XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.stupidity, alt.tv.hbo
From: nobody@nowhere.com
On 10/4/2024 5:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article , moviePig
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/4/2024 3:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article , moviePig
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/4/2024 2:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article , moviePig
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/4/2024 5:16 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/2/24 4:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2024 3:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 12:36:30 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2024 2:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 8:28:15 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/2024 6:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2024 at 2:35:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/2024 5:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:40:36 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/2024 3:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>
> 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)?
> Now my turn:
>
> What about my Article I, Section 8 analysis above equates to a 'screech'?
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
