Sign in to follow this  
The Joker

Amy Coney Barrett Let the Knives and Shields come out

Recommended Posts

That's a cute comparison for those who didn't bother to actually read and research. End of the day, if the Senate and white house flip, shit gets real busy.  Look, The judiciary bill is written, and in fact most of it was written some time ago.  Obama wasn't interested because healthcare was his priority and, like trump, he had no idea how quickly two years passes.  The new senate will be under no such illusions.  Filibuster will be gone day 1.  There is a lot of mess to clean up and not a lot of time to do it in.  Judges are one small part.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Now we have a real discussion!

Let's talk about that 'thin air', which is far too dumb a statement for you to use.  'Out of thin air' is what you say when you are too dumb to research where something actually does come from. 

Before we get to Roe, let's talk about the 'thin air' right.  

First, do you agree or disagree that americans have a right to privacy? 

 

Fuck, I just had a long post typed out and it's gone poof.  Let me try to recreate it.  Weird that it's not still in the editor buffer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Fuck, I just had a long post typed out and it's gone poof.  Let me try to recreate it.  Weird that it's not still in the editor buffer.

 

For the sake of all things Holy, please don't.  Long ones, notepad or Word and cut and paste.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Now we have a real discussion!

Let's talk about that 'thin air', which is far too dumb a statement for you to use.  'Out of thin air' is what you say when you are too dumb to research where something actually does come from. 

Before we get to Roe, let's talk about the 'thin air' right.  

First, do you agree or disagree that americans have a right to privacy? 

 

Yes, of course there is a 4th Am right to privacy.  Last I checked though, privacy was not divided into trimesters.  The 4th am has zero to do with abortion or a woman's ability to get one or the state's interest in denying her one.  The 4th says:  

Quote

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

A fetus is not a persons, houses, papers or effects that the gov't can search and seize.  The gov't in fact was not searching and seizing a fetus nor issuing warrants without PC against that womb or fetus.  It's an utterly ridiculous stretch that the SC had to make to go there and why this has never been settled law.  

If a woman's right to an abortion is a privacy right, then pretty much any medical procedure done behind closed clinic doors to anyone for anything would be covered under the 4th am.  Is a doc experimenting on a pregnant woman with her consent covered by privacy?  Is doing experimental surgeries or drug therapies behind closed doors without FDA approval but with the patient's consent not covered by the patient's privacy?  Imagine a man saying that his wanting a Tiger's penis surgically attached to his face was covered by Roe?  He would be laughed out of the courtroom and the doctor would lose his license and/or go to jail.  I know both Gaytor and cal20 are very disappointed that they aren't going to have their tiger penis face, but them's the breaks.

As I said very clearly, I am a Yuge advocate for a woman's right to have an abortion for pretty much any reason, up to a point.....  But the Congress should make that law, not the SCOTUS.  Elections have consequences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Fuck, I just had a long post typed out and it's gone poof.  Let me try to recreate it.  Weird that it's not still in the editor buffer.

 

Thanks for a small miracle.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yes, of course there is a 4th Am right to privacy.  Last I checked though, privacy was not divided into trimesters.  The 4th am has zero to do with abortion or a woman's ability to get one or the state's interest in denying her one.  The 4th says:  

A fetus is not a persons, houses, papers or effects that the gov't can search and seize.  The gov't in fact was not searching and seizing a fetus nor issuing warrants without PC against that womb or fetus.  It's an utterly ridiculous stretch that the SC had to make to go there and why this has never been settled law.  

If a woman's right to an abortion is a privacy right, then pretty much any medical procedure done behind closed clinic doors to anyone for anything would be covered under the 4th am.  Is a doc experimenting on a pregnant woman with her consent covered by privacy?  Is doing experimental surgeries or drug therapies behind closed doors without FDA approval but with the patient's consent not covered by the patient's privacy?  Imagine a man saying that his wanting a Tiger's penis surgically attached to his face was covered by Roe?  He would be laughed out of the courtroom and the doctor would lose his license and/or go to jail.  I know both Gaytor and cal20 are very disappointed that they aren't going to have their tiger penis face, but them's the breaks.

As I said very clearly, I am a Yuge advocate for a woman's right to have an abortion for pretty much any reason, up to a point.....  But the Congress should make that law, not the SCOTUS.  Elections have consequences.  

It is. If you call my doctor, and asked him if I had a colonoscopy recently, what do you think he'd say?

 If I called my sister's doctor, and asked him if she'd had an abortion, what do you think he'd say.

If I called your doctor, and asked him if there was any evidence of frequent anal sexual penetration, what do you think he'd say?....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

It is. If you call my doctor, and asked him if I had a colonoscopy recently, what do you think he'd say?

 If I called my sister's doctor, and asked him if she'd had an abortion, what do you think he'd say.

If I called your doctor, and asked him if there was any evidence of frequent anal sexual penetration, what do you think he'd say?....

Why no woman doctors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

caring for your fellow man does not a socialist make... 

"put their lives and possessions in common" 

Duh.

Your brain is turning into ballast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

It is. If you call my doctor, and asked him if I had a colonoscopy recently, what do you think he'd say?

 If I called my sister's doctor, and asked him if she'd had an abortion, what do you think he'd say.

If I called your doctor, and asked him if there was any evidence of frequent anal sexual penetration, what do you think he'd say?....

Our health industry does a better job of protecting patient's medical histories than our military members have done protecting national defense secrets.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yes, of course there is a 4th Am right to privacy.  Last I checked though, privacy was not divided into trimesters.  The 4th am has zero to do with abortion or a woman's ability to get one or the state's interest in denying her one.  The 4th says:  

A fetus is not a persons, houses, papers or effects that the gov't can search and seize.  The gov't in fact was not searching and seizing a fetus nor issuing warrants without PC against that womb or fetus.  It's an utterly ridiculous stretch that the SC had to make to go there and why this has never been settled law.  

If a woman's right to an abortion is a privacy right, then pretty much any medical procedure done behind closed clinic doors to anyone for anything would be covered under the 4th am.  Is a doc experimenting on a pregnant woman with her consent covered by privacy?  Is doing experimental surgeries or drug therapies behind closed doors without FDA approval but with the patient's consent not covered by the patient's privacy?  Imagine a man saying that his wanting a Tiger's penis surgically attached to his face was covered by Roe?  He would be laughed out of the courtroom and the doctor would lose his license and/or go to jail.  I know both Gaytor and cal20 are very disappointed that they aren't going to have their tiger penis face, but them's the breaks.

As I said very clearly, I am a Yuge advocate for a woman's right to have an abortion for pretty much any reason, up to a point.....  But the Congress should make that law, not the SCOTUS.  Elections have consequences.  

Just like you can't own any weapon you want under the 2nd. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Just like you can't own any weapon you want under the 2nd. ...

What Constitutional power gives the US Government the ability to restrict what weapons you can own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

Oh the plan that had to be passed before we found out what was in it and NO Republican voted for because there was not proper deliberations and crammed down the throats of the American public?

 

 

8 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

Yeah that one... 

The plan that WI opted out of?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jhc said:

I saw Whitehouse's presentation as an explicit threat to the court, especially Alito, Barrett, that if a supermajority can be assembled, judges that are bought by dark money will be removed from the bench. 

I applaud that. However, in the short term, could be something that sways the court in the direction of trump, and the republicans. As they are the source of the dark money Mr. W was describing. 

Another tipping point for our country. 

And I agree, there was/is terror in Ms. Coney Barrett's eyes. 

Surfing through YouTube I saw videos of Whitehouse talking about dark money going back 7 years.  I also found one during the Gorsuch hearings where Whitehouse asked Gorsuch about the $17M spent on getting him nominated to the Supreme Court.

At least seven years and things have only gotten worse.  Now they don't even care where the money is coming from, as long as they get a piece of the pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

bmvlzli7iws51.jpg

 

 

Mean and admittedly lying Reichista that you are (Bravo*2) 

do you actually claim to be a Christian ? 

My mind is boggling itself off to oblivion somewhere . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

What Constitutional power gives the US Government the ability to restrict what weapons you can own?

The one that says you cannot own a surface to air missile.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Fuck, I just had a long post typed out and it's gone poof.  Let me try to recreate it. 

Please don't bother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

What Constitutional power gives the US Government the ability to restrict what weapons you can own?

Gimmie a big-ass nuke. 

It's right there in the constitution !! 

Boy, I could really do some awesome struttin' down main street with one of those bad boys !! 

Can one of ya little punk-ass Reichistas make me a holster for this ?? 

image.jpeg.a19dd4842551f9807d701e3b421dcb7f.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Just like you can't own any weapon you want under the 2nd. ...

What Constitutional power gives the US Government the ability to restrict what weapons you can own?

The same Constitutional power that gives the US Government the right to invade states to compel them to remain in the union by military force?

What do I win?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact she is already evading answering questions

shows she  has a pre determined agenda

and knows that the whole situation is a shame she doesn't have to enter into

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Mean and admittedly lying Reichista that you are (Bravo*2) 

do you actually claim to be a Christian ? 

My mind is boggling itself off to oblivion somewhere . . 

Yep the people who believe in sky fairies decided the fate of the nation. 

But then if she really is a Christian, why doesn't she just forgive everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phill_nz said:

the fact she is already evading answering questions

shows she  has a pre determined agenda

and knows that the whole situation is a shame she doesn't have to enter into

Yeah, but the frightened look in her eyes shows that she knows what he is setting up.  Getting it on record.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

I have yet to read or see that story, The Handmaid's Tale. Perhaps I"ll do so.

It's good.

And it's scary AF in these times, especially when you consider it was published in 1985.

If you'd told me in 1986 when I was in Washington for the March for Women's Lives with 125,000 other people that we'd be concerned about women's rights in 2020 I'd have laughed at you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

the fact she is already evading answering questions

shows she  has a pre determined agenda

and knows that the whole situation is a shame she doesn't have to enter into

Evading questions has become standard procedure, unfortunately. So has fawning over one party's politicians and spitting at the other.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

What Constitutional power gives the US Government the ability to restrict what weapons you can own?

I never get tired of laughing at your word games

Thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

caring for your fellow man does not a socialist make... 

Hahahahaha!!!  Hmm, a community that puts the fruits of all its labors into a pot and distributes as the leaders see necessary...that sounds so familiar.  I wonder why?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

You're ignorance on ACB's Religious affiliation on full display! Well done... 

My discovery of her tongues beliefs :

I was fanning  the tv dial late at night looking to see what stations of interest I could  find on my ATT rip off satellite deal . It seems I have about 200 advertisement stations, and a very few interesting stations hidden among them .

   I stumbled across a station with some horrible musicians singing a horrible  song about their belief in some sort of deity. They stopped singing and a woman started hollering about her version of what Jesus dies and how we should  interact with him. 
  She quickly changed to political speech and started praising Gropenfuhrer for choosing a person sho shared “our beliefs.”
She then thanked Jesus for helping Gropenfuhrer choose someone “like us” who speaks in tongues. 

Then she Said “we shoujd do some of that right now.”
Then she started blathering total gobbledygook while waving her arms around and walking around on the stage

“ OK,” thought me, “I need to find out if there is any truth to this. 
 

I found links to events where the Supreme  Court appointee was alleged to have spoken in tongues.

 

my impression is the reports I found were legitimate

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

 

I found links to events where the Supreme  Court appointee was alleged to have spoken in tongues.

 

my impression is the reports I found were legitimate

th?id=OIP.jJMpk6qZGEh_am6dMxwpiwHaEJ%26p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, phill_nz said:

the fact she is already evading answering questions

shows she  has a pre determined agenda

and knows that the whole situation is a shame she doesn't have to enter into

Please quote a single question ACB “evaded” answering ... some really loinfomofo’s down here!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BravoBravo said:

Please quote a single question ACB “evaded” answering ... some really loinfomofo’s down here!

You are an ex-government employee, now contracted to the government for social media managing.

Will be interesting to see if you are still here after the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, astro said:

You are an ex-government employee, now contracted to the government for social media managing.

Will be interesting to see if you are still here after the election.

Your biggest problem in life is guessing your way through 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand you didnt see the interview

it somehow it ended up in front of me

and i say that you didn't see it on the evidence that anyone that did could not have helped but notice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Your biggest problem in life is guessing 

No, no guessing, you are a government shill.

EDIT: so what time is it where you are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barrett won't say if Medicare is constitutional

(Senator) Feinstein asked Barrett if she agreed with “originalists who say that the Medicare program is unconstitutional.”

Barrett said she was “not familiar” with Rappaport’s article. Pressed by Feinstein for an opinion on the broader point about Medicare’s legitimacy, Barrett said she could not “answer that question in the abstract,” citing the so-called Ginsburg rule, an excuse frequently used by Republican-nominated judges to avoid revealing how they might rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, astro said:

No, no guessing, you are a government shill.

EDIT: so what time is it where you are?

You are the one with all the answers 


 

 

tempus fugit 

have fun while you are at it!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I never get tired of laughing at your word games

Thank you.

Does this mean that you are unable to answer the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Does this mean that you are unable to answer the question?

No. It means that I never get tired of laughing at your word games.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

No. It means that I never get tired of laughing at your word games.

Thank you.

Looks like you are unable to answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, benwynn said:

Technically correct.  Caring for more than one of your fellow men is socialist. 

 

14 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

I cross paths, in a helping charitable way with a few working on their way out and up on their feet again, the are more resources available for help than folks wanting to change 

hence the aimless lost souls freely choosing a doomed lifestyle of drugs alcohol and malnutrition living on the ground...sad to watch 

You said they were "perfectly content" to live that way.

Make up your fucking mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Looks like english is not spoken in your home.

Yet you still haven't answered the question. 

Around here, it is the easiest questions that seem to cause the most difficulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, benwynn said:
14 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

... hence the aimless lost souls freely choosing a doomed lifestyle of drugs alcohol and malnutrition living on the ground...sad to watch 

You said they were "perfectly content" to live that way.

Make up your fucking mind.

assuming he's got one

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jzk said:

it is the easiest questions that seem to cause the most difficulty.

when liars ask questions, the answers are on the wind. -fortune cookie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

when liars ask questions, the answers are on the wind. -fortune cookie

Where is the lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in every post, just like the toy in a crackerjack box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

in every post, just like the toy in a crackerjack box.

Yet you can't cite a single one.

Instead you will just run away, or stalk me and post personal information about me.  That is how you roll.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

caring for your fellow man does not a socialist make... 

 

15 hours ago, benwynn said:

Technically correct.  Caring for more than one of your fellow men is socialist. 

 

15 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

I'd like to think there is a middle ground... 

Between one and more than one?  There isn't. 

One man and a kid maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citing to you is like citing to trump.  Everyone knows what you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Citing to you is like citing to trump.  Everyone knows what you are.

I asked a reasonable question.

"What Constitutional power gives the US Government the ability to restrict what weapons you can own?"

Your answer was to just call me a liar. 

The truth is that everyone knows exactly who you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

I asked a reasonable question.

You have never asked a reasonable question.  You only pretend.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

My discovery of her tongues beliefs :

I was fanning  the tv dial late at night looking to see what stations of interest I could  find on my ATT rip off satellite deal . It seems I have about 200 advertisement stations, and a very few interesting stations hidden among them .

   I stumbled across a station with some horrible musicians singing a horrible  song about their belief in some sort of deity. They stopped singing and a woman started hollering about her version of what Jesus dies and how we should  interact with him. 
  She quickly changed to political speech and started praising Gropenfuhrer for choosing a person sho shared “our beliefs.”
She then thanked Jesus for helping Gropenfuhrer choose someone “like us” who speaks in tongues. 

Then she Said “we shoujd do some of that right now.”
Then she started blathering total gobbledygook while waving her arms around and walking around on the stage

“ OK,” thought me, “I need to find out if there is any truth to this. 
 

I found links to events where the Supreme  Court appointee was alleged to have spoken in tongues.

 

my impression is the reports I found were legitimate

 

 

 

 

Nice, Gouv. But that's when you copy the credible link, to present the material online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Nice, Gouv. But that's when you copy the credible link, to present the material online.

No need. Those who actually want to know will fact check and find the same answers I found. 
 

Personally??  I generally find wearing certainty of your religion or lack of it publicly to be an indication of a foolish mind. 
 

My reaction to people who brag about their “faith” is, “Aw. That’s too bad.”

I still look for goodness  in everybody and try to find some other reason to respect them but anyone who expresses certainty about deities or atheism makes me wonder what other silly unsupportable notions are hampering that person’s brain function. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

I asked a reasonable question.

"What Constitutional power gives the US Government the ability to restrict what weapons you can own?"

Your answer was to just call me a liar. 

The truth is that everyone knows exactly who you are.

No, you asked a question. You don't deserve answers until you start answering questions that have been asked of you, first.

And, you are a liar. Simple fact.

As for why your ability to own weapons is restricted by the US Government, what restrictions exist are in place and enforced with the approval of the Supreme Court, which is the final authority on the US Constitution. That's why it's imperative to place another far-right religious whackoe on the Supreme Court, while you have the chance.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, you asked a question. You don't deserve answers until you start answering questions that have been asked of you, first.

And, you are a liar. Simple fact.

As for why your ability to own weapons is restricted by the US Government, what restrictions exist are in place and enforced with the approval of the Supreme Court, which is the final authority on the US Constitution. That's why it's imperative to place another far-right religious whackoe on the Supreme Court, while you have the chance.

- DSK

Where is the lie?

You didn't answer the question.  

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wanted a job as a truck driver, and you didn't know that a steering-wheel was part of a truck, would you get the job?

I mean holy crap, people. This is fundamental civics. It was a softball question from an R senator and she flubbed it. She should know this like the back of her hand.

The hearings should have ended right there. She just disqualified herself.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/barrett-unable-to-name-5-freedoms-protected-by-1st-amendment/2668024/?fbclid=IwAR3EiErcROo1m2uzNfwKzieNFpS-yZPIq5ptc6bAuxyB1qIqbNP-S_mUYt4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

It is. If you call my doctor, and asked him if I had a colonoscopy recently, what do you think he'd say?

 If I called my sister's doctor, and asked him if she'd had an abortion, what do you think he'd say.

If I called your doctor, and asked him if there was any evidence of frequent anal sexual penetration, what do you think he'd say?....

 

WTF does any of that have to do with unapproved medical experiments?  RIF MF.  RIF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

It's good.

And it's scary AF in these times, especially when you consider it was published in 1985.

If you'd told me in 1986 when I was in Washington for the March for Women's Lives with 125,000 other people that we'd be concerned about women's rights in 2020 I'd have laughed at you.

ACB is now the same as the Handmaid's Tale???  JFC, Hyperbole much?  Let me know when the sky is falling, Mr Little.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jzk said:

Yet you still haven't answered the question. 

Around here, it is the easiest questions that seem to cause the most difficulty.

I'm not here to answer your questions.

You're a disingenuous person.

A failed lawyer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ACB will be confirmed. What going forward? She will sit on cases. Her clerks will wriye up both sides of each case? She will critique each side? Clerks will rewrite and she will issue her ipinion. What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

What am I missing?

Regulating your alcohol intake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:
4 minutes ago, warbird said:

What am I missing?

Regulating your alcohol intake?

Oxygen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

Oxygen?

I hate it when folks don't proofread their blather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, warbird said:

What am I missing?

grade school spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Regulating your alcohol intake?

How does a very nice Irish Wiskey change the facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

?

You may well question my preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

How does a very nice Irish Wiskey change the facts?

Except for "whiskey", that was written well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

How does a very nice Irish Wiskey change the facts?

Generally for the better, I find.

Well, the facts are still the same, but I find them much easier to accept if I'm on the outside of a large Whisky, or even Whiskey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, justsomeguy! said:

Except for "whiskey", that was written well.

It is fair (or not) to lump wiskeys from across the pond together.  Not shaming either sources, just differentiating them from the products of the colonies:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:

It is fair (or not) to lump wiskeys from across the pond together.  Not shaming either sources, just differentiating them from the products of the colonies:D

Go pick up the bottle.

Pour another dram.

Read what is written on the bottle.

It will say Whiskey or Whisky, or perhaps Draino.

(If it really says wiskey, then take it back to the $2 shop. Before you go blind)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I'm not here to answer your questions.

You're a disingenuous person.

A failed lawyer.

 

 

When you can't answer the questions, turn to the insults.

Par for the course here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Se7en said:

Go pick up the bottle.

Pour another dram.

Read what is written on the bottle.

It will say Whiskey or Whisky, or perhaps Draino.

(If it really says wiskey, then take it back to the $2 shop. Before you go blind)

 

You can inject it, just like bleach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jzk said:

When you can't answer the questions, turn to the insults.

Par for the course here.

 

14 hours ago, jzk said:

Yet you can't cite a single one.

Instead you will just run away, or stalk me and post personal information about me.  That is how you roll.  

Your pretty good at insulting others, yourself.

 

A lack of honesty and consistency is what we've come to expect from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jzk said:

When you can't answer the questions, turn to the insults.

Par for the course here.

I was a member of a forum about a completely different subject.  There was a moderator on it that was also a failed lawyer, spent all his time doing the same shit you do here only he had the ban hammer.  Seriously disingenuous cunt he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jzk said:

When you can't answer the questions, turn to the insults.

Par for the course here.

When Xi’s balls bounce on your chin do they make a sound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

 

Your pretty good at insulting others, yourself.

 

A lack of honesty and consistency is what we've come to expect from you.

That is a whole lot of not answering the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2020 at 8:07 PM, Burning Man said:

Yes, of course there is a 4th Am right to privacy. 

Thank you Jeff. I'm not going to go down the hallway until we are both in the same room though.  The 4th is about searches and seizures by the government.  How does it create a right to privacy?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2020 at 9:10 PM, jzk said:

What Constitutional power gives the US Government the ability to restrict what weapons you can own?

None, provided you manufactured the gun yourself with materials you pulled from the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

None, provided you manufactured the gun yourself with materials you pulled from the ground.

Yes, we have a winner.  Almost.  The power to "regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes."

I guess the Supreme Court has had difficulty defining the word "commerce."  You would think the founders could have saved time and just said "regulate economic activity."

I suspect that if I were actually able to mine the metal from my own property, some on the court would argue that I am substantially affecting interstate commerce by making my own gun.

But, it could very well be that those people will now be making up the dissenting opinion in such a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be. I'd encourage the court to invalidate Commerce immediately.  It will get us the expanded federal judiciary we need even more quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites