T1B

The US constitution might as well be 'The Rights of Man', it's just a series of statements that reflect social trends, there's no firm basis to any of it, there's no methodology.
'I just wanna do stuff when I feel like it' is well and good, but a bit simplistic. Trying to construct a universal framework around that seems self-defeating.

88,

Some of us are not lawyers. So, can you condense your statement here, please?

:?

Dickless, asshat judges shouldn't pull pure bullshit out of thin air and jam it down the throats of the citizens.

Is that really your mascot?

Jeeeeeeeezus Christ.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Is that really your mascot?

Jeeeeeeeezus Christ.

Yes, it is. They can't very well have an Indian mascot thanks to liberal dicklickers such as yourself. That would be racist.

It looks like a fucking wallabee.

Die of tuberculosis, asswipe.

So the point here is you believe that the Constitution is "dead"?

The problem with the notion of a "living" US Constitution is that it has transformed the country from one totally controlled by white men, into one just mostly controlled by white men.

SIncerely,

White Men

Jsc810 wrote:Horseshit. It is a living document, like the Founders intended.

Only to deviants and fag lovers like yourself who believe judges should be allowed to legislate.

War Wagon wrote:

Uncle Joe says big Chief's finish, top shelf where momma hides the cookies

War Wagon wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Horseshit. It is a living document, like the Founders intended.

Only to deviants and fag lovers like yourself who believe judges should be allowed to legislate.

RACK.

Jsc810 wrote:There's no telling how many cases would have to be overruled to adopt 88's theory.

I guess you had better get busy then.

The living Constitution theory has been accepted for generations over a wide range of cases.

So what? It's a "living document" remember? Or does this document "live" only when you personally concur with that growth?

Don't bother to answer. You're a complete mess.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Uncle Joe says big Chief's finish, top shelf where momma hides the cookies

RACK all my KC comrades.

Big Breyer fan. Big Breyer's fan.

Scalia is a circus. For all his bluster about being a Constructionist he seems to neglect his vaunted philosophy when he so chooses. He's the Newt Gingrich of the Bench.

poptart wrote:Dickless, asshat judges shouldn't pull pure bullshit out of thin air and jam it down the throats of the citizens.

Umm... they don't. The freak demagogues you pay attention to have led you to believe the judges are just legislating lawyers. But there is a rationale behind the judge's decisions. As for "jamming it down the throats of the citizens," you have much misdirected anger Remember that they have to deal with issues of "legality" and "constitutionality" when voter initiatives do not.

Martyred wrote:

War Wagon wrote:

Marty and Phibes

Are you sure you want to do this?

If so, you'll have to be indoctrinated. We don't do this lightly. You'll have to take the good with the bad... and the fugly.

Should you choose to accept this mission, mountains of great BBQ and cheap beer are yours for the taking. Prerequisites for being a Chiefs fan are irrationally hating Oakland and Denver with every fiber of your being.

We give San Diego a pass because they have nice weather and historically speaking, they've been a division doormat. We like to pat them on the head occasionally for impersonating football fans and then send them on their way. The minute they start losing, they all a sudden become more interested is seashells by the seashore.

Bace, Judge Walker in California, a dickless asshat, recently pulled pure bullshit out of thin air to overrule the people of the state - jamming his crap down their throats.

poptart wrote:Bace, Judge Walker in California, a dickless asshat, recently pulled pure bullshit out of thin air to overrule the people of the state - jamming his crap down their throats.

dickless asshat? pure bullshit?

can the people pf California legislate anything they want? can they uninimously vote to ignore certain parts of the Constitution? Can they vote to kill all Japs and Chinks?

War Wagon wrote: Marty and Phibes

Are you sure you want to do this?

I'm up for it we Chief fans have to stick together and unite in calling Bace an idiot.

It's Cheif's finish, Bace you nincompoop. The Chief is the leader and you can't have more than one of those or else it's a committee. The Toronto Maple Leafs tried what you're saying and look like idiots, by your logic they should be the Kansas City Chieves.

Dr_Phibes wrote: I'm up for it we Chief fans have to stick together and unite in calling Bace an idiot.

I would prefer to call Bace misguided.

The boy is queer, but not an idiot.

Bace wrote:can they uninimously vote to ignore certain parts of the Constitution? Can they vote to kill all Japs and Chinks?

No and no.

And of course the people of California didn't do either of those things.

They simply voted to verify what marriage is in their state.


The asshat judge denied them of their liberty.

Look in my one functioning eye..and tell me you actually believe that the U.S. government was not directly involved with the 9/11 attacks..I dare you!

You can pull yer pud and dream you're George Clooney fucking Palin on an altar...but you can't bullshit Fred Arbanas' one good eye!

You're lying, p-willie. You had no more to do with engineering the New Pearl Harbor than you have in arranging yer sister's percentage with her pimp.

But this guy actually was involved (not with you sister, but 9/11 :wink: )

Talk to Rummy! And get a clue.

Yes, and moreover, Bin Laden had nothing to do with it at all. There's no evidence whatsoever, and he never claimed any credit at all. As for Rummy and his lunatic PNAC buddies, they LOVED it, and the amount of bald inconsistencies in the official 9?11 Commission Report is appalling.

The basic idea that some two-bit terrorist group straggled about the globe could have pulled off 9/11 as purported is absurd on face value. Why would anyone accept the official story?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

Fixed....

You'd be hard-pressed to find somebody who dislikes Rumsfeld's policies more than I do, and even I don't think he was behind 9/11.

Bin Laden never took credit for 9/11, Nicky? What color is the sky in your world?

My beef with Rummy, W and Cheney is based on what they did after 9/11 (blaming Iraq, for starters), not what they did before it.

Holy shit, there's an honest to God "truther" on this board?

Wow.

Crapper, show us where Bin Laden claimed any credit for the 9/11 attacks. You can't because there is no such admission. He's probably dead anyway.

Better yet, take a stab at explaining how the world's worst flight student suddenly became the best pilot in the world. Go ahead. :wink:

I would take a potted plant over any of the Bush appointees. And Colbert is an improvement over a potted plant.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Crapper, show us where Bin Laden claimed any credit for the 9/11 attacks. You can't because there is no such admission.

Jesus H. Christ, Nicky, are you really this stupid?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/bin ... 29-04.html
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/242