On Tossing Around The Term "Fascist"

[PoliticalChic]

12. Let's move from the accurate description that I provided early in this thread....Fascism based on the centralization of power in an all-encompassing government....



To an illustration....the very first Fascist government......
....wanna try to guess where?


'At its core, fascism is the view that every element of society must work together in spiritual union toward the same goals at the behest of the state. One can see it defined in Mussolini's own summary of the Fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" (Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State)'
MODERN LEFTISM AS RECYCLED FASCISM


But...as much as one might latch on to the idea of Mussolini inventing Fascism......his iteration was not the first Fascist governance!



The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the 20th century’s first fascist dictator: Democrat Progressive Woodrow Wilson. During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.

a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream

d. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues

g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9

Can you believe it?
It's the truth.


Sp...when one thinks of the Progressive, the Democrat Wilson......think Fascist.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh bullshit! I'm a conservative myself you jack-off. I'm not trite-wing dogmatic neoconservative puppet vacuously parroting the "minders" jingoisms. You have no fucking insight into where I am politically, fool, by you own erroneous words! So fuck you very much!

No you aren't. If you were, you wouldn't need to reaffirm your so called "conservatism" to me.

Are you one of those types who like to wear pyramid hats?

How many angels can YOU get to dance on the head of a pin, IDIOT! Speaking a truism is not to reaffirm anything but truth and sometimes correct error, most often that of others like yourself, foolish tool!

LOL. Do you even know what a truism is?

 

[Dragonlady]

Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases

Sure it was, except for the fact the the Democrats held the majority of both houses in Congress. They even had a super majority in the Senate.

So you've posted another lie.

It's what you do.

You can also get 15% off car insurance if you switch to Gieco too.

Any who read this exchange will recognize which of us is the liar.

They might notice you couldn't answer whether you read the book you disparaged, or that you were afraid to challenge my statement that Bill 'the rapist' Clinton was a racist, or that Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

I accept your concession posting that lie about the civil rights acts in which the coalition of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans defeated the Southern coalition.

1. 
   The House version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by only 61 percent of that Chamber's Democrats versus 80 percent of the Republicans. More importantly, it was Republicans that ended a Democrat filibuster preventing a vote on this bill in the Senate.Oct 8, 2011
   Sharpton Doesn't Know Higher Percentage of Republicans ...
   www.newsbusters.org/.../sharpton-doesnt-know-higher-per...
   NewsBusters.org

Caught you lying again,huh?

Again, you are wrong. The Civil Rights Act was passed by Northern Democrats and Republicans. All Southern Republicans, in both the House and the Senate, opposed the bill. While a higher percentage of Democrats voted against the bill than for it, that's because there were 94 Southern Democrats in the House, versus 10 Southern Republicans, and 21 South Democrats in the Senate, versus 1 Southern Republican.

100% of Southern Republicans in both the House and Senate, voted against the legislation. Over 95% of Northern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, versus 85% of Northern Republicans. The total percentages are skewed by the numbers of Southern Democrats. 7 Southern Democrats in the House voted in favour of the CRA, and 1 Southern Democrat Senator voted for it.

Southern Democrats were so angry with the Democratic Party for failing to protect segregation, that they've voted Republican ever since, so don't delude yourself that the Democrats are still the party of racism. Republicans embraced the racists, and they've been a stalwart part of the Republican Party ever since.

Figures never lie, but liars often figure.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You were going to tell us what made John F. Kennedy a Fascist. Have you forgotten?

You lie again.

Hence, the NYLiar.

There's more of your calling others a liar when the lie is yours, so you ignorant twit, here it is again;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


.."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

God you're so damn original, Chica...NOT! Copying my methods only displays your lack of original thought, which only amplifies the obvious reason you rely so heavily on Copy & Paste to put up a post! Did someone at some point in your life drop a big package bundle of Costco toilet paper on your head and wipe you out? Just sayin'...

And again you lied because substituting words to change the meaning from speaking to the topic of activist LAWYERS to activist JUDGES is a fucking LIE, Chica, you bloody fool!

So you're getting it again...ready;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


BTW...."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

God you're so damn original, Chica...NOT! Copying my methods only displays your lack of original thought, which only amplifies the obvious reason you rely so heavily on Copy & Paste to put up a post! Did someone at some point in your life drop a big package bundle of Costco toilet paper on your head and wipe you out? Just sayin'...

And again you lied because substituting words to change the meaning from speaking to the topic of activist LAWYERS to activist JUDGES is a fucking LIE, Chica, you bloody fool!

But let's hear a FULL explanation how altering Rehnquist's quote in the manner you did how the meaning of activist LAWYERS and activist judges are identical. I'll bet you'll go on and ignore this paragraph as you have avoided a comprehensive reply for the last four(4) months.

So you're getting it again...ready liar;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

 

[Dot Com]

PoliticalSpice is still hammering away at the Day Room keyboard? She should share the keyboard w/some of the other patients but, alas, PoliSpice is a Randian aren't you?

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[PoliticalChic]

Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases

Sure it was, except for the fact the the Democrats held the majority of both houses in Congress. They even had a super majority in the Senate.

So you've posted another lie.

It's what you do.

You can also get 15% off car insurance if you switch to Gieco too.

Any who read this exchange will recognize which of us is the liar.

They might notice you couldn't answer whether you read the book you disparaged, or that you were afraid to challenge my statement that Bill 'the rapist' Clinton was a racist, or that Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

I accept your concession posting that lie about the civil rights acts in which the coalition of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans defeated the Southern coalition.

1. 
   The House version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by only 61 percent of that Chamber's Democrats versus 80 percent of the Republicans. More importantly, it was Republicans that ended a Democrat filibuster preventing a vote on this bill in the Senate.Oct 8, 2011
   Sharpton Doesn't Know Higher Percentage of Republicans ...
   www.newsbusters.org/.../sharpton-doesnt-know-higher-per...
   NewsBusters.org

Caught you lying again,huh?

Again, you are wrong. The Civil Rights Act was passed by Northern Democrats and Republicans. All Southern Republicans, in both the House and the Senate, opposed the bill. While a higher percentage of Democrats voted against the bill than for it, that's because there were 94 Southern Democrats in the House, versus 10 Southern Republicans, and 21 South Democrats in the Senate, versus 1 Southern Republican.

100% of Southern Republicans in both the House and Senate, voted against the legislation. Over 95% of Northern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, versus 85% of Northern Republicans. The total percentages are skewed by the numbers of Southern Democrats. 7 Southern Democrats in the House voted in favour of the CRA, and 1 Southern Democrat Senator voted for it.

Southern Democrats were so angry with the Democratic Party for failing to protect segregation, that they've voted Republican ever since, so don't delude yourself that the Democrats are still the party of racism. Republicans embraced the racists, and they've been a stalwart part of the Republican Party ever since.

Figures new lie, but liars often figure.

Since the Civil Rights

You should know by now that I'm never wrong.

Democrats have always been the segregationists, the slavers, the party of second class citizenship.

Bill Clinton has an unbroken record of ant-black sentiment.

And the Republicans made the Civil Right Bill of 1964 happen.

Watch:

80% of Republicans in theHouseandSenatevoted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader RepublicanEverett Dirksenled the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such asRichard Russellof Georgia andStrom Thurmondof South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.

House Democrats 153 of 244 (63%)

House Republicans 136 of 171 (80%)

Senate Democrats 46 of 67 (69%)

Senate Republicans 27 of 33 (82%)
Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten


Do you know what a filibuster is?
Know why the Democrats tried to sustain one?



More Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Democrats

In the 1960s, Congress was divided on civil rights issues -- but not necessarily along party lines. "Most people don't realize that today at all -- in proportional terms, a far higher percentage of Republicans voted for this bill than did Democrats, because of the way the Southerners were divided," said Purdum. What you might not know about the 1964 Civil Rights Act - CNNPolitics.com



Everything you've been taught to believe is a lie.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Oh bullshit! I'm a conservative myself you jack-off. I'm not trite-wing dogmatic neoconservative puppet vacuously parroting the "minders" jingoisms. You have no fucking insight into where I am politically, fool, by you own erroneous words! So fuck you very much!

No you aren't. If you were, you wouldn't need to reaffirm your so called "conservatism" to me.

Are you one of those types who like to wear pyramid hats?

How many angels can YOU get to dance on the head of a pin, IDIOT! Speaking a truism is not to reaffirm anything but truth and sometimes correct error, most often that of others like yourself, foolish tool!

LOL. Do you even know what a truism is?

OH MY GOT,YOU'VE GOT ME IN TEARS WITH SUCIDIAL THOUGHTS. <snark>

You are less than competent to critique the posts of others it appears based on our first encounter. Talk to a trainer at your local fitness center and have him/her help you with that!

Bub-Bye and Cheerio!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Amusing how many professed Liberals/Democrats/Progressive drones force themselves to believe that suddenly....in 1964.....the slaver party had an epiphany....slapped themselves on the forehead....and proclaimed:

'now I love my darker brethren! I was sooooo wrong to lynch thousands of 'em....and block anti-lynching laws....and impose Jim Crow!!! Oh, woe is me! I'm gonna turn over a new leaf!'


No...they always were racists and remain such.
The Dixiecrats weren't Dixiecans....they were Democrats and continued to be Democrats.

The dolts on the board claim a sudden change in the life-long views of Democrats....
Yet the dolts on this board can't imagine themselves suddenly embracing Republican ideas and politics.
But pretend that the Democrats did just that.

Indoctrination is indelible.



"Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


Same for Bill Clinton.

 

[eagle7_31]

Amusing how many professed Liberals/Democrats/Progressive drones force themselves to believe that suddenly....in 1964.....the slaver party had an epiphany....slapped themselves on the forehead....and proclaimed:

'now I love my darker brethren! I was sooooo wrong to lynch thousands of 'em....and block anti-lynching laws....and impose Jim Crow!!! Oh, woe is me! I'm gonna turn over a new leaf!'


No...they always were racists and remain such.
The Dixiecrats weren't Dixiecans....they were Democrats and continued to be Democrats.

The dolts on the board claim a sudden change in the life-long views of Democrats....
Yet the dolts on this board can't imagine themselves suddenly embracing Republican ideas and politics.
But pretend that the Democrats did just that.

Indoctrination is indelible.



"Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


Same for Bill Clinton.

here is something even better. Barry Goldwater supported the 1957 Civil Rights act.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Oh bullshit! I'm a conservative myself you jack-off. I'm not trite-wing dogmatic neoconservative puppet vacuously parroting the "minders" jingoisms. You have no fucking insight into where I am politically, fool, by you own erroneous words! So fuck you very much!

No you aren't. If you were, you wouldn't need to reaffirm your so called "conservatism" to me.

Are you one of those types who like to wear pyramid hats?

How many angels can YOU get to dance on the head of a pin, IDIOT! Speaking a truism is not to reaffirm anything but truth and sometimes correct error, most often that of others like yourself, foolish tool!

He really nailed you, huh?

Smarts a bit????

Couldn't happen to a nicer.

Oh yea, a fucking death blow, Chica! You bloody IDIOT! Based on that post, I doubt if he could find his ass with either hand and a volume of the Atlas of Human Anatomy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Amusing how many professed Liberals/Democrats/Progressive drones force themselves to believe that suddenly....in 1964.....the slaver party had an epiphany....slapped themselves on the forehead....and proclaimed:

'now I love my darker brethren! I was sooooo wrong to lynch thousands of 'em....and block anti-lynching laws....and impose Jim Crow!!! Oh, woe is me! I'm gonna turn over a new leaf!'


No...they always were racists and remain such.
The Dixiecrats weren't Dixiecans....they were Democrats and continued to be Democrats.

The dolts on the board claim a sudden change in the life-long views of Democrats....
Yet the dolts on this board can't imagine themselves suddenly embracing Republican ideas and politics.
But pretend that the Democrats did just that.

Indoctrination is indelible.



"Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


Same for Bill Clinton.

here is something even better. Barry Goldwater supported the 1957 Civil Rights act.

Goldwater was a life-long warrior for civil rights....slandered by the Democrats.

1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
3. “He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

 

[NYcarbineer]

You were going to tell us what made John F. Kennedy a Fascist. Have you forgotten?

You lie again.

Hence, the NYLiar.

There's more of your calling others a liar when the lie is yours, so you ignorant twit, here it is again;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


.."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

God you're so damn original, Chica...NOT! Copying my methods only displays your lack of original thought, which only amplifies the obvious reason you rely so heavily on Copy & Paste to put up a post! Did someone at some point in your life drop a big package bundle of Costco toilet paper on your head and wipe you out? Just sayin'...

And again you lied because substituting words to change the meaning from speaking to the topic of activist LAWYERS to activist JUDGES is a fucking LIE, Chica, you bloody fool!

So you're getting it again...ready;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


BTW...."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

Judicial activism is a prerogative built into the power of judicial review. If you don't like it, lump it.

 

[eagle7_31]

Amusing how many professed Liberals/Democrats/Progressive drones force themselves to believe that suddenly....in 1964.....the slaver party had an epiphany....slapped themselves on the forehead....and proclaimed:

'now I love my darker brethren! I was sooooo wrong to lynch thousands of 'em....and block anti-lynching laws....and impose Jim Crow!!! Oh, woe is me! I'm gonna turn over a new leaf!'


No...they always were racists and remain such.
The Dixiecrats weren't Dixiecans....they were Democrats and continued to be Democrats.

The dolts on the board claim a sudden change in the life-long views of Democrats....
Yet the dolts on this board can't imagine themselves suddenly embracing Republican ideas and politics.
But pretend that the Democrats did just that.

Indoctrination is indelible.



"Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


Same for Bill Clinton.

here is something even better. Barry Goldwater supported the 1957 Civil Rights act.

Goldwater was a life-long warrior for civil rights....slandered by the Democrats.

1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
3. “He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

The left wingers forgot that in 1964. Then again its not the first time they have had shall we say 'selective memory'.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You lie again.

Hence, the NYLiar.

There's more of your calling others a liar when the lie is yours, so you ignorant twit, here it is again;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


.."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

God you're so damn original, Chica...NOT! Copying my methods only displays your lack of original thought, which only amplifies the obvious reason you rely so heavily on Copy & Paste to put up a post! Did someone at some point in your life drop a big package bundle of Costco toilet paper on your head and wipe you out? Just sayin'...

And again you lied because substituting words to change the meaning from speaking to the topic of activist LAWYERS to activist JUDGES is a fucking LIE, Chica, you bloody fool!

So you're getting it again...ready;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


BTW...."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

Judicial activism is a prerogative built into the power of judicial review. If you don't like it, lump it.

Almost as absurd as the concept of 'the Living Constitution."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Amusing how many professed Liberals/Democrats/Progressive drones force themselves to believe that suddenly....in 1964.....the slaver party had an epiphany....slapped themselves on the forehead....and proclaimed:

'now I love my darker brethren! I was sooooo wrong to lynch thousands of 'em....and block anti-lynching laws....and impose Jim Crow!!! Oh, woe is me! I'm gonna turn over a new leaf!'


No...they always were racists and remain such.
The Dixiecrats weren't Dixiecans....they were Democrats and continued to be Democrats.

The dolts on the board claim a sudden change in the life-long views of Democrats....
Yet the dolts on this board can't imagine themselves suddenly embracing Republican ideas and politics.
But pretend that the Democrats did just that.

Indoctrination is indelible.



"Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


Same for Bill Clinton.

here is something even better. Barry Goldwater supported the 1957 Civil Rights act.

Goldwater was a life-long warrior for civil rights....slandered by the Democrats.

1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
3. “He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

That is a lie. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

SHOULDER TO SHOULDER with every one of those Southern Democrats you call racists.

btw, Goldwater's reward for voting against the Civil Rights Act was the Republican presidential nomination.

And, broad support across the South from those Democrats who were in fact CONSERVATIVES.

 

[eagle7_31]

You lie again.

Hence, the NYLiar.

There's more of your calling others a liar when the lie is yours, so you ignorant twit, here it is again;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


.."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

God you're so damn original, Chica...NOT! Copying my methods only displays your lack of original thought, which only amplifies the obvious reason you rely so heavily on Copy & Paste to put up a post! Did someone at some point in your life drop a big package bundle of Costco toilet paper on your head and wipe you out? Just sayin'...

And again you lied because substituting words to change the meaning from speaking to the topic of activist LAWYERS to activist JUDGES is a fucking LIE, Chica, you bloody fool!

So you're getting it again...ready;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


BTW...."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

Judicial activism is a prerogative built into the power of judicial review. If you don't like it, lump it.

Did you feel that way when Citizens United was decided?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Amusing how many professed Liberals/Democrats/Progressive drones force themselves to believe that suddenly....in 1964.....the slaver party had an epiphany....slapped themselves on the forehead....and proclaimed:

'now I love my darker brethren! I was sooooo wrong to lynch thousands of 'em....and block anti-lynching laws....and impose Jim Crow!!! Oh, woe is me! I'm gonna turn over a new leaf!'


No...they always were racists and remain such.
The Dixiecrats weren't Dixiecans....they were Democrats and continued to be Democrats.

The dolts on the board claim a sudden change in the life-long views of Democrats....
Yet the dolts on this board can't imagine themselves suddenly embracing Republican ideas and politics.
But pretend that the Democrats did just that.

Indoctrination is indelible.



"Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


Same for Bill Clinton.

here is something even better. Barry Goldwater supported the 1957 Civil Rights act.

Goldwater was a life-long warrior for civil rights....slandered by the Democrats.

1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
3. “He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

The left wingers forgot that in 1964. Then again its not the first time they have had shall we say 'selective memory'.

You're far too kind to them....
They're lying gutter snipes who function via this rule:

. "Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

 

[eagle7_31]

Amusing how many professed Liberals/Democrats/Progressive drones force themselves to believe that suddenly....in 1964.....the slaver party had an epiphany....slapped themselves on the forehead....and proclaimed:

'now I love my darker brethren! I was sooooo wrong to lynch thousands of 'em....and block anti-lynching laws....and impose Jim Crow!!! Oh, woe is me! I'm gonna turn over a new leaf!'


No...they always were racists and remain such.
The Dixiecrats weren't Dixiecans....they were Democrats and continued to be Democrats.

The dolts on the board claim a sudden change in the life-long views of Democrats....
Yet the dolts on this board can't imagine themselves suddenly embracing Republican ideas and politics.
But pretend that the Democrats did just that.

Indoctrination is indelible.



"Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


Same for Bill Clinton.

here is something even better. Barry Goldwater supported the 1957 Civil Rights act.

Goldwater was a life-long warrior for civil rights....slandered by the Democrats.

1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
3. “He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

That is a lie. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

SHOULDER TO SHOULDER with every one of those Southern Democrats you call racists.

btw, Goldwater's reward for voting against the Civil Rights Act was the Republican presidential nomination.

And, broad support across the South from those Democrats who were in fact CONSERVATIVES.

I said he voted for the 1957 act.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Amusing how many professed Liberals/Democrats/Progressive drones force themselves to believe that suddenly....in 1964.....the slaver party had an epiphany....slapped themselves on the forehead....and proclaimed:

'now I love my darker brethren! I was sooooo wrong to lynch thousands of 'em....and block anti-lynching laws....and impose Jim Crow!!! Oh, woe is me! I'm gonna turn over a new leaf!'


No...they always were racists and remain such.
The Dixiecrats weren't Dixiecans....they were Democrats and continued to be Democrats.

The dolts on the board claim a sudden change in the life-long views of Democrats....
Yet the dolts on this board can't imagine themselves suddenly embracing Republican ideas and politics.
But pretend that the Democrats did just that.

Indoctrination is indelible.



"Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


Same for Bill Clinton.

here is something even better. Barry Goldwater supported the 1957 Civil Rights act.

Goldwater was a life-long warrior for civil rights....slandered by the Democrats.

1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
3. “He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

The left wingers forgot that in 1964. Then again its not the first time they have had shall we say 'selective memory'.

The attempt to sanitize Goldwater's vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while mercilessly vilifying the Democrats for doing exactly the same thing, is a classic example of how conservatism makes people mentally retarded,
if they weren't so beforehand.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Amusing how many professed Liberals/Democrats/Progressive drones force themselves to believe that suddenly....in 1964.....the slaver party had an epiphany....slapped themselves on the forehead....and proclaimed:

'now I love my darker brethren! I was sooooo wrong to lynch thousands of 'em....and block anti-lynching laws....and impose Jim Crow!!! Oh, woe is me! I'm gonna turn over a new leaf!'


No...they always were racists and remain such.
The Dixiecrats weren't Dixiecans....they were Democrats and continued to be Democrats.

The dolts on the board claim a sudden change in the life-long views of Democrats....
Yet the dolts on this board can't imagine themselves suddenly embracing Republican ideas and politics.
But pretend that the Democrats did just that.

Indoctrination is indelible.



"Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


Same for Bill Clinton.

here is something even better. Barry Goldwater supported the 1957 Civil Rights act.

Goldwater was a life-long warrior for civil rights....slandered by the Democrats.

1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
3. “He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

The left wingers forgot that in 1964. Then again its not the first time they have had shall we say 'selective memory'.

You're far too kind to them....
They're lying gutter snipes who function via this rule:

. "Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

Liberals winning is the most principled outcome.