Tons of goodies, below the fold.
Uncalled for Language in Romney and Repulicans loose artical.Oh, I read that book! Peter Pan was like, "yo bitch, I'm gonna fuck You. Up." And Tinkerbell was like, "Ahh hell nah mutthafucker! You don't talk to me like that!" And Peter Pan was like, "Whatcha gonna do about it, bitch?" And then Captain Hook was like, "Golly guys, do you really have to use potty language like that?" And then both Peter Pan and Tinkerbell turned to Hook and said, in unison, "Fuck you, asshole. Mind your own fucking business!" And then Peter Pan was like, "Fuck this shit, I'm getting the fuck out of here. You coming?" And Tinkerbell was like, "Damn right!"
The language used in this artical is uncalled for! Politics are for adults and writing political articles are for professional adults. If you can't write without using this kind of language maybe you should consider a career with the traveling carnivals or circuses, you know the Peter Pans that just refuse to grow up!
And then Peter Pan grew up and became a Mormon.
Planned ParenthoodI know, I know. It's so easy to confuse Daily Kos orange with Komen pink! But here's the way you can tell us apart: we use orange, not pink.
I am thankful that you no longer fund Planned Parenthood...They are a fraud and an atrocity to all Americans. They also believe in uegenics/population reduction, which is murder.
I wouldn't give Planned Parenthood a dime.
Fuck your week of war on women.On the other hand, Washington state voted to legalize gay marriage! That makes the culture more fabulous.
How about the killing of babies by fucking Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a fucking disgrace to our culture.
WOW . . . . . .The Dow closed at its highest point in four years, while the NASDAQ hit an 11-year high. Quick, let Wall Street know that Obama is a socialist before it's too late and they make more money!
Daily, I'm reading the Yahoo News headlines, and, unfortunately, I see a Daily Kos headline or two in there most days.
Not surprisingly, it's always some sort of negative article attempting to smear the latest targeted conservative, or some other extraneous chuckle-headed nonsense .
And . . . I think to myself; "what a bunch of immature, whining, self-righteous little pussies you all must be over there . . . . . sad.
How does it feel to be so far up Obama's socialist ass that you see neither the light of day, nor reason?
ToleranceIf only liberals could all be like Alan Colmes, we wouldn't be so concerned about polarization, would we?
Ms. Gray I saw you link to the story about conservatives and their intellect and you make a snide remark about how we are idiots. The Daily Kos is perhaps the most hate filled of all of the "progressive" blogs out there so this doesn't come as any surprise to me.
With that said, don't dare ever preach about tolerance or a lack thereof when it comes to conservatives as you are just as intolerant, nasty, uncivil and irritating as any of the most outspoken "idiot" conservative bloggers out there.
This country is spinning out of control as it becomes more and more polarized and whether or not you acknowledge it, you and the others on this site are a considerable source of the hate.
[In response to our action to protect birth control coverage in health insurance plans.]To recap, a) birth control is like the KKK, and b) it's compassionate to deny women access to it. In other words, Rick Santorum's presidential platform.
Not only is your understanding of the Bill of Rights on par with Imperial
Wizard, your prose is hackneyed, and you limited powers of reasoning are
flaccid at best.
But most of all you are a religious bigot of the first order on par with
Ian Paisley (Google him). People like you make me ashamed of the
Enjoy the festering bucket of bile you have in place of an intellect and
The Great UnknownIs the Nazi wearing a Hitler mustache? If so, I'd lean toward "yes".
I wonder if any of the current politicos would
recognize a "Nazi" if one bit him on the ass.
Now how about some George Rockwell (firstname.lastname@example.org)? When we last heard from our anti-semitic penpal, he was insistent that the Supreme Court was still so definitely going to hear his lawsuit against me, and that he had lost patience with me:
George Rockwell: and markos, i have to say that your snide attitude is really starting to get on my nerve. i'm starting to remember why i cut our lines of communication. i have a job and plenty of other friends. i don't need to spend my time helping you, markos. if you're trying to drive me away (again) you've succeeded (again), you shiftless ingrate.I decided to keep egging him on.
Me: Here's a free tip -- lawyers exist for people who aren't lawyers. That way you don't have to make a fool of yourself pretending you know how the legal system works.
Here's another free tip -- I am a lawyer. So yeah, what you see as me being "nervous", is actually me having a laugh at your expense.
George Rockwell: first of all, markos, you cannot be a lawyer since you would have been legally required to identify yourself as such. secondly, your attitude is truly incredible. i'm spending my valuable time trying to help you regain your independence and you respond by laughing at me. you are truly quite the fool. i really don't have the time to respond to your idiotic provocations right now, markos.
Me: Legally required? Where do you come up with this nonsense? I'll give you something -- you are funny as shit.
I'd love a citation for that law, genius.
George Rockwell: i don't have the actual law books available to look up the citation. besides, i'm busy with my work. however, the principle is the same as with police officers who are required to identify themselves, even without being asked. both police officers and lawyers are "officers of the law", which you would know if you really were a lawyer. if i, as a chemical engineer, didn't know the difference between sodium hydroxide and sodium chloride, i would get laughed out of town. why do you expect a difference result when you, a supposed lawyer, don't even know the basics of lawyerly behavior and the relevant rules and codes? if you really are a lawyer, i suggest you ask for your money back from your "law school". maybe you went to "law school" in jew york? the jews are notorious for peddling worthless degrees, especially law degrees. this apparently satisfies both fundamental jew needs, the need to deceive and the need for money. but the point is this: whether you're exaggerating your qualifications or were simple defrauded by jews, you're clearly no lawyer. besides, no lawyer would behave as rudely as you do. a certain measure of etiquette is required (by law) of all officers of the court, after all. i don't mean to insult you, however. i just want to point out the gaping holes in your education.
George Rockwell: ok, markos. just to prove a point i did a quick internet search and immediately found that the section 201 of the "law enforcement powers and responsibilities act 2002" explains the requirements for police officers to identify themselves. i won't gloat, but i will admit that proving you wrong on this point was quite satisfying.
Me: You just proved that I'm busted for not telling you I'm a police officer?
George Rockwell: you know full well that the same principle applies to all officers of law, such as lawyers. admitting you were wrong would be the mature thing to do here, markos.In the interest of space, I'll spare you all some back and forth about how I was too stupid to realize that lawyers are the exact same thing as police officers, and how I was impersonating a lawyer and that was a crime and I could face jail time for that blah blah blah. Eventually, I went back to mocking him about his Supreme Court bench trial.
Me: I mean, do you actually believe there's such a thing as a Supreme Court Bench Trial? I mean, I've had a lot of fun at your expense for claiming you do. But do you really, actually believe it?
You are such a legal genius, look up "original jurisdiction" of the Supreme Court.
George Rockwell: sounds like sour grapes to me, markos. look, i understand that you're upset at being outwitted, but you're bitterness is very off-putting. and to respond to your "arguments", it seems clear that you don't understand the term "officer of the law", and i can't help that. also, just to make you happy, i looked up "bench trial" on wikipedia and it doesn't say anything about it not being available at the supreme court. it seems that it's not me you're angry at, markos, but yourself. look, you were beaten. that's all. accept it and move on. you can't use trickery to change black unto white.
Me: Your keen legal mind uses wikipedia instead of the US Constitution to research the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
George Rockwell: i don't need to "research" the constitution. i know what it says just fine [...] i really don't think you should be so upset, everyone loses sometimes. just because i'm smarter than you doesn't mean i'm better than you, so you shouldn't take your defeat so personally. instead, you should use this opportunity to learn from your mistakes. and no, i don't know how long it will take to get my case heard, but i can wait, since time is on my side. i have nothing to lose in this matter and quite a lot to gain. so basically i have already won. markos, it's really not my place to speculate on these matters, but it seems to me that your problem isn't that your not smart, you clearly are. but your problem is that you can't accept the fact that some people (like me) are smarter than you. this shouldn't trouble you so much. after all, there are plenty of people smarter than me, and i'm ok with it. there is no shame in admitting that you were beaten by the better man. in fact, if you would just be honest and concede defeat, it would make me respect you more.
Me: If you know the Constitution so well, then you wouldn't be confused about Supreme Court jurisdiction, as it spells it out clearly.
George Rockwell: first, your stories about supreme court "jurisdiction" are silly. it is the supreme court. it wouldn't be supreme if it didn't have jurisdiction [...]
Me: Holy shit, you think the Supreme Court is called "supreme" because it is all-powerful Jesus-like? Read the Constitution. It spells out its jurisdiction. I'm not sure why you're being so pig-headed about it.
George Rockwell: [...] i went through every amendment and none of them say anything about the supreme court. so much for your lawyering, markos.
Me: Good for you! Now we're making progress.
Now, go read the Constitution so you can be properly informed about the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. It's not hard! And believe it or not, there's more to the Constitution than the amendments. There's, you know, the Constitution itself! Crazy, huh?
Now you claim you've already read it, but obviously you have not, since you didn't know that Article III even exists!
And here, I'll be nice and even give you a citation: Article III, Section 2.
I know you like to pretend that you're so smart and everything, but honestly, I don't know if I've ever dealt with someone as stupid as you. I mean, you actually thought that the US Constitution didn't mention the Supreme Court? You actually believed the founding document of the nation wouldn't establish the federal court system?
George Rockwell: well, markos, at least this article you keep talking about exists, but i don't see how it's relevant here. i'll give you points for your skill at sophistry and your ability to conjure up irrelevant legal details. but the underlying facts, which are that i was right and you were wrong, don't change [...]
George Rockwell: where does it say in your article that there are no bench trials? nowhere. and how is this "original jurisdiction" relevant here? i really don't get your strategy, markos. you alternate between juvenile insults and meaningless technical details, but none of it makes any sense [...]
Me: Original jurisdiction is literally the cases that the Supreme Court are allowed to take. It's spelled out in black and white in the Constitution you had never read before, obviously.Now you may be asking yourself, why the hell is Markos responding to this guy? Good question.
There's nothing else. That's it.
George Rockwell: and there we go again with the meaningless legalese supported by zero facts. it's clear that you're unaccustomed to serious debate where people actually present you with strong counter-arguments, and this is why you have lost. why don't we chalk it up to your inexperience as a debater, and say that you didn't really lose? we could consider this a practice argument, if that makes your defeat more palatable.
Me: The Constitution of the United States of America is "meaningless legalese"?Maybe I'm a masochist?
George Rockwell: stop clowning around, markos. you know full well i wasn't talking about the constitution. i was talking about this "original jurisdiction" thing of yours that you keep bringing up. throwing around the word "consitution" doesn't make your arguments any more constitutional, it just makes them seem even more desperate.
Me: From the Constitution, Article III, Section 2:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Dear god, are you really this dense?
George Rockwell: you really should learn to read, markos. that is a an inclusive, not an exclusive list. it gives you a list of things the supreme court can do, but it says nothing about the things it can't do. didn't they teach you basic logic in law school?Seriously, why am I still responding? Because like a moth to flame, I can't help myself. I'll omit some back and forth were Georgie insisted that the Constitution didn't say the Supreme Court could stage bench trials, but that wasn't going anywhere. So I changed tactics.
Me: You're a constitutional scholar and legal jurisdictional expert who doesn't know what "appellate review" is, and can't be bothered to look it up. But you know better than anyone -- including the Founding Fathers -- what the Supreme Court can or can't do!
It's clear you're resistant to Constitutional language. So let's put it this way: where's your magical make-believe fairy lawsuit? If you are right, there should be a case.
George Rockwell: how should i know where it is? it is probably being processed. i assume they take cases based on urgency. you know, if someone's life depends on a case, like with the terry schiavo thing, then they handle it immediately. and since my case isn't so time-sensitive, they can handle it later. well, it is time-sensitive if you decide to leave the country, but i don't think that's likely. please understand that i'm neither a lawyer nor a bureaucrat, even though i have some expertise in these fields, so i'm not intimately familiar with exact court procedures. and, judging by your lack of knowledge you don't know how the supreme court works either. makes you even a bigger fool. and, just so you know, i did look up "appellate review" and according to google it involves examining earlier court decisions for errors. satisfied? however that's not relevant here since there is no earlier court case, which you would know if you weren't criminally stupid. what's your next argument? maybe something about santa claus?
Me: It's good that you've looked up "appellate review". Now reread the Constitution. You're almost there!
George Rockwell: what are you talking about? i've read your precious article iii several times already, and i fail to see the relevance. are you just talking to keep warm? or are you just trying to make me angry?
Me: The Constitution is clear, it had direct jurisdiction when states sue each other and several other narrow instances (ambassadors, etc). On every other matter, it has appellate jurisdiction. That is, appeals from lower courts.
The Shiavo thing? It went through two levels of courts before it reached the Supreme Court.
Why this is difficult for you is beyond me.
George Rockwell: no, you idiot! states suing each other etc are just examples of situations where the court has jurisdiction. it was an inclusive list, which you would understand if you had ever bothered to attend logic 101. and this "appellate jurisdiction" thing applies only when the case in question has come from some lower court, otherwise the court can use regular jurisdiction. in other words, "appellate jurisdiction" is a special kind of jurisdiction for certain cases where regular jurisdiction isn't so good. it doesn't mean that a case has to come from lower courts. you are reading some weird restrictions into the actual text of your stupid article iii that just aren't there. you must have some kind of brain disease if you can't understand that something can be allowed without all other things being forbidden. have you hit your head lately? or are you just trying to provoke me?
Me: My stupid Article III? The US Constitution is now stupid?
The first clause (ambassadors/public ministers/consuls) refers to impeachment. The second one refers to states suing each other. IN ALL OTHER CASES the Supremes are an appellate court. It even says, "in all ... other cases".
The language couldn't be much clearer, which makes me thing you're just playing around. You couldn't possibly be this dense.
George Rockwell: playing around? i have high blood pressure and i'm trying teach a supposed lawyer how to read the english language. i'm not having much fun right now. and you're calling me dense? you are the one who claims the constitution has some weird, invisible restrictions on the supreme court, that are mentioned nowhere in the text. please, please, try to understand this one very simple thing: if a text (in this case the constitution) says that a specific thing (in this case jurisdiction in certain cases) is possible, it doesn't mean that every other thing (in this case jurisdiction in other cases) is impossible. do you understand that now? because i really don't know how someone could fail to get something so simple? markos, i own a chevy. does that mean i can't also own a ford? according to you that's how it is. do you realize how stupid you're being right now? i'm running out of patience with your antics. if you're truly this dumb, then i feel sorry for you. and if this is joke you're playing on me, it's not funny and i'm asking you to stop. seriously, markos. my doctor has adviced me to avoid stress, and you either being or pretending to be a complete imbecile is very, very stressful.
Me: Alright, since you can't read the plain language of the Constitution, let's try a different tack: Show me ONE example of a Supreme Court bench trial that isn't impeachment or between two states.
Just ONE example. Surely, if it's so common, you won't have trouble finding it!
George Rockwell: ok then. i found this:
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fleming.
no states involved. how about a slice of crow pie, markos?
Me: Umm, you mean this?
"An evenly-divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's holding that certain communications from Nationwide's corporate counsel to senior executives were not protected by the attorney-client privilege."
So a) it wasn't the US Supreme Court, and b) it was an appeal of a superior (lower) court ruling.
That was pretty hilarious! Try again.
George Rockwell: how about this:
Amco International v. The Long Island Railroad
not an appeal, most definitely. accept your defeat, markos instead of dragging this out needlessly.
Me: That's a New York case.And ... that's it. It's been a couple of days, so maybe he's finally admitted defeat? I doubt, no more so than edscan has. Only question is, do I keep responding?
And it's from the "Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department."
And what's worse, is that in New York, what's known as the "Supreme Court" isn't the highest court of the state. It is the lowest trial level.
0-2. Ready to swing at strike three?
Remember, all you need is ONE example from the United States Supreme Court, and thus far you've given me some irrelevant case from the trial court in New York, and a case from Pennsylvania.
I know you have a hard time understanding basic concepts like "appellate jurisdiction" and "all other cases". But I'd think that you'd AT LEAST be able to tell the difference between the United States and individual states.
10:52 AM PT: I spoke too soon. George responded this morning:
George Rockwell: So now the rules have changed? first it was the "supreme court", and when you got beaten it suddenly became the "u.s. supreme court". please tell me where in the article iii, section 2 is the "u.s. supreme court" mentioned? let me help you there: nowhere. the constitution doesn't mention the "u.s. supreme court", just the "supreme court". hey markos? do you know what they call a person who changes the rules in the middle of the game? a cheater. you simple can't handle losing to me, so you have to cheat to score a few points on some obscure technicalities. you are worst loser i have ever known.Dear god... And yeah, I've responded:
Article III, Section 2 is of the U.S. Constitution.It's like debating with a brick wall.
New York and Pennsylvania have their own constitutions. And even then, the two cases you mentioned were appellate reviews, so you failed even under your own bizarro rules.
Then again, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say it's not the Canadian Supreme Court either, so maybe you're suing me in Canada?