| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2006 07:54:32 PM |
| Object: |
Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
Alito might as well have thrown a two-pound hammer and struck Schumer
in the head.
Get it? Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is found
only in the half-shadows of clouded minds.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
10 Jan 2006 08:46:46 PM |
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
10 Jan 2006 09:22:34 PM |
|
|
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
10 Jan 2006 09:43:52 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
10 Jan 2006 10:04:36 PM |
|
|
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jimpgh2002" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
10 Jan 2006 10:53:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 01:01:06 AM |
|
|
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jimpgh2002" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 09:54:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:01:06 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
Under whose administration were most of the troops sent?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 08:53:33 PM |
|
|
In article <bhaas1t9ndemt3bmp31ddo1n7a3oteggig@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:01:06 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on
Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue
but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
Under whose administration were most of the troops sent?
You keep moving the goal posts!
Nixon wins at 543,000
Johnson comes in second at 536,100
Nixon also "expanded" the war into Laos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jimpgh2002" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 09:34:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 02:53:33 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <bhaas1t9ndemt3bmp31ddo1n7a3oteggig@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:01:06 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on
Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue
but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
Under whose administration were most of the troops sent?
You keep moving the goal posts!
Nixon wins at 543,000
Johnson comes in second at 536,100
Nixon also "expanded" the war into Laos.
So Johnson got us entrenched and Nixon continued the charade
for a while.
What I'm getting at is that W isn't the first guy to send our
troops off to fight without Congress declaring war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 09:54:00 PM |
|
|
In article <5fjbs1lfp0f78eeihsasu3l399enp3rrr4@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 02:53:33 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <bhaas1t9ndemt3bmp31ddo1n7a3oteggig@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:01:06 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one
Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on
Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that
issue
but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes
the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
Under whose administration were most of the troops sent?
You keep moving the goal posts!
Nixon wins at 543,000
Johnson comes in second at 536,100
Nixon also "expanded" the war into Laos.
So Johnson got us entrenched and Nixon continued the charade
for a while.
There is no doubt that Johnson was scared of the "ism" of the time -
"communism." (Of course the Right Wing was even more scared of them.)
And today, it is "terrorism."
What I'm getting at is that W isn't the first guy to send our
troops off to fight without Congress declaring war.
Nope - not the first. But that doesn't make it OK. And lets face it,
Bush is fast approaching a government not seen since the Shah of Iran.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 09:56:43 PM |
|
|
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 02:53:33 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <bhaas1t9ndemt3bmp31ddo1n7a3oteggig@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:01:06 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on
Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue
but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
Under whose administration were most of the troops sent?
You keep moving the goal posts!
Nixon wins at 543,000
Johnson comes in second at 536,100
Nixon also "expanded" the war into Laos.
So Johnson got us entrenched and Nixon continued the charade
for a while.
You right-wing cultists are always making escuses.
What I'm getting at is that W isn't the first guy to send our
troops off to fight without Congress declaring war.
And that's supposed to be some sort of justification?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 10:18:49 AM |
|
|
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:01:06 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
Under whose administration were most of the troops sent?
This isn't a football game, moron, and you do not win when your "team" wins.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jimpgh2002" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 02:43:07 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2006 16:18:49 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:01:06 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
< > wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
Under whose administration were most of the troops sent?
This isn't a football game, moron, and you do not win when your "team" wins.
Quit butting in, I'm talking to Mr. Barnes. Some people are
just so rude.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 05:17:37 PM |
|
|
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2006 16:18:49 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:01:06 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
< > wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
Under whose administration were most of the troops sent?
This isn't a football game, moron, and you do not win when your "team" wins.
Quit butting in, I'm talking to Mr. Barnes.
Ever heard of something called "email"?
--
Ray Fischer
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sport Pilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 12:17:09 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:01:06 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
Under whose administration were most of the troops sent?
This isn't a football game, moron, and you do not win when your "team" wins.
Eisenhowe sent advisors. There were no American lives lost in combat
till Kennedy's administration.
Ok, I scored and kick off, your turn to take the ball.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
11 Jan 2006 08:53:32 PM |
|
|
In article <1137003429.172776.304910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Sport Pilot <hppilot001@cs.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:01:06 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <eq39s154lq49figcltko1so4uj3q5lo89g@4ax.com>, jimpgh2002
<pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:04:36 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1136951032.646860.147490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one
Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on
Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that
issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes
the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
We began our action in Vietnam under Eisenhower, why?
Under whose administration were most of the troops sent?
This isn't a football game, moron, and you do not win when your "team" wins.
Eisenhowe sent advisors. There were no American lives lost in combat
till Kennedy's administration.
Ok, I scored and kick off, your turn to take the ball.
However, your "score" was untrue.
In 1959, Major Dale R. Buis and Master Sargeant Chester M. Ovnand
become the first Americans to die in the Vietnam War when guerillas
strike at Bienhoa
Stop watching Fox "NEWS"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
10 Jan 2006 11:17:15 PM |
|
|
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43c47196$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
It's not a game and your team won't win, cultist.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
It also includes a phrase banning forced servitude.
And it states only the Congress can declare war.
Your response is totally true and a total non sequitur. Try inserting
another 50 cents before playing again.
Hardly. The point being that Republicans are hypocrites.
Who delared war on Vietnam?
Nobody. Eisenhower was the first to send troops (aka military
advisors) to Veitnam.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
11 Jan 2006 05:33:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Get it? Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is found
only in the half-shadows of clouded minds.
The right to free contract isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.
Does that mean that right to free contract is found "only in the
half-shadows of clouded minds"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York
"Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark United
States Supreme Court case that confirmed that the 'right to free
contract' was implicit in the due process clause of the
Fourteenth
Amendment."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
11 Jan 2006 11:01:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
Get it? Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is found
only in the half-shadows of clouded minds.
The right to free contract isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.
Does that mean that right to free contract is found "only in the
half-shadows of clouded minds"?
Just because one thing is covered by a rational understanding of the
Framers of the Constitution does not mean all things are are covered.
Abortion would be an example. In the case you refer to, the justices
could point to the due process clause as the basis for their decision.
But in Roe, Blackmun could not point to any specific clauses.
He had to claim emanations from penumbras. Penumbras are not clauses.
Emanations from penumbras are even further far afield. And keep in mind
that penumbras DON'T FUCKING emanate...which ought to inform you that
Blackmun was using his biggest bullcrap shovel ever. He wallpapered the
decision with words that don't make sense. He rejected the following
phrase, "The square part of the circle," because he was afraid that
people would understand he was full of crap. But no one knew what a
penumbra was. By adding the nonesensical "emanations" he threw everyone
off the scent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York
"Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark United
States Supreme Court case that confirmed that the 'right to free
contract' was implicit in the due process clause of the
Fourteenth
Amendment."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
11 Jan 2006 11:48:26 PM |
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
Get it? Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is found
only in the half-shadows of clouded minds.
The right to free contract isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.
Does that mean that right to free contract is found "only in the
half-shadows of clouded minds"?
Just because one thing is covered by a rational understanding of the
Framers of the Constitution does not mean all things are are covered.
"Framers of the Constitution" is a smokescreen. The constitution has
been amended several times since then, and several of the amendments
are relevant to thte topic.
Abortion would be an example. In the case you refer to, the justices
could point to the due process clause as the basis for their decision.
But in Roe, Blackmun could not point to any specific clauses.
Don't care. The constitution clearly prohibits the states from requiring
a woman's servitude.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
12 Jan 2006 02:01:12 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
Get it? Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is found
only in the half-shadows of clouded minds.
The right to free contract isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.
Does that mean that right to free contract is found "only in the
half-shadows of clouded minds"?
Just because one thing is covered by a rational understanding of the
Framers of the Constitution does not mean all things are are covered.
"Framers of the Constitution" is a smokescreen. The constitution has
been amended several times since then, and several of the amendments
are relevant to thte topic.
Abortion would be an example. In the case you refer to, the justices
could point to the due process clause as the basis for their decision.
But in Roe, Blackmun could not point to any specific clauses.
Don't care. The constitution clearly prohibits the states from requiring
a woman's servitude.
There is nothing CLEAR about non-emanating penumbras. In fact, it is
redundant to say "non-emanating" because penumbras don't emanate.
Rotten meat emanates....shadows don't.
What I look forward to more than just about anything else is the day
Roe v. Wade is overturned and various States enact laws forbidding
abortion. Then you will see the error of your belief.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
12 Jan 2006 10:52:48 AM |
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
Get it? Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is found
only in the half-shadows of clouded minds.
The right to free contract isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.
Does that mean that right to free contract is found "only in the
half-shadows of clouded minds"?
Just because one thing is covered by a rational understanding of the
Framers of the Constitution does not mean all things are are covered.
"Framers of the Constitution" is a smokescreen. The constitution has
been amended several times since then, and several of the amendments
are relevant to thte topic.
Abortion would be an example. In the case you refer to, the justices
could point to the due process clause as the basis for their decision.
But in Roe, Blackmun could not point to any specific clauses.
Don't care. The constitution clearly prohibits the states from requiring
a woman's servitude.
There is nothing CLEAR about non-emanating penumbras. In fact, it is
You're babbling again.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
12 Jan 2006 10:26:37 AM |
|
|
wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com wrote:
wrote:
Get it? Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is found
only in the half-shadows of clouded minds.
The right to free contract isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.
Does that mean that right to free contract is found "only in the
half-shadows of clouded minds"?
Just because one thing is covered by a rational understanding of the
Framers of the Constitution does not mean all things are are covered.
Abortion would be an example. In the case you refer to, the justices
could point to the due process clause as the basis for their decision.
But in Roe, Blackmun could not point to any specific clauses.
Blackmun pointed to a "right to privacy", which is also not explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution, but was asserted in Griswold v.
Connecticut.
And by the way, since you are so concerned about the intent of the
Framers, remember that abortion was legal under common law at the time
the Constitution was written, and that the Framers explicitly stated
that the Constitution exists within the larger framework of...
common law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
12 Jan 2006 11:48:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
Get it? Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is found
only in the half-shadows of clouded minds.
The right to free contract isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.
Does that mean that right to free contract is found "only in the
half-shadows of clouded minds"?
Just because one thing is covered by a rational understanding of the
Framers of the Constitution does not mean all things are are covered.
Abortion would be an example. In the case you refer to, the justices
could point to the due process clause as the basis for their decision.
But in Roe, Blackmun could not point to any specific clauses.
Blackmun pointed to a "right to privacy", which is also not explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution, but was asserted in Griswold v.
Connecticut.
Thanks for illustrating my point. There is an explicit "commerce
clause" in the Constitution, but there is no mention of a "right to
privacy." So you've demonstrated that Blackmun was UNABLE to find a
specific clause. Asserting that something is there is different that
providing a reference.
And by the way, since you are so concerned about the intent of the
Framers, remember that abortion was legal under common law at the time
the Constitution was written, and that the Framers explicitly stated
that the Constitution exists within the larger framework of...
common law.
Once again, while the Constitution had common law as a prior reference
and may have helped in the formulation of the Constitution, the
existence of the Constitution is prima facie evidence that common law
wasn't adequate for what the Framers wanted.
The Constitution is not a summary or compilation of common law, and
there are plenty of court decisions that would rightly contradict
common law in favor of the Constitution.
I look forward to the appointment of Alito...he will bring more
restrictions on abortion, such as partial birth abortion...and when the
85-year-old Stevens retires/dies...then we'll see Roe v. Wade
overturned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
13 Jan 2006 12:23:18 AM |
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com wrote:
Blackmun pointed to a "right to privacy", which is also not explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution, but was asserted in Griswold v.
Connecticut.
Thanks for illustrating my point. There is an explicit "commerce
clause" in the Constitution,
No there isn't. There is nothing in the constitution that is labelled
"commerce clause".
but there is no mention of a "right to
privacy."
4th amendment.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
13 Jan 2006 01:00:34 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com wrote:
Blackmun pointed to a "right to privacy", which is also not explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution, but was asserted in Griswold v.
Connecticut.
Thanks for illustrating my point. There is an explicit "commerce
clause" in the Constitution,
No there isn't. There is nothing in the constitution that is labelled
"commerce clause".
Article 1 Section 8, Clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
It's a clause, moron, and is called the Commerce Clause, moron.
but there is no mention of a "right to
privacy."
4th amendment.
Double moron, that's the amendment that refers to search and seizures:
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Here it is word for word:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
There is no mention of privacy whatsoever. It's about whether the
government can search you, your home, your papers, and effects
(belongings).
Sheesh!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
13 Jan 2006 01:19:08 AM |
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com wrote:
Blackmun pointed to a "right to privacy", which is also not explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution, but was asserted in Griswold v.
Connecticut.
Thanks for illustrating my point. There is an explicit "commerce
clause" in the Constitution,
No there isn't. There is nothing in the constitution that is labelled
"commerce clause".
Article 1 Section 8, Clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
It's a clause, moron, and is called the Commerce Clause, moron.
Just as there are clauses protecting people's privacy.
but there is no mention of a "right to
privacy."
4th amendment.
Double moron, that's the amendment that refers to search and seizures:
Privacy, in other words. The government is required to respect
people's privacy and not conduct searches without due cause.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
13 Jan 2006 07:27:57 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com wrote:
Blackmun pointed to a "right to privacy", which is also not explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution, but was asserted in Griswold v.
Connecticut.
Thanks for illustrating my point. There is an explicit "commerce
clause" in the Constitution,
No there isn't. There is nothing in the constitution that is labelled
"commerce clause".
Article 1 Section 8, Clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
It's a clause, moron, and is called the Commerce Clause, moron.
Just as there are clauses protecting people's privacy.
First you wrote: "No there isn't. There is nothing in the constitution
that is labelled
"commerce clause."" Now you agree that there is a commerce clause.
You're a fast learner.
but there is no mention of a "right to
privacy."
4th amendment.
Double moron, that's the amendment that refers to search and seizures:
Privacy, in other words. The government is required to respect
people's privacy and not conduct searches without due cause.
There is no BLANKET right to privacy, but one that is LIMITED to
specific NAMED protections regarding searching and seizing. And even
those protections aren't absolute...the searches can't be unreasonable.
Reasonable searches ARE permitted.
There is no protection in the fourth amendment regarding aborting.
Stick around, kid...you might learn something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Billy Boy "schooled" by your faithful servant |
13 Jan 2006 10:14:28 PM |
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
but there is no mention of a "right to
privacy."
4th amendment.
Double moron, that's the amendment that refers to search and seizures:
Privacy, in other words. The government is required to respect
people's privacy and not conduct searches without due cause.
There is no BLANKET right to privacy, but one that is LIMITED to
specific NAMED protections regarding searching and seizing.
9th amendment. Read it. learn it.
And even
those protections aren't absolute...the searches can't be unreasonable.
Reasonable searches ARE permitted.
And the examinaiton of a woman's uterus is not reasonable.
There is no protection in the fourth amendment regarding aborting.
Yes there is. Seizing the use of a woman's uterus is wholly
unreasonable and is also banned by the 13th and 14th amendments.
Stick around, kid...you might learn something.
You won't.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Schumer "schooled" by Alito |
10 Jan 2006 08:30:52 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2006 17:54:32 -0800, wrote:
It's rare to see a Senate Confirmation smackdown like the one Alito
delivered to Schumer today. But Alito dropped a piledriver on Schumer
bigtime.
Schumer: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
Alito: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Schumer: Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but
not give me a straight answer on abortion?
Alito: Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the
term "free speech".
Alito might as well have thrown a two-pound hammer and struck Schumer
in the head.
Get it? Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is found
only in the half-shadows of clouded minds.
Have you ever heard of the 9th Amendment? I ask because you certainly
act like you're ignorant of it (among many other things).
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
