The Most Unconstitutional Administration

[PoliticalChic]

Which means that for example an executive order by the President is not unconstitutional unless it has been ruled so by the Court.

ROFLMNAO!

And there ya have it Reader, the idiocy that can only be found from the great braying Jackass, OKA: The Lowly Leftist.

By that reasoning, a person is only 'Guilty' of a crime, after they've been adjudicated as such.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth, a person is guilty of a sin; which is to say a crime, the instant they take sinful or criminal action.

And in THAT you find the reason that the Ideological Left eschews all sense of God, as God knows the instant you commit sin, crime or any other injustice. And YOU know when you've done so. The distinction is that God doesn't rationalize around the sin, justifying such due to your subjective NEED!

So... where God exist, socialism can NOT!

See how that works?

Okay you are admitting that Clinton was guilty of rape only in your imagination.

Fair enough. That is what I was trying to tell you.

Third strike!

" why didn't you quote where I 'claimed' that?

After all....you wouldn't want readers to believe that you are a liar, would you, NYLiar?"


So stipulated: you're simply a low-life liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Which means that for example an executive order by the President is not unconstitutional unless it has been ruled so by the Court.

ROFLMNAO!

And there ya have it Reader, the idiocy that can only be found from the great braying Jackass, OKA: The Lowly Leftist.

By that reasoning, a person is only 'Guilty' of a crime, after they've been adjudicated as such.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth, a person is guilty of a sin; which is to say a crime, the instant they take sinful or criminal action.

And in THAT you find the reason that the Ideological Left eschews all sense of God, as God knows the instant you commit sin, crime or any other injustice. And YOU know when you've done so. The distinction is that God doesn't rationalize around the sin, justifying such due to your subjective NEED!

So... where God exist, socialism can NOT!

See how that works?

Okay you are admitting that Clinton was guilty of rape only in your imagination.

Fair enough. That is what I was trying to tell you.

Only as guilty as Bill Cosby.

"The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is also problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s leased campaign plane in 1992, says presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, said that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November 1993. Willey became a target for a Hillary directed smear campaign after she went public.

More important, however, is the evidence that Hillary had full knowledge of her husband’s activities and authorized and directed the use of heavy-handed private detectives to wage a intimidation campaign to terrorize Bill’s victims into silence.

In other words, Hillary has violated women in her lust for power. Hillary Clinton raped Bill’s female victims psychologically as much as her husband did physically. Will some of these women come forward to challenge Hillary Clinton over her husband’s actions and her role in their cover-up?"
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past


Would you vote for Bill Cosby?
Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which means that for example an executive order by the President is not unconstitutional unless it has been ruled so by the Court.

ROFLMNAO!

And there ya have it Reader, the idiocy that can only be found from the great braying Jackass, OKA: The Lowly Leftist.

By that reasoning, a person is only 'Guilty' of a crime, after they've been adjudicated as such.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth, a person is guilty of a sin; which is to say a crime, the instant they take sinful or criminal action.

And in THAT you find the reason that the Ideological Left eschews all sense of God, as God knows the instant you commit sin, crime or any other injustice. And YOU know when you've done so. The distinction is that God doesn't rationalize around the sin, justifying such due to your subjective NEED!

So... where God exist, socialism can NOT!

See how that works?

Okay you are admitting that Clinton was guilty of rape only in your imagination.

Fair enough. That is what I was trying to tell you.

Only as guilty as Bill Cosby.

"The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is also problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s leased campaign plane in 1992, says presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, said that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November 1993. Willey became a target for a Hillary directed smear campaign after she went public.

More important, however, is the evidence that Hillary had full knowledge of her husband’s activities and authorized and directed the use of heavy-handed private detectives to wage a intimidation campaign to terrorize Bill’s victims into silence.

In other words, Hillary has violated women in her lust for power. Hillary Clinton raped Bill’s female victims psychologically as much as her husband did physically. Will some of these women come forward to challenge Hillary Clinton over her husband’s actions and her role in their cover-up?"
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past


Would you vote for Bill Cosby?
Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

So you believe that GW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are guilty of war crimes because they have been accused of committing war crimes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Which means that for example an executive order by the President is not unconstitutional unless it has been ruled so by the Court.

ROFLMNAO!

And there ya have it Reader, the idiocy that can only be found from the great braying Jackass, OKA: The Lowly Leftist.

By that reasoning, a person is only 'Guilty' of a crime, after they've been adjudicated as such.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth, a person is guilty of a sin; which is to say a crime, the instant they take sinful or criminal action.

And in THAT you find the reason that the Ideological Left eschews all sense of God, as God knows the instant you commit sin, crime or any other injustice. And YOU know when you've done so. The distinction is that God doesn't rationalize around the sin, justifying such due to your subjective NEED!

So... where God exist, socialism can NOT!

See how that works?

Okay you are admitting that Clinton was guilty of rape only in your imagination.

Fair enough. That is what I was trying to tell you.

Only as guilty as Bill Cosby.

"The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is also problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s leased campaign plane in 1992, says presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, said that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November 1993. Willey became a target for a Hillary directed smear campaign after she went public.

More important, however, is the evidence that Hillary had full knowledge of her husband’s activities and authorized and directed the use of heavy-handed private detectives to wage a intimidation campaign to terrorize Bill’s victims into silence.

In other words, Hillary has violated women in her lust for power. Hillary Clinton raped Bill’s female victims psychologically as much as her husband did physically. Will some of these women come forward to challenge Hillary Clinton over her husband’s actions and her role in their cover-up?"
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past


Would you vote for Bill Cosby?
Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

So you believe that GW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are guilty of war crimes because they have been accused of committing war crimes.

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.


In this post, it's Trick #2 on display:

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which means that for example an executive order by the President is not unconstitutional unless it has been ruled so by the Court.

ROFLMNAO!

And there ya have it Reader, the idiocy that can only be found from the great braying Jackass, OKA: The Lowly Leftist.

By that reasoning, a person is only 'Guilty' of a crime, after they've been adjudicated as such.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth, a person is guilty of a sin; which is to say a crime, the instant they take sinful or criminal action.

And in THAT you find the reason that the Ideological Left eschews all sense of God, as God knows the instant you commit sin, crime or any other injustice. And YOU know when you've done so. The distinction is that God doesn't rationalize around the sin, justifying such due to your subjective NEED!

So... where God exist, socialism can NOT!

See how that works?

Okay you are admitting that Clinton was guilty of rape only in your imagination.

Fair enough. That is what I was trying to tell you.

Only as guilty as Bill Cosby.

"The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is also problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s leased campaign plane in 1992, says presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, said that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November 1993. Willey became a target for a Hillary directed smear campaign after she went public.

More important, however, is the evidence that Hillary had full knowledge of her husband’s activities and authorized and directed the use of heavy-handed private detectives to wage a intimidation campaign to terrorize Bill’s victims into silence.

In other words, Hillary has violated women in her lust for power. Hillary Clinton raped Bill’s female victims psychologically as much as her husband did physically. Will some of these women come forward to challenge Hillary Clinton over her husband’s actions and her role in their cover-up?"
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past


Would you vote for Bill Cosby?
Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

Haven't you also taken the opposite position, that being regarding what you call the 'myth of rape' on college campuses?

Haven't you attacked women for falsely accusing men of rape?

 

[playtime]

The rule for correct application of authority by the Supreme Court is so simple, even you two should be able to understand it.

Here...from an expert:

"[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. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



Any other action by the court is an usurpation of said power....unauthorized, and illegal.

So, then, you only agree to the strict limits of the 2nd amendment to keep & bear arms solely to a well regulated militia. And only to muskets that use gun powder?

And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?

"And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's (sic)? "

1. I provided the link, but, you where too lazy to click same.....must be a Liberal.

2. Having, no doubt, gone to government schools.....here is another thing you never learned:
Brackets: "These are used to indicate that a direct quote has been edited — to fit the surrounding information, or to add context that does not show up within the scope of the quote."
What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

3. I reduced the quote so the reader wouldn't have to go back an find out the meaning of reference to 'the brief writer.'

"The brief writer’s version [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..."

Note....the meaning of Rehnquist's (spell it correctly) instruction is not lost via the brackets.

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.

 

[playtime]

The rule for correct application of authority by the Supreme Court is so simple, even you two should be able to understand it.

Here...from an expert:

"[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. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



Any other action by the court is an usurpation of said power....unauthorized, and illegal.

So, then, you only agree to the strict limits of the 2nd amendment to keep & bear arms solely to a well regulated militia. And only to muskets that use gun powder?

And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?

See...now we've found another area where your understanding is .....limited.

As a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal....I'll do just that.
Pay attention, and take notes:

1. “…well-regulated…”
Regulated does not refer to government regulations. Contemporary meaning from definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war." (The pesky meaning of "Well Regulated" - Democratic Underground)

2. George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

a. The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

b. The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.

c. Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311]


Nowhere is there a limitation to the type of weaponry.

M'k. So you only agree that only MALE inhabitants shall have the right to bear arms. 'cause that's what it reads. Got it. LOL.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The rule for correct application of authority by the Supreme Court is so simple, even you two should be able to understand it.

Here...from an expert:

"[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. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



Any other action by the court is an usurpation of said power....unauthorized, and illegal.

So, then, you only agree to the strict limits of the 2nd amendment to keep & bear arms solely to a well regulated militia. And only to muskets that use gun powder?

And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?

"And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's (sic)? "

1. I provided the link, but, you where too lazy to click same.....must be a Liberal.

2. Having, no doubt, gone to government schools.....here is another thing you never learned:
Brackets: "These are used to indicate that a direct quote has been edited — to fit the surrounding information, or to add context that does not show up within the scope of the quote."
What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

3. I reduced the quote so the reader wouldn't have to go back an find out the meaning of reference to 'the brief writer.'

"The brief writer’s version [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..."

Note....the meaning of Rehnquist's (spell it correctly) instruction is not lost via the brackets.

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.

"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

 

[regent]

Impeachment is a political process not a legal process. The House can make any charge they like; one charge against Andrew Johnson was that he yelled at the Congress in a nasty manner.

 

[playtime]

The rule for correct application of authority by the Supreme Court is so simple, even you two should be able to understand it.

Here...from an expert:

"[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. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



Any other action by the court is an usurpation of said power....unauthorized, and illegal.

So, then, you only agree to the strict limits of the 2nd amendment to keep & bear arms solely to a well regulated militia. And only to muskets that use gun powder?

And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?

"And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's (sic)? "

1. I provided the link, but, you where too lazy to click same.....must be a Liberal.

2. Having, no doubt, gone to government schools.....here is another thing you never learned:
Brackets: "These are used to indicate that a direct quote has been edited — to fit the surrounding information, or to add context that does not show up within the scope of the quote."
What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

3. I reduced the quote so the reader wouldn't have to go back an find out the meaning of reference to 'the brief writer.'

"The brief writer’s version [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..."

Note....the meaning of Rehnquist's (spell it correctly) instruction is not lost via the brackets.

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.

"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?

 

[The Rabbi]

The rule for correct application of authority by the Supreme Court is so simple, even you two should be able to understand it.

Here...from an expert:

"[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. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



Any other action by the court is an usurpation of said power....unauthorized, and illegal.

So, then, you only agree to the strict limits of the 2nd amendment to keep & bear arms solely to a well regulated militia. And only to muskets that use gun powder?

And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?

"And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's (sic)? "

1. I provided the link, but, you where too lazy to click same.....must be a Liberal.

2. Having, no doubt, gone to government schools.....here is another thing you never learned:
Brackets: "These are used to indicate that a direct quote has been edited — to fit the surrounding information, or to add context that does not show up within the scope of the quote."
What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

3. I reduced the quote so the reader wouldn't have to go back an find out the meaning of reference to 'the brief writer.'

"The brief writer’s version [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..."

Note....the meaning of Rehnquist's (spell it correctly) instruction is not lost via the brackets.

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.

"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?

You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which means that for example an executive order by the President is not unconstitutional unless it has been ruled so by the Court.

ROFLMNAO!

And there ya have it Reader, the idiocy that can only be found from the great braying Jackass, OKA: The Lowly Leftist.

By that reasoning, a person is only 'Guilty' of a crime, after they've been adjudicated as such.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth, a person is guilty of a sin; which is to say a crime, the instant they take sinful or criminal action.

And in THAT you find the reason that the Ideological Left eschews all sense of God, as God knows the instant you commit sin, crime or any other injustice. And YOU know when you've done so. The distinction is that God doesn't rationalize around the sin, justifying such due to your subjective NEED!

So... where God exist, socialism can NOT!

See how that works?

Okay you are admitting that Clinton was guilty of rape only in your imagination.

Fair enough. That is what I was trying to tell you.

Only as guilty as Bill Cosby.

"The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is also problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s leased campaign plane in 1992, says presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, said that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November 1993. Willey became a target for a Hillary directed smear campaign after she went public.

More important, however, is the evidence that Hillary had full knowledge of her husband’s activities and authorized and directed the use of heavy-handed private detectives to wage a intimidation campaign to terrorize Bill’s victims into silence.

In other words, Hillary has violated women in her lust for power. Hillary Clinton raped Bill’s female victims psychologically as much as her husband did physically. Will some of these women come forward to challenge Hillary Clinton over her husband’s actions and her role in their cover-up?"
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past


Would you vote for Bill Cosby?
Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

So you believe that GW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are guilty of war crimes because they have been accused of committing war crimes.

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.


In this post, it's Trick #2 on display:

The subject is if a person accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent. You believe they are. You believe Clinton to be guilty of rape because he's been accused of rape.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have been accused of war crimes. Using your standard, they are guilty of war crimes.

You can have any standards you want except double standards, unless of course you just want to look like an idiot.

btw, also according to your standards, the Duke lacrosse players were guilty until eventually proven innocent.

I don't recall many of your rightwing pals taking that position at the time. Nor did you I presume.

 

[playtime]

So, then, you only agree to the strict limits of the 2nd amendment to keep & bear arms solely to a well regulated militia. And only to muskets that use gun powder?

And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?

"And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's (sic)? "

1. I provided the link, but, you where too lazy to click same.....must be a Liberal.

2. Having, no doubt, gone to government schools.....here is another thing you never learned:
Brackets: "These are used to indicate that a direct quote has been edited — to fit the surrounding information, or to add context that does not show up within the scope of the quote."
What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

3. I reduced the quote so the reader wouldn't have to go back an find out the meaning of reference to 'the brief writer.'

"The brief writer’s version [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..."

Note....the meaning of Rehnquist's (spell it correctly) instruction is not lost via the brackets.

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.

"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?

You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.

 

[The Rabbi]

"And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's (sic)? "

1. I provided the link, but, you where too lazy to click same.....must be a Liberal.

2. Having, no doubt, gone to government schools.....here is another thing you never learned:
Brackets: "These are used to indicate that a direct quote has been edited — to fit the surrounding information, or to add context that does not show up within the scope of the quote."
What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

3. I reduced the quote so the reader wouldn't have to go back an find out the meaning of reference to 'the brief writer.'

"The brief writer’s version [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..."

Note....the meaning of Rehnquist's (spell it correctly) instruction is not lost via the brackets.

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.

"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?

You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.

Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The rule for correct application of authority by the Supreme Court is so simple, even you two should be able to understand it.

Here...from an expert:

"[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. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



Any other action by the court is an usurpation of said power....unauthorized, and illegal.

So, then, you only agree to the strict limits of the 2nd amendment to keep & bear arms solely to a well regulated militia. And only to muskets that use gun powder?

And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?

"And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's (sic)? "

1. I provided the link, but, you where too lazy to click same.....must be a Liberal.

2. Having, no doubt, gone to government schools.....here is another thing you never learned:
Brackets: "These are used to indicate that a direct quote has been edited — to fit the surrounding information, or to add context that does not show up within the scope of the quote."
What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

3. I reduced the quote so the reader wouldn't have to go back an find out the meaning of reference to 'the brief writer.'

"The brief writer’s version [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..."

Note....the meaning of Rehnquist's (spell it correctly) instruction is not lost via the brackets.

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.

"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?

You're a fool, and I've revealed you as such.

I used brackets correctly...you were too stupid to recognize the usage.

"You added your own opinion."
That's a lie.

I did no such thing.
Or....show that the brackets changed the meaning of the quote.


Now....get back to the last seat in the dumb row.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, then, you only agree to the strict limits of the 2nd amendment to keep & bear arms solely to a well regulated militia. And only to muskets that use gun powder?

And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?

"And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's (sic)? "

1. I provided the link, but, you where too lazy to click same.....must be a Liberal.

2. Having, no doubt, gone to government schools.....here is another thing you never learned:
Brackets: "These are used to indicate that a direct quote has been edited — to fit the surrounding information, or to add context that does not show up within the scope of the quote."
What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

3. I reduced the quote so the reader wouldn't have to go back an find out the meaning of reference to 'the brief writer.'

"The brief writer’s version [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..."

Note....the meaning of Rehnquist's (spell it correctly) instruction is not lost via the brackets.

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.

"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?

You're a fool, and I've revealed you as such.

I used brackets correctly...you were too stupid to recognize the usage.

"You added your own opinion."
That's a lie.

I did no such thing.
Or....show that the brackets changed the meaning of the quote.


Now....get back to the last seat in the dumb row.

Looks like Playtime is the latest prison bitch of the conservatives here. Someone filled with misconceptions and therefore cannot make a serious argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

ROFLMNAO!

And there ya have it Reader, the idiocy that can only be found from the great braying Jackass, OKA: The Lowly Leftist.

By that reasoning, a person is only 'Guilty' of a crime, after they've been adjudicated as such.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth, a person is guilty of a sin; which is to say a crime, the instant they take sinful or criminal action.

And in THAT you find the reason that the Ideological Left eschews all sense of God, as God knows the instant you commit sin, crime or any other injustice. And YOU know when you've done so. The distinction is that God doesn't rationalize around the sin, justifying such due to your subjective NEED!

So... where God exist, socialism can NOT!

See how that works?

Okay you are admitting that Clinton was guilty of rape only in your imagination.

Fair enough. That is what I was trying to tell you.

Only as guilty as Bill Cosby.

"The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is also problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s leased campaign plane in 1992, says presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, said that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November 1993. Willey became a target for a Hillary directed smear campaign after she went public.

More important, however, is the evidence that Hillary had full knowledge of her husband’s activities and authorized and directed the use of heavy-handed private detectives to wage a intimidation campaign to terrorize Bill’s victims into silence.

In other words, Hillary has violated women in her lust for power. Hillary Clinton raped Bill’s female victims psychologically as much as her husband did physically. Will some of these women come forward to challenge Hillary Clinton over her husband’s actions and her role in their cover-up?"
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past


Would you vote for Bill Cosby?
Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

So you believe that GW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are guilty of war crimes because they have been accused of committing war crimes.

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.


In this post, it's Trick #2 on display:

The subject is if a person accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent. You believe they are. You believe Clinton to be guilty of rape because he's been accused of rape.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have been accused of war crimes. Using your standard, they are guilty of war crimes.

You can have any standards you want except double standards, unless of course you just want to look like an idiot.

btw, also according to your standards, the Duke lacrosse players were guilty until eventually proven innocent.

I don't recall many of your rightwing pals taking that position at the time. Nor did you I presume.

Hardly, NYLiar.

This is not a court of law, with punishment to follow.

When any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat bootlicker is presented with the list of Bill Clintons rape and sexual misbehaviors, the knee-jerk response of the jerk is the expected: "But...but (sputter- sputter) he was never convicted in any court of law!!


This, of course, is a prime example of sophistry, the use of fallacious arguments, with the intention of deceiving. (i.e., the jerk is a liar.)


This is not a court of law, and the argument does not end with a jail sentence....sadly.

It is the court of real world experience, and is based on one's judgment based on their experience and knowledge, and, especially, the past behavior of the individual in question.

The type of verdict demanded does not require that of a court, it is the court of public opinion.


Based on Clinton's history, is the charge that he refused to acknowledge his prey's refusal for sexual intercouse...possible or impossible?

.......probable or improbable?

.....exceptional or expected?


Has he been shown to be a liar? Yes, in fact in a court of law.


The answer is clear.

"Bill 'the rapist' Clinton" is an accurate description.



The same procedure should be used to examine as to whether charges would even be brought against one of his lofty political stature...and political party.

That question requires even less effort to answer.....as it has been answered previously, in an even more serious matter: responsibility in the death of a young woman.

I refer to "The Liberal Lion," Ted Kennedy.



An auxiliary question might be 'what type of individual would support rapists and murderers as mentioned above?

This, too, is an easy question to answer.
Raise your paw.

 

[Skylar]

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.

"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?

You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.

Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

Equal protection under the law is present in the 14th. And States lack the authority to violate that prinicple. If they apply marriage laws in violation of that legal principle they run into problems with the 14th amendment. And its the 14th that the USSC cited when overturning same sex marriage bans from the States.

That's how it stands. You may disagree, but the legal precedent on the matter doesn't change because of it.

 

[The Rabbi]

"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?

You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.

Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

Equal protection under the law is present in the 14th. And States lack the authority to violate that prinicple. If they apply marriage laws in violation of that legal principle they run into problems with the 14th amendment. And its the 14th that the USSC cited when overturning same sex marriage bans from the States.

That's how it stands. You may disagree, but the legal precedent on the matter doesn't change because of it.

There was equal protection. No heterosexual could marry someone of the same gender. Ditto with homosexual. Every homosexual had exactly the same right to marry as every heterosexual.
The Court divined a new right of gay marriage out of whole cloth. Wrongly, of course. No one even conceived of a right to gay marriage 30 years ago. Much less 100.

 

[The Rabbi]

Okay you are admitting that Clinton was guilty of rape only in your imagination.

Fair enough. That is what I was trying to tell you.

Only as guilty as Bill Cosby.

"The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is also problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s leased campaign plane in 1992, says presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, said that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November 1993. Willey became a target for a Hillary directed smear campaign after she went public.

More important, however, is the evidence that Hillary had full knowledge of her husband’s activities and authorized and directed the use of heavy-handed private detectives to wage a intimidation campaign to terrorize Bill’s victims into silence.

In other words, Hillary has violated women in her lust for power. Hillary Clinton raped Bill’s female victims psychologically as much as her husband did physically. Will some of these women come forward to challenge Hillary Clinton over her husband’s actions and her role in their cover-up?"
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past


Would you vote for Bill Cosby?
Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

So you believe that GW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are guilty of war crimes because they have been accused of committing war crimes.

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.


In this post, it's Trick #2 on display:

The subject is if a person accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent. You believe they are. You believe Clinton to be guilty of rape because he's been accused of rape.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have been accused of war crimes. Using your standard, they are guilty of war crimes.

You can have any standards you want except double standards, unless of course you just want to look like an idiot.

btw, also according to your standards, the Duke lacrosse players were guilty until eventually proven innocent.

I don't recall many of your rightwing pals taking that position at the time. Nor did you I presume.

Hardly, NYLiar.

This is not a court of law, with punishment to follow.

When any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat bootlicker is presented with the list of Bill Clintons rape and sexual misbehaviors, the knee-jerk response of the jerk is the expected: "But...but (sputter- sputter) he was never convicted in any court of law!!


This, of course, is a prime example of sophistry, the use of fallacious arguments, with the intention of deceiving. (i.e., the jerk is a liar.)


This is not a court of law, and the argument does not end with a jail sentence....sadly.

It is the court of real world experience, and is based on one's judgment based on their experience and knowledge, and, especially, the past behavior of the individual in question.

The type of verdict demanded does not require that of a court, it is the court of public opinion.


Based on Clinton's history, is the charge that he refused to acknowledge his prey's refusal for sexual intercouse...possible or impossible?

.......probable or improbable?

.....exceptional or expected?


Has he been shown to be a liar? Yes, in fact in a court of law.


The answer is clear.

"Bill 'the rapist' Clinton" is an accurate description.



The same procedure should be used to examine as to whether charges would even be brought against one of his lofty political stature...and political party.

That question requires even less effort to answer.....as it has been answered previously, in an even more serious matter: responsibility in the death of a young woman.

I refer to "The Liberal Lion," Ted Kennedy.



An auxiliary question might be 'what type of individual would support rapists and murderers as mentioned above?

This, too, is an easy question to answer.
Raise your paw.

Tjere are subtleties that NYFraudster cannot grasp. When sufficient evidence accumulates we can make a reasonable guess as to what happened, absent a court verdict (by that standard OJ Simpson never committed murder).