of power to the president that
allows him to just wake up one day and wave his hand like a Hogwarts
wizard and fire the Supreme Court.
I've just now reviewed Article II and I still don't see anything
resembling "The president shall have the power to dissolve the Supreme
Court whenever it pisses him off." Maybe it's written in that invisible
ink that the NATIONAL TREASURE movies teach us the Founders were so fond
of.
Seriously, though, I'd understand if some green-haired, nose-ringed
teenager said this, because they're just a product of our public schools,
but this Lebowitz idiot is supposed to be a serious scholar, and *this*
is how she thinks our government runs?
"Serious scholar"? She's a cranky, 73-year old humorist who's as pissed
about the Supreme Court as the rest of us should be.
TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Loading...