For the people or for the elites?

[goldcatt]

Are you always like this?

Yes, she is.

Except when she's even worse.

 

[Modbert]

Yes, she is.

Except when she's even worse.

And it's quite possible.

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, she is.

Except when she's even worse.

And it's quite possible.

Oh yes it is.

Wait'll she kicks it into high gear. She makes Rhodescholar look rational.

 

[goldcatt]

she isn't getting it at all, is she?

the people who wrote the document she keeps talking about, but knows nothing about, DIDN'T WANT THE PEOPLE ANYWHERE NEAR IT.

lol.. they didn't even want most of 'THE PEOPLE" to vote.

they so don't get it... the 'masses' weren't supposed to infringe on people's rights. the only way to assure that was to make sure that there was a higher power that could step between the "people" and those they wanted to stomp on

There you go applying stuff like context again. Shame on you Ms. Elitist!

The so-called Framers were well aware of the tyranny of the majority, of course. So were the States. It was one of the concepts at the center of the debates within the Constitutional Congress. But of course only idiots do things like look up original contemporary sources and actually read them.

If her interpretation of what the Constitution means and the Founders thought is laughably pathetic and uninteresting, YOURS would require new technology to measure its vapidity. I'll give you the same help I gave Lawyer Twit, since it's apparent that neither of you have ever looked the Constitution up in your inane lives.

Simple instructions: Quote. Me. The. Constitution.

Here's the Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Go to it. Your next post will doubtless be the painfully simple-to-find text awarding the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court, because anything else at this point would be a particularly humiliating admission of defeat and surrender.

Whatever you say, Pubes.

 

[Modbert]

Oh yes it is.

Wait'll she kicks it into high gear. She makes Rhodescholar look rational.

Indeed, least Rhodescholar never said the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a Leftist invention.

 

[Sheldon]

Oh yes it is.

Wait'll she kicks it into high gear. She makes Rhodescholar look rational.

Indeed, least Rhodescholar never said the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a Leftist invention.

Please tell me you're joking.

 

[Modbert]

Please tell me you're joking.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/86692-same-sex-marriage-22.html#post1584086

Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known, and it still hasn't happened. The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/86692-same-sex-marriage-24.html#post1585246

Nice try, but no. Leftists have been telling us scare stories about heterosexual AIDS epidemics since Reagan was President, and it still stubbornly insists on clinging to high risk-behavior groups, of which homosexual males are one.

And there's no "conspiracy theory" involved, dumbass. Just common sense and logic. The only "wacked conspiracy theorist" here is you, leaping to "government ploy" when I said exactly two things about the government: jack and shit. I said "leftist", not government, fool, so try to at least PRETEND to read the posts before spouting off, okay?

What I believe, and the evidence bears me out, is that most of the so-called "AIDS cases" in Africa are, in fact, people suffering from other diseases entirely and being misdiagnosed as having AIDS to serve a political agenda. All it takes is the willingness to pull your head out of your ass - which I assume is where the entire exercise lost you - and read the relevant documents.

http://www.who.int/hiv/strategic/en/bangui1985report.pdf

WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record, No. 10, March 7, 1986

 

[goldcatt]

Ain't she sweet?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you always like this?

Yes, she is.

Except when she's even worse.

Well, THAT brilliant answer, coupled with your witty neg rep of "Okey dokey, pubes" must mean that you surrender, with all the grace and maturity of any spoiled 5th grader who's taking his ball and running home.

Thanks for playing. Too bad you suck so badly. This is me in the end zone, doing my victory dance. FLUSH!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you always like this?

Where I demand that bullshitters put up or shut up, instead of letting them pretend that insults and faux-loftiness take the place of substance? Pretty much, but it generally only bothers those people who can't make real arguments.

I really shouldn't be giving you the attention you crave, and the validation that attention implies, but I just want to watch you spaz on this post, too.

Let's go back through the thread, starting on page one where you decided to plop your ass in here. This was your first demand, to Papa Jack:

I tell you what, Punkin. You show me anywhere in the law where the Supreme Court was created as and appointed to be the "final arbiter of our laws", and I'll consider the possibility that we NEED them to be. Until that point, I will pigheadedly persist in believing that this isn't a dictatorship with a handful of oligarchs ruling us all.

I'll be waiting on that PRECISE, WORD FOR WORD quote from the Constitution where it "provides for our Highest Court to do just that", but I won't hold my breath.

I'll take the bolded section in two parts.

You show me anywhere in the law where the Supreme Court was created as and appointed to be the "final arbiter of our laws",...

So, since you put "final arbiter of our laws" in quotes, it was assumed that it's the verbatim phrase you were demanding. Of course, at this point, you'd already looked up the Constitution on-line and had skimmed through Article 3. Nowhere in there did you see "final arbiter of our laws".

This is why you've been pressing this point. You know you're safe in it. The Constitution does not, and has never, explicitly stated such.


...and I'll consider the possibility that we NEED them to be.

This is bullshit. You already knew the answer to your above demand at this point, which means everything beyond it is nothing but ego flexing.

Let's move on.

Nobody has suggested doing away with the court system, and I have remarkably little tolerance for "all-or-nothing" extremist straw man arguments, so don't even bother going there.

There's a big difference between having the courts to apply the law to individual disputes, and letting them dictate what the law actually is or should be. See if you can wrap your brain around that difference, and then come back.

This entire quote is when I figured out you're an idiot. The two paragraphs don't square.

You said you don't want to do away with the courts system, which I agree with. Doing so would be a Bad Thing.

To be more specific, though, it was the bolded section where I really, for sure, knew you're a stoopid. Our court system, which you've admitted you don't want to do away with, has been set up in a hierarchy in which cases climb through that hierarchy on appeal. The very nature of a hierarchy means that, at some point, somewhere, the case has to stop climbing.

So by accepting the courts system, as you have, you also tangentially accept its hierarchical nature where some court, somewhere, has to be the final voice. But you didn't? You say you want to uphold our court system, but contradict yourself by questioning judicial review. Whether with the states' Supremes or SCOTUS, there must be a final voice in the judiciary; you can't accept our court system without accepting that. Wrap your brain around it.

I'm going to try this one last time: Because of Marbury, that voice is with SCOTUS.

To emphasize this point, and to provide background as to why it is, and the argument for SCOTUS being the proverbial line in the sand, I linked you to the case on the hope you might read it. You didn't. You haven't ever. And you won't.

I even quoted some relevant excerpts explaining why the power of judicial review is important for SCOTUS and for the viability of the Constitution, and the way in which the power was interpreted from Article 3 within the context of the Constitution. That post of mine was the answer to yours. You wanted to know where in the Constitution the power comes from, I showed you the interpretation, but you're clearly a stone-hard literalist that can't make her case (did Jesus fly on pterodactyls, too?).

The thread had moved on at this point. It was accepted that judicial review is an implied power, so it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution, so therefore can't be quoted directly. You know this. But it's against your agenda in this thread.

You had only one mission here: to pick a simple premise and stick to it even though the thread has moved on, just so you can prop up your sense of intelligence.

You could've, if you were actually interested in discussion, argued for why such a power should be reserved for the states' Courts. But you didn't.

You persisted with the point that had already passed its expiration date but you were too self-absorbed to care. It's all about you. Your continued demands to "Quote. Me. The. Constitution", while in your mind a sure-fire victory if only you kept blobbing along, betrayed your complete ignorance on what was going on in this thread.

Now, if you need me to break out the fucking crayons and draw you a picture so you understand what I said, let me know. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your bullshit and get on it.

I just want to take this moment to tell you how much I have come to enjoy watching you throw pie in your face.

It fascinates me immensely to ask a simple question and get everything BUT the answer. And the more you congratulate yourself for how smart you are in place of proving it, the funnier you get.

It fascinates me that you're still asking the question. That's why people are saying you "just don't get it". Because you don't. You're making this thread about what you want, about asking people to do something you know they can't. All in the attempt to fatten your self-righteous indignation.

Waddle on out of here, cesspool. This thread passed you by before we got to the second page, but you're too stupid to realize it, and you're too stupid to realize how stupid you are, which is why I headed my love note as "Dear Moron". And, you need to work on your mockery skills.

No spaz necessary. I accept your admission of defeat and your surrender, and I commend you for being at least marginally more mature about it than your colleague, Goldcatt, in that you kept spewing impressive amounts of bullshit to the bitter end, vainly hoping you would fool SOMEONE with your smoke and mirrors. I could fertilize the back forty with THIS epic and frantic pile of manure.

That's two down.

Thanks for playing. Too bad you sucked so badly. I'm off to the end zone to do my victory dance now. FLUSH!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, she is.

Except when she's even worse.

And it's quite possible.

I'm more than willing to let YOU attempt to interpret the massively confusing issue of "Quote the Constitution", if you can take time out of your busy schedule of sucking ass to every leftist chick on the board. Just let me know when you grow the stones for it.

 

[Modbert]

I'm more than willing to let YOU attempt to interpret the massively confusing issue of "Quote the Constitution", if you can take time out of your busy schedule of sucking ass to every leftist chick on the board. Just let me know when you grow the stones for it.

Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to have a discussion with PI, hopeless. I find it hilarious you think you can self-proclaim victory on a message board and thinks it means something. Let me know when the Wizard of Oz gives you that brain you've been asking for.

 

[goldcatt]

I'm more than willing to let YOU attempt to interpret the massively confusing issue of "Quote the Constitution", if you can take time out of your busy schedule of sucking ass to every leftist chick on the board. Just let me know when you grow the stones for it.

Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to have a discussion with PI, hopeless. I find it hilarious you think you can self-proclaim victory on a message board and thinks it means something. Let me know when the Wizard of Oz gives you that brain you've been asking for.

Hey, go easy on her. With what she passes off as a personality declaring victory on a message board is probably all she's got.

 

[Modbert]

Hey, go easy on her. With what she passes off as a personality declaring victory on a message board is probably all she's got.

Maybe we should set her and PI up on a date?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eplbDbp6XJQ[/ame]

 

[goldcatt]

Maybe we should set her and PI up on a date?

YouTube - Anchorman-Afternoon Delight

What if they spawned?

 

[Modbert]

What if they spawned?

Then God help us all.

 

[Sheldon]

I remember when I was a little kid. My mom would take me to the bank with her, and usually the teller would give me a sucker. Sometimes, though, it'd get a sticker. That made me feel like such a winner.

cesspool, I declare you the winner of this thread. Here's an e-sticker, from me to you!

And thanks for the neggie. I feel like I've finally been initiated to the board now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm more than willing to let YOU attempt to interpret the massively confusing issue of "Quote the Constitution", if you can take time out of your busy schedule of sucking ass to every leftist chick on the board. Just let me know when you grow the stones for it.

Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to have a discussion with PI, hopeless. I find it hilarious you think you can self-proclaim victory on a message board and thinks it means something. Let me know when the Wizard of Oz gives you that brain you've been asking for.

Nope. No cojones yet. But I'm sure the "ladies" are deeply impressed with how "brave and manly" you are in continuing their smokescreen of pointlessly insulting posts, now that they've run away in defeat. You might get lucky yet.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey, go easy on her. With what she passes off as a personality declaring victory on a message board is probably all she's got.

Maybe we should set her and PI up on a date?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eplbDbp6XJQ]YouTube - Anchorman-Afternoon Delight[/ame]

More ass-sucking. I can't remember the last time I've seen anyone kiss up this frantically.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What if they spawned?

Then God help us all.

And the Poltroon Parade keeps marching.