SuMar
VIP Member
- Mar 16, 2010
- 1,864
- 328
- 63
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
Your Hero is certainly welcome to file any lawsuit his heart desires.
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
Your Hero is certainly welcome to file any lawsuit his heart desires.
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
Your Hero is certainly welcome to file any lawsuit his heart desires.
It is illegal and unconstitutional to try and pass a bill with no vote. Or did no one teach we are a Representative Republic with actual rules of democracy in our Congress?
Your Hero is certainly welcome to file any lawsuit his heart desires.
It is illegal and unconstitutional to try and pass a bill with no vote. Or did no one teach we are a Representative Republic with actual rules of democracy in our Congress?
Fox talking points are so cute. Especially when people dont look into something before commenting. Its cute really.
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
Your Hero is certainly welcome to file any lawsuit his heart desires.
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
You know a person is low if Hannity actually looks up to him. Its like looking up to see the belly of a slug. Levin is on the same level as Savage as far as I am concerned. He is a horrible, horrible joke. Now saying that, lets see what comes of what he says. When nothing happens or is accomplished, you will have to admit he is a joke as well.
will wait for the apology and disavowing of that idiot. Cant wait.
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
You know a person is low if Hannity actually looks up to him. Its like looking up to see the belly of a slug. Levin is on the same level as Savage as far as I am concerned. He is a horrible, horrible joke. Now saying that, lets see what comes of what he says. When nothing happens or is accomplished, you will have to admit he is a joke as well.
will wait for the apology and disavowing of that idiot. Cant wait.
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
Your Hero is certainly welcome to file any lawsuit his heart desires.
It is illegal and unconstitutional to try and pass a bill with no vote. Or did no one teach we are a Representative Republic with actual rules of democracy in our Congress?
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
Your Hero is certainly welcome to file any lawsuit his heart desires.
Actually, no he isn't. Outside the realm of the "thinking" of the modern American "liberal," lawsuits are supposed to be filed only when there is a good faith basis (factually and regarding the legal arguments to be made) supporting them.
As to the proper basis for the filing of a lawsuit, Mr. Levin is a Constitutional legal scholar and he doesn't require the permission of boredtoseeya to file a suit.
As to the underlying merits, Mark Levin's analysis is already spelled out. Although it runs contrary to the nature of the modern American "liberal," one is really required to actually take a look at the Constitution in order to see why the methodology proposed by the House is invalid.
Article I, Section 7 is not in the slightest bit unclear. The House "Rule" proposal unquestionably violates it.
To argue that other uses have been made, historically, of such a self-effectuating rule is to entirely miss the point. If something has been done in the past (generally over procedural matters), but it was improper to do it that way provides no support for us doing it again, now, especially on a non-procedural matter. How absurd.
Whether the prospective Levin lawsuit would work is another story. Our Judiciary is lame, too. But it's worth trying!
My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
You know a person is low if Hannity actually looks up to him. Its like looking up to see the belly of a slug. Levin is on the same level as Savage as far as I am concerned. He is a horrible, horrible joke. Now saying that, lets see what comes of what he says. When nothing happens or is accomplished, you will have to admit he is a joke as well.
will wait for the apology and disavowing of that idiot. Cant wait.
Zonya Bolonya,
Something that should be OBVIOUS to one and all.
When an ANTI-Obamarrhoid makes a mistake........and that does happen in one out of a hundred pronouncements on this Forum, and usually either admitted to.....or retracted....IT BECOMES A BIG DEAL !!!!!
On the other hand, when Political Idiots like you Obamarrhoids CONSTANTLY PUKE OUT PUKE.......... AND......... ITS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED AS....... PUKE.........THEN.....SINCE IT'S PAR FOR THE COURSE.......LIFE GOES ON WITHOUT A FUCKING MURMUR (usually).
JUST AS IN THIS CASE.
A Political Idiot LIKE you, a CERTIFIED OBAMARRHOID ...... is all AGOG that a POSSIBILITY exists that an ANTI-OBAMARRHOID IS WRONG.....and is DEMANDING an "EXPECTED APOLOGY".......
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT ZONYA BOLONYA IS WRONG (not WILL be wrong) .........WHAT HAPPENS THEN ????
I'll tell ya: PROBABLY NONE OF US ANTI-OBAMARRHOIDS WILL POINT THE MISTAKE TO THE OBAMARRHOID FREAK BECAUSE IT'S PAR FOR THE COURSE.
Your Hero is certainly welcome to file any lawsuit his heart desires.
Actually, no he isn't. Outside the realm of the "thinking" of the modern American "liberal," lawsuits are supposed to be filed only when there is a good faith basis (factually and regarding the legal arguments to be made) supporting them.
As to the proper basis for the filing of a lawsuit, Mr. Levin is a Constitutional legal scholar and he doesn't require the permission of boredtoseeya to file a suit.
As to the underlying merits, Mark Levin's analysis is already spelled out. Although it runs contrary to the nature of the modern American "liberal," one is really required to actually take a look at the Constitution in order to see why the methodology proposed by the House is invalid.
Article I, Section 7 is not in the slightest bit unclear. The House "Rule" proposal unquestionably violates it.
To argue that other uses have been made, historically, of such a self-effectuating rule is to entirely miss the point. If something has been done in the past (generally over procedural matters), but it was improper to do it that way provides no support for us doing it again, now, especially on a non-procedural matter. How absurd.
Whether the prospective Levin lawsuit would work is another story. Our Judiciary is lame, too. But it's worth trying!
DAMN! I've got to stop following you around. I did it again! :facepalm:
These CON$ and their FRIVOLOUS law suits!My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
Actually, no he isn't. Outside the realm of the "thinking" of the modern American "liberal," lawsuits are supposed to be filed only when there is a good faith basis (factually and regarding the legal arguments to be made) supporting them.
As to the proper basis for the filing of a lawsuit, Mr. Levin is a Constitutional legal scholar and he doesn't require the permission of boredtoseeya to file a suit.
As to the underlying merits, Mark Levin's analysis is already spelled out. Although it runs contrary to the nature of the modern American "liberal," one is really required to actually take a look at the Constitution in order to see why the methodology proposed by the House is invalid.
Article I, Section 7 is not in the slightest bit unclear. The House "Rule" proposal unquestionably violates it.
To argue that other uses have been made, historically, of such a self-effectuating rule is to entirely miss the point. If something has been done in the past (generally over procedural matters), but it was improper to do it that way provides no support for us doing it again, now, especially on a non-procedural matter. How absurd.
Whether the prospective Levin lawsuit would work is another story. Our Judiciary is lame, too. But it's worth trying!
DAMN! I've got to stop following you around. I did it again! :facepalm:
Wow are you vapid.
I entered a thread you had already posted in, so that means one of us is somehow (on that basis) "following around" the other?
You are certifiable.
Oh, and I even commented on something stupid you had said. You are demanding immunity from replies?
Go bark at the moon.
Now, IF you were inclined to respond to a post on the merits (this is what's technically known as a "contrary to fact hypothetical" since your normal style is to avoid being substantive and instead to always go for the ad hominem asides), you MIGHT have chosen to address how passing the Bill in the House via a "Rule" supposedly does not violate the Constitution, Article I, Section 7.
Of course, it's glaringly obvious that the proposed METHOD of "passing" the House bill would be a clear cut violation of that provision, so maybe this accounts for why you (as always) chose to avoid the topic and just resort to your vapid deflection shit, again, instead.
These CON$ and their FRIVOLOUS law suits!My hero Mark Levin promises to raise some hell if the flim-flam happens...tyranny is all about it..
Funny how he never filed a single law suit while Gingrich and the rest of the GOP "tyrants" used the same deem and pass several hundred times in the past!!!
DAMN! I've got to stop following you around. I did it again! :facepalm:
Wow are you vapid.
I entered a thread you had already posted in, so that means one of us is somehow (on that basis) "following around" the other?
You are certifiable.
Oh, and I even commented on something stupid you had said. You are demanding immunity from replies?
Go bark at the moon.
Now, IF you were inclined to respond to a post on the merits (this is what's technically known as a "contrary to fact hypothetical" since your normal style is to avoid being substantive and instead to always go for the ad hominem asides), you MIGHT have chosen to address how passing the Bill in the House via a "Rule" supposedly does not violate the Constitution, Article I, Section 7.
Of course, it's glaringly obvious that the proposed METHOD of "passing" the House bill would be a clear cut violation of that provision, so maybe this accounts for why you (as always) chose to avoid the topic and just resort to your vapid deflection shit, again, instead.
Damn! I have GOT TO stop doing this following you around!
I guess the law is going to be coming for Gingrich and Hastert and they are going to jail since they ussed the same fucking thing hundereds of times.