Discussion:
What economists have gotten wrong for decades
(too old to reply)
Snit
2019-07-30 17:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Carroll ran from this ... realizing that Skeeter's claim was utterly
wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
We were discussing the southern border, but if you need to spin and
divert to "win" then so be it. It's your life, not mine.
More context:

Snit:
-----
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the
border. Over 65% of all Americans live within 100 miles
of a border. For Hispanics the percent is even higher,
more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other
citizen.
-----

Notice here there is NO way this could be just the southern border. None.

Skeeter:
-----
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans
live withen 100 miles of the border? That's just insane
thinking.
-----

You called it insane... but it is true.

Snit:
-----
How do you figure?
-----

I could not even guess where you had gone wrong.

Skeeter:
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----

Yes, in the context of the 65% of ALL Americans, and 75% of all Hispanic
Americans (the ones being most targeted by the Constitution-free zones)
you made your claim about NYC.

Your claim was idiotic. New York City is *WITHIN* the Constitution-free
zone being discussed!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-30 20:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Carroll ran from this ... realizing that Skeeter's claim was utterly
wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
We were discussing the southern border, but if you need to spin and
divert to "win" then so be it. It's your life, not mine.
    -----
    And there are many such places within 100 miles of the
    border. Over 65% of all Americans live within 100 miles
    of a border. For Hispanics the percent is even higher,
    more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
    travel — and should have full rights of any other
    citizen.
    -----
Notice here there is NO way this could be just the southern border. None.
    -----
    Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans
    live withen 100 miles of the border? That's just insane
    thinking.
    -----
You called it insane... but it is true.
   -----
   How do you figure?
   -----
I could not even guess where you had gone wrong.
    -----
    There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
    -----
Yes, in the context of the 65% of ALL Americans, and 75% of all Hispanic
Americans (the ones being most targeted by the Constitution-free zones)
you made your claim about NYC.
Your claim was idiotic. New York City is *WITHIN* the Constitution-free
zone being discussed!
Please tells us about all the undocumented Nicaraguans who sneak
into the country by sailing up the coastline to Long Island Sound.
I have no info on that and am not interested in that side issue.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-30 21:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Carroll ran from this ... realizing that Skeeter's claim was utterly
wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
We were discussing the southern border, but if you need to spin and
divert to "win" then so be it. It's your life, not mine.
-----
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the
border. Over 65% of all Americans live within 100 miles
of a border. For Hispanics the percent is even higher,
more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other
citizen.
-----
Notice here there is NO way this could be just the southern border. None.
-----
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans
live withen 100 miles of the border? That's just insane
thinking.
-----
You called it insane... but it is true.
-----
How do you figure?
-----
I could not even guess where you had gone wrong.
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----
Yes, in the context of the 65% of ALL Americans, and 75% of all Hispanic
Americans (the ones being most targeted by the Constitution-free zones)
you made your claim about NYC.
Your claim was idiotic. New York City is *WITHIN* the Constitution-free
zone being discussed!
No, we were talking about the southern border, you left that part out
Snip.
Snit
2019-07-30 21:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Carroll ran from this ... realizing that Skeeter's claim was utterly
wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
We were discussing the southern border, but if you need to spin and
divert to "win" then so be it. It's your life, not mine.
-----
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the
border. Over 65% of all Americans live within 100 miles
of a border. For Hispanics the percent is even higher,
more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other
citizen.
-----
Notice here there is NO way this could be just the southern border. None.
-----
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans
live withen 100 miles of the border? That's just insane
thinking.
-----
You called it insane... but it is true.
-----
How do you figure?
-----
I could not even guess where you had gone wrong.
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----
Yes, in the context of the 65% of ALL Americans, and 75% of all Hispanic
Americans (the ones being most targeted by the Constitution-free zones)
you made your claim about NYC.
Your claim was idiotic. New York City is *WITHIN* the Constitution-free
zone being discussed!
No, we were talking about the southern border, you left that part out
Notice the context above is about where "Over 65% of all Americans
live". And you think that is "the southern border".

Do you realize how you keep digging your hole deeper as you try to
explain why you did not know NYC was within 100 miles of the US border?
Post by Skeeter
Snip.
What?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Nadegda
2019-07-30 22:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Ever since they got on their "Nazi" kick (without having any idea what
Nazis actually are)
They're what you see in the mirror every day, ko0ktard.
SPANKY-SPANKY!

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Nadegda
2019-07-30 22:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
[citation needed], k0ok.
You are not being reasonable.
How so, ko0k?
Exhibit one, in the case to prove the left-wingers can also be
unreasonable idiots: "kensi"
You have failed to build your case for that claim. Just repeating it
with more elaborate wording does not suffice, koOk.
Your claim that concentration camps never have the same end goal of
extermination "at first" was false. Some certainly did, "at first".
Camps are almost never sold to the public as for extermination during the
early stages of Nazification. Much of the time even the higher-ups who are
having them built don't initially intend to go that far. But the camps
suffer mission creep and/or the exterminationist contingent within the
administration becomes more powerful and emboldened over time.

It's the frog-in-boiling-water principle.
If anyone is the kook, it's the person (you) who tries to draw any
parallel at all, from the Nazi camps and ours.
The parallels are there, and are quite ominous. The camps are like
Germany's in 1933 in many respects. Do we really want to just sit and wait
12 years to see if they become like Germany's of 1945? Or do we want to
nip this horrible shit in the bud RIGHT FUCKING NOW?

I agree with kensi here. Liberate the camps.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Checkmate
2019-07-31 05:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <qhqg9r$2am$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.invalid
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
[citation needed], k0ok.
You are not being reasonable.
How so, ko0k?
Exhibit one, in the case to prove the left-wingers can also be
unreasonable idiots: "kensi"
You have failed to build your case for that claim. Just repeating it
with more elaborate wording does not suffice, koOk.
Your claim that concentration camps never have the same end goal of
extermination "at first" was false. Some certainly did, "at first".
Camps are almost never sold to the public as for extermination during the
early stages of Nazification. Much of the time even the higher-ups who are
having them built don't initially intend to go that far. But the camps
suffer mission creep and/or the exterminationist contingent within the
administration becomes more powerful and emboldened over time.
It's the frog-in-boiling-water principle.
If anyone is the kook, it's the person (you) who tries to draw any
parallel at all, from the Nazi camps and ours.
The parallels are there, and are quite ominous. The camps are like
Germany's in 1933 in many respects. Do we really want to just sit and wait
12 years to see if they become like Germany's of 1945? Or do we want to
nip this horrible shit in the bud RIGHT FUCKING NOW?
I agree with kensi here. Liberate the camps.
The people in the "Camps" are free to go back where they came from at any
time. We didn't bring them there in the first place, you babbling LooN.
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.

Point: kensi.
i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
on the planet is off the chart loony...
It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
to "the people" of the United States.
No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
just as kensi said.

Point: kensi.
The phrase: "We the People of the United States"
is in the Preamble, not the Bill of Rights.

Point: kensi.
means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
How ironic.
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S.
citizens
Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
LOL! Technically, it is<SPANK>
----------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
----------

This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions. It grants no
exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
other party but Congress itself.

----------
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
----------

This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
people" at all, but it still is an injunction on Congress not to do
certain things: restrict assembly (presumably inside of the borders, as
laws passed by Congress lack jurisdiction beyond them anyway) or forbid
suing the government (presumably applying to residents, as people not
bound by US law would lack standing to sue -- though this suggests they
failed to anticipate the US polluting or exporting war, weapons, and black
ops regime change operations, so perhaps the whole population of the
planet should have standing to sue).

Point: kensi.

Most of the next items mention "the people" or "a person" but do nothing
to suggest that this means any narrower set than "all human beings".

The Sixth Amendment changes things up a bit:

----------
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial ...
----------

This refers to "the accused". It also refers to *all* criminal
prosecutions, though, so clearly the nationality of the accused is
irrelevant. Sixth Amendment rights apply to anyone the federal government
prosecutes, citizen or otherwise.

The Seventh and Eighth Amendments make no mention of any party other than
the government. So it cannot demand excessive bail from anyone, citizen or
otherwise, etc.

The last two Amendments in the Bill of Rights again mention "the people".

The Constitution as a whole mentions citizens, as distinct from generic
people, in only a few places. The first requires the President to be a
citizen. The next is Article IV, Section 2, where notably paragraph 1
mentions citizens but paragraph 2 says "a Person" instead, clearly
intending to refer more broadly to any human being. The implication from
that is that anywhere the Constitution refers to "person" rather than
"citizen" it should be interpreted as meaning any person, period.

The Amendments after the Bill of Rights rarely mention the word "citizen".
When they do it is generally in connection with voting rights, which are
of course restricted to citizens.

Point: kensi
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the 7th
Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself
<shrug>.
How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
The party being protected *from* is the US Government.

Point: kensi

And the consensus of experts is:

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-
noncitizens/

----------
Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution.
Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the
same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans
most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any
serious controversy among experts over this matter.
----------

Point: kensi.

Oh, and:

SPNAK!

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Snit
2019-07-30 23:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
Point: kensi.
I will give you two points -- given how my point is "We the People"
includes not just whites but darker skinned people and Carroll insists
this shows I am in "error" and "clearly confused" to say that.
...
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 01:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
Point: kensi.
I will give you two points -- given how my point is "We the People"
includes not just whites but darker skinned people and Carroll insists
this shows I am in "error" and "clearly confused" to say that.
...
he didnt say that, you did
Snit
2019-07-31 01:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
Point: kensi.
I will give you two points -- given how my point is "We the People"
includes not just whites but darker skinned people and Carroll insists
this shows I am in "error" and "clearly confused" to say that.
...
he didnt say that, you did
Can you name one benefit you got from telling that lie? Just one.

Oh.

Attention.

OK... I guess you got what you wanted. Well done!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 13:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
Point: kensi.
I will give you two points -- given how my point is "We the People"
includes not just whites but darker skinned people and Carroll insists
this shows I am in "error" and "clearly confused" to say that.
...
he didnt say that, you did
Snit ran from this again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 00:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
? Snit erroneously dragged in the Declaration of Independence.
Post by Nadegda
Point: kensi.
Uh... aren't you two the same person?
Post by Nadegda
i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
on the planet is off the chart loony...
It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
to "the people" of the United States.
No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
just as kensi said.
Yet, we know that there are people who are not even getting a trial
before being deported, i.e. undocumented felons as per Clinton's IIRIRA.
If you didn't like Bill's bill, you'll probably have a heart attack over
this:

<https://time.com/5632671/undocumented-immigrants-expedited-removal/>

(and, yes, the ACLU is already on it)
Post by Nadegda
Point: kensi.
The phrase: "We the People of the United States"
is in the Preamble, not the Bill of Rights.
LOL! I'm the one who pointed that out:
--
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the preamble...
--
Post by Nadegda
Point: kensi.
means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
How ironic.
Quite ;)
Post by Nadegda
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S.
citizens
Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
LOL! Technically, it is<SPANK>
----------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
----------
In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
Post by Nadegda
This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions.
When dealing with a member of the group known as "We the People". See
the pattern here yet?
Post by Nadegda
It grants no
exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
other party but Congress itself.
We're not talking about foreigners, we're talking about undocumented
immigrants who are in the country in violation of federal law.
Post by Nadegda
----------
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
----------
This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
people" at all,
So you're now arguing that the words of the Preamble, you know, the
reason the rest of the document even exists, are to be ignored if they
are not endlessly (Snitishly) repeated to reflect the fact the document
is in reference to "ourselves" AKA "We the People" throughout?

LOL! You realize how ridiculous that is, right?
Post by Nadegda
but it still is an injunction on Congress not to do
certain things: restrict assembly (presumably inside of the borders, as
laws passed by Congress lack jurisdiction beyond them anyway) or forbid
suing the government (presumably applying to residents, as people not
bound by US law would lack standing to sue -- though this suggests they
failed to anticipate the US polluting or exporting war, weapons, and black
ops regime change operations, so perhaps the whole population of the
planet should have standing to sue).
Point: kensi.
Most of the next items mention "the people" or "a person" but do nothing
to suggest that this means any narrower set than "all human beings".
Hint-1: the word "ourselves" pretty much covered it. See, it's actually
pretty simple, if the intention was to include "all" people, we'd see
different language used in the Preamble and the Bill of Rights.

Hint-2: The perfect "Union" being referred to is called the United States,
not the Global States.

Hint-3: If you have an argument, it lives in latter amendments. Here's
a decent set of arguments as to why (that, notably, are not being used):

<https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4617&context=caselrev>

The point is don't invoke the Bill of Rights when that's not where your
argument (if you have one) lives. If you read the article I just linked
to, you'll eventually come across this (that you'll probably flip over),
which I feel compelled to include:

--
The immediate request for and passage of a Bill of Rights, in effect
demanded by and promised to the ratifying conventions, as well as the
egalitarianism of the first quarter of the 19th century which culminated
in Jacksonian democracy, signified, to an extent, the arrival of a new
and broader base for "We, the People." The "middling" or middle class
people who had influenced the constitutional language also influenced
the Vermont guarantee of universal suffrage in 179 1;288 and in the next
few years most of the States, original and new, followed suit.28 When
politicians now spoke of "the people," therefore, they no longer
appealed to the selected few of a minority of the population; their
constituents had increased to most, if not all, of those not otherwise
disenfranchised, e.g., the Negro, so that a somewhat popular
sovereignty, if not an all-inclusive one, was emerging. That the first
judiciary was not uninfluenced by all this is disclosed by flowery and
broad language in the early reports, for example, that "the mighty hand
of the people" established a Constitution, which therefore "contains the
permanent will of the people . 280 that, according to Marshall,

the instrument was submitted to the people.... The government proceeds
directly from the people .... The government of the Union, then . . .,
is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in
substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and
are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.

But if Marshall's language here is ambiguous, that is, whom does the
"people" include, 2 years later he sought to clarify it as "the whole
body of the people; not... any subdivision of them."2 9 2 But by "the
whole body" Marshall refers to the collective people - the total,
national electorate - not merely those in one (or more) State(s); and,
as we have seen, even this collectivity is a restricted and therefore
limited one insofar as it authorized and ratified a Constitution. Thus
that a minority. 3 created a document which was to be exercised (solely)
"for their benefit," thereby excluding all others (i.e., the totality of
the people) is manifestly a redactio ad absardum! The original term
"People" in the Preamble is therefore not, as popular mythology has
dignified it, a broad and inclusive term. It is limited to a political,
not economical or sociological, use, although it may nevertheless be
used separately as an all-inclusive term for all humans in the country.
But it is then further limited in the Preamble by being restricted to
voters, and this second restriction immediately excludes a host of
people, such as minors and aliens. In this sense, therefore, the
original "We, the People" is not to be confused with the people included
in a census, or discussed in terms of the military or economic needs of
the nation, and so on.
--

In a word: voters. Only a voter can be a part of "people" who grant
power, who "ordain". If I'm wrong, does it make sense that we confer all
kinds of other Constitutional protection to undocumented people, yet, we
deny them the right to vote or to a trial in matters of deportation?
A better question: Do you think they should have the right to vote?
You likely don't realize but you've tacitly answered 'yes' via your Bill
of Rights arguments. So you have a problem... even in San Francisco,
they're having trouble just getting them the right to vote in school
board elections. Put another way, I don't think the 'electorate' would
agree with your stance to give undocumented people the right to vote in
a national election.

(snip more of the same)
Nadegda
2019-07-31 01:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
? Snit erroneously dragged in the Declaration of Independence.
Another deflection attempt.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Point: kensi.
Uh... aren't you two the same person?
No. And yet another deflection attempt.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
on the planet is off the chart loony...
It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
to "the people" of the United States.
No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
just as kensi said.
Yet, we know that there are people who are not even getting a trial
before being deported,
UnConstitutionally.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
----------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
----------
In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
No, *period*.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions.
When dealing with a member of the group known as "We the People". See
the pattern here yet?
The pattern being "you keep adding stuff that isn't there in the text"?
Yeah, I noticed your attempts to cheat.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
It grants no
exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
other party but Congress itself.
We're not talking about foreigners, we're talking about undocumented
immigrants who are in the country in violation of federal law.
That's a subset of "foreigners", you nitwit.

*THWAP!*

*THWAP!*

*THWAP!*

Here, maybe if I smack you upside the head with the Constitution enough,
eventually parts of it may sink in.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
----------
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
----------
This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
people" at all,
So you're now arguing that the words of the Preamble, you know, the
reason the rest of the document even exists, are to be ignored
Legally speaking? Yes.
Post by Steve Carroll
A better question: Do you think they should have the right to vote?
You likely don't realize but you've tacitly answered 'yes' via your Bill
of Rights arguments.
No, because the parts of the Constitution dealing with voting rights
explicitly restrict these to "citizens", using that exact word, rather
than just saying "the people".

[Kooky Karroll then proceeds to snip the bits that spank him the hardest,
of course]

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/

SPNAK!

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 01:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
? Snit erroneously dragged in the Declaration of Independence.
Another deflection attempt.
Pointing out the two are not the same isn't a deflection, no matter how
much of Snit's stash he shares with you.
Post by Nadegda
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Point: kensi.
Uh... aren't you two the same person?
No. And yet another deflection attempt.
So... you're *both* *this* crazy?
Post by Nadegda
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
on the planet is off the chart loony...
It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
to "the people" of the United States.
No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
just as kensi said.
Yet, we know that there are people who are not even getting a trial
before being deported,
UnConstitutionally.
According to whose interpretation of the Constitution?
Post by Nadegda
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
----------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
----------
In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
No, *period*.
According to you <shrug>
Post by Nadegda
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions.
When dealing with a member of the group known as "We the People". See
the pattern here yet?
The pattern being "you keep adding stuff that isn't there in the text"?
So what does the word "ordain" mean to you? Or the word "ourselves"?
Post by Nadegda
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
It grants no
exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
other party but Congress itself.
We're not talking about foreigners, we're talking about undocumented
immigrants who are in the country in violation of federal law.
That's a subset of "foreigners", you nitwit.
But your complaint is regarding undocumented people... my statement was
put there as to differentiate from your ambiguous term 'foreigner',
which *could* be a legal citizen. Being that you got stuck on something
*this* simple, it doesn't bode well for your ability to interpret what
you read in the Constitution (or pertinent material, like what you
snipped).
Post by Nadegda
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
----------
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
----------
This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
people" at all,
So you're now arguing that the words of the Preamble, you know, the
reason the rest of the document even exists, are to be ignored
Legally speaking? Yes.
Yet, the SCOTUS ruling still stands and there's even a new expansion
underway for which, if the ACLU doesn't win, you're head will probably
explode ;)
Post by Nadegda
Post by Steve Carroll
A better question: Do you think they should have the right to vote?
You likely don't realize but you've tacitly answered 'yes' via your Bill
of Rights arguments.
No, because the parts of the Constitution dealing with voting rights
explicitly restrict these to "citizens", using that exact word, rather
than just saying "the people".
And it's found in the Bill of Rights? See, this is the part where you
fall apart... IOW, even you are now acknowledging what I stated, that
you've snipped. Of course, if you can't get past the word 'foreigner' it
would've been a waste of time for you to attempt to read it anyway ;)
Nadegda
2019-07-31 01:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
----------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
----------
In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
No, *period*.
According to you <shrug>
No, according to the experts, as described at the link you keep snipping
because it makes you wet yourself in fear:

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/

SPNAK!

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 02:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
----------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
----------
In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
No, *period*.
According to you <shrug>
No, according to the experts, as described at the link you keep snipping
??

Of what you snipped earlier, I pointed out the opinions of those experts
regarding the Bill of Rights... I'm dry as a bone ;)
Post by Nadegda
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/
"Not only does the Constitution grant noncitizens most of the same
rights as citizens".

Note: "most of"... not all. The link I gave you explains why your Bill
of Rights argument doesn't work... and it's not limited to voting or the
word "citizen". Being that you obviously didn't read it, you wouldn't
know that.

In any event, the history is what it is and, law being largely based on
precedent, I'm afraid you're stuck with "the People" being the "electorate"
who did "ordain". You're certainly free to opine that it's unconstitutional
but the SCOTUS/Presidents have disagreed... they sorta run the show.
Snit
2019-07-31 02:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
----------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
----------
In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
No, *period*.
According to you <shrug>
No, according to the experts, as described at the link you keep snipping
??
Of what you snipped earlier, I pointed out the opinions of those experts
regarding the Bill of Rights... I'm dry as a bone ;)
Post by Nadegda
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/
"Not only does the Constitution grant noncitizens most of the same
rights as citizens".
Note: "most of"... not all.
But notice as well that there is no support their for the racial
profiling you have backed -- your race should have NO impact on your
rights. None.

Can you agree to this now?
Post by Steve Carroll
The link I gave you explains why your Bill
of Rights argument doesn't work... and it's not limited to voting or the
word "citizen". Being that you obviously didn't read it, you wouldn't
know that.
In any event, the history is what it is and, law being largely based on
precedent, I'm afraid you're stuck with "the People" being the "electorate"
who did "ordain".
Do you finally include non-whites in your view of "the people"?
Post by Steve Carroll
You're certainly free to opine that it's unconstitutional
but the SCOTUS/Presidents have disagreed... they sorta run the show.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
kensi
2019-07-31 03:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/
You're certainly free to opine that it's unconstitutional
but the SCOTUS/Presidents have disagreed... they sorta run the show.
In case it has somehow escaped your notice until now: Rapepublicans
*cheat*. They stack the deck. They load the dice. They gerrymander, they
voter-suppress, they violate norms and rules in the House and Senate,
they ignore subpoenas, they stack the judiciary, THEY CHEAT.

The SCOTUS/Presidents are *wrong*. Worse, they're *lying*, i.e. they're
wrong on purpose and with an ulterior motive which is to enrich the
plutocrat class. And, now, fascism.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Snit
2019-07-31 04:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/
You're certainly free to opine that it's unconstitutional
but the SCOTUS/Presidents have disagreed... they sorta run the show.
In case it has somehow escaped your notice until now: Rapepublicans
*cheat*. They stack the deck. They load the dice. They gerrymander, they
voter-suppress, they violate norms and rules in the House and Senate,
they ignore subpoenas, they stack the judiciary, THEY CHEAT.
All correct -- and you left out refusing to try to reduce Russian and
other influence, suppressing votes, etc. And that is on top of a system
which grants special entitlements to those who live in less populated
states, a system akin to affirmative action.
Post by kensi
The SCOTUS/Presidents are *wrong*. Worse, they're *lying*, i.e. they're
wrong on purpose and with an ulterior motive which is to enrich the
plutocrat class. And, now, fascism.
Yup... I speak of this in my list of types of "Socialism"...

REAL SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is
little if any private property. This system allows for little personal
freedom and is closely aligned with Authoritarianism (rule by authority).

PLUTOCRACY (CORPORATE “SOCIALISM”): The government works largely for the
benefit of wealthy corporations and the rich. Most major industries are
privately owned (Capitalism), but their costs and risks are heavily
subsidized through lower taxes, direct government subsidies, leniency by
the justice system, and more. With Corporate Socialism the wealthy
become even wealthier at the expense of the lower classes, and the split
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
defined by the open or de facto rule by the wealthy.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (DEMOCRATIC “SOCIALISM”): This government works largely
for the citizens as a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people.
Most major industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few
government handouts and are generally held accountable for their own
risks and costs. With this system the middle class does better, poverty
decreases, and the environment suffers less harm. This system is defined
by the respect and rule of the people themselves.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
There's only one single little thing in American law that is truly
utterly immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution that
specifies that every state shall have equal representation in the
Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change, but why
can it NOT be changed?
----------
Article V

...

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no
State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
----------

The first bit doesn't matter anymore (there was a time-limited clause
that, interestingly, more or less prescribed open borders for the first 30
years following the ratification of the Constitution; more precisely,
letting any state admit anyone it wanted to, so making immigration a
matter of state, rather than federal, jurisdiction until 1808). The second
bit is more or less as kensi said, unless one were to get *all fifty*
states to agree to abolish equal representation in the Senate. Basically
it prevents 3/4 of the states from ganging up and depriving the other 1/4
of their Senators.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Snit
2019-07-30 23:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
There's only one single little thing in American law that is truly
utterly immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution that
specifies that every state shall have equal representation in the
Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change, but why
can it NOT be changed?
----------
Article V
....
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no
State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
----------
The first bit doesn't matter anymore (there was a time-limited clause
that, interestingly, more or less prescribed open borders for the first 30
years following the ratification of the Constitution; more precisely,
letting any state admit anyone it wanted to, so making immigration a
matter of state, rather than federal, jurisdiction until 1808). The second
bit is more or less as kensi said, unless one were to get *all fifty*
states to agree to abolish equal representation in the Senate. Basically
it prevents 3/4 of the states from ganging up and depriving the other 1/4
of their Senators.
Thanks. How about making it so representation is tied to taxation... if
you have 20x the representational power of others in the country then
you pay more in federal taxes. Even if we go with half that (to fit the
House, though it is increasingly unequal, too), they would pay 10x more.

No taxation without representation... and let's have our taxation tie
into our level of representation.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Danny Luongo
2019-07-30 23:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
There's only one single little thing in American law that is truly
utterly immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution
that specifies that every state shall have equal representation in
the Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change, but
why can it NOT be changed?
----------
Article V
....
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.
----------
The first bit doesn't matter anymore (there was a time-limited clause
that, interestingly, more or less prescribed open borders for the first
30 years following the ratification of the Constitution; more
precisely, letting any state admit anyone it wanted to, so making
immigration a matter of state, rather than federal, jurisdiction until
1808). The second bit is more or less as kensi said, unless one were to
get *all fifty* states to agree to abolish equal representation in the
Senate. Basically it prevents 3/4 of the states from ganging up and
depriving the other 1/4 of their Senators.
Thanks. How about making it so representation is tied to taxation... if
you have 20x the representational power of others in the country then
you pay more in federal taxes. Even if we go with half that (to fit the
House, though it is increasingly unequal, too), they would pay 10x more.
That's rich coming from a lazy parasite who lives off a welfare check
because he is too lazy to work.
What is it with you left wing leeches always trying to spend other
people's money?
Post by Snit
No taxation without representation... and let's have our taxation tie
into our level of representation.
You don't pay taxes snit so you should have no representation.
The government is investigating welfare frauds like you snit and I
propose that 1/2 the money saved by not paying cheats like you go to
reduce the taxes of hard working, honestly employed citizens.
Snit
2019-07-31 00:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution
amended. There's only one single little thing in American law
that is truly utterly immutable, and that is a small portion of
the Constitution that specifies that every state shall have
equal representation in the Senate. That is THE ONE THING that
can't be changed, even with Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change,
but why can it NOT be changed?
---------- Article V
....
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the
first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its
equal Suffrage in the Senate. ----------
The first bit doesn't matter anymore (there was a time-limited
clause that, interestingly, more or less prescribed open borders
for the first 30 years following the ratification of the
Constitution; more precisely, letting any state admit anyone it
wanted to, so making immigration a matter of state, rather than
federal, jurisdiction until 1808). The second bit is more or less
as kensi said, unless one were to get *all fifty* states to agree
to abolish equal representation in the Senate. Basically it
prevents 3/4 of the states from ganging up and depriving the other
1/4 of their Senators.
Thanks. How about making it so representation is tied to taxation...
if you have 20x the representational power of others in the country
then you pay more in federal taxes. Even if we go with half that (to
fit the House, though it is increasingly unequal, too), they would
pay 10x more.
No taxation without representation... and let's have our taxation
tie into our level of representation.
Carroll used one of his socks to freak the hell out over this. He has no
counter.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Just Wondering
2019-07-30 23:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
There's only one single little thing in American law that is truly
utterly immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution that
specifies that every state shall have equal representation in the
Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change, but why
can it NOT be changed?
----------
Article V
....
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no
State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
----------
The first bit doesn't matter anymore (there was a time-limited clause
that, interestingly, more or less prescribed open borders for the first 30
years following the ratification of the Constitution; more precisely,
letting any state admit anyone it wanted to, so making immigration a
matter of state, rather than federal, jurisdiction until 1808). The second
bit is more or less as kensi said, unless one were to get *all fifty*
states to agree to abolish equal representation in the Senate. Basically
it prevents 3/4 of the states from ganging up and depriving the other 1/4
of their Senators.
Thanks. How about making it so representation is tied to taxation... if
you have 20x the representational power of others in the country then
you pay more in federal taxes. Even if we go with half that (to fit the
House, though it is increasingly unequal, too), they would pay 10x more.
No taxation without representation... and let's have our taxation tie
into our level of representation.
So write a bill to accomplish that. No one's stopping you.
Get your Representative and Senator to sponsor it. Let us
know how that works out for you.
Snit
2019-07-31 00:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
There's only one single little thing in American law that is truly
utterly immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution that
specifies that every state shall have equal representation in the
Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change, but why
can it NOT be changed?
----------
Article V
....
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no
State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
----------
The first bit doesn't matter anymore (there was a time-limited clause
that, interestingly, more or less prescribed open borders for the first 30
years following the ratification of the Constitution; more precisely,
letting any state admit anyone it wanted to, so making immigration a
matter of state, rather than federal, jurisdiction until 1808). The second
bit is more or less as kensi said, unless one were to get *all fifty*
states to agree to abolish equal representation in the Senate. Basically
it prevents 3/4 of the states from ganging up and depriving the other 1/4
of their Senators.
Thanks. How about making it so representation is tied to taxation...
if you have 20x the representational power of others in the country
then you pay more in federal taxes. Even if we go with half that (to
fit the House, though it is increasingly unequal, too), they would pay
10x more.
No taxation without representation... and let's have our taxation tie
into our level of representation.
So write a bill to accomplish that.
Given how those with special entitlement almost never give them up
willingly this is not likely to pass.
Post by Just Wondering
No one's stopping you.
Get your Representative and Senator to sponsor it.  Let us
know how that works out for you.
It would go against the special entitlements of those who live in less
populated states. It is fair. It is right. But it will not pass -- much
like impeaching Trump (he could be impeached but the Senate will not
hold to their oaths).
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
2019-07-30 23:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial and even without any viable evidence.
--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregory

Nadegda, kensi and Pandora » the three are easily
ignored misandrists and anti-American, leftist liars.
Nadegda
2019-07-31 01:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:42:30 -0400, Herr Gerrrrrgz Hell, Stinky Fleabitten
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial
Yes, but then, I'm not the government.

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Skeeter
2019-07-31 01:29:24 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhqppo$so3$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.invalid
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:42:30 -0400, Herr Gerrrrrgz Hell, Stinky Fleabitten
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial
Yes, but then, I'm not the government.
Thank God.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 01:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:42:30 -0400, Herr Gerrrrrgz Hell, Stinky Fleabitten
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial
Yes, but then, I'm not the government.
So you feel that it's OK for the press (because they're not "the
government", either) to claim someone is guilty of rape before they're
even charged with it (not that they're not basically already doing as
much), this would actually makes sense to you?
Snit
2019-07-31 01:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:42:30 -0400, Herr Gerrrrrgz Hell, Stinky Fleabitten
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial
Yes, but then, I'm not the government.
So you feel that it's OK for the press (because they're not "the
government", either) to claim someone is guilty of rape before they're
even charged with it (not that they're not basically already doing as
much), this would actually makes sense to you?
It is much better than you flat out lying to my wife and family, my
clients and co-workers, my neighbors and more -- and then crying about
how you have rights when the police talk to you about it as you deny
those same rights to others.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 02:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:42:30 -0400, Herr Gerrrrrgz Hell, Stinky Fleabitten
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial
Yes, but then, I'm not the government.
So you feel that it's OK for the press (because they're not "the
government", either) to claim someone is guilty of rape before they're
even charged with it (not that they're not basically already doing as
much), this would actually makes sense to you?
It is much better than you flat out lying to my wife and family, my
clients and co-workers, my neighbors and more -- and then crying about
how you have rights when the police talk to you about it as you deny
those same rights to others.
Not only did I not do any of that... but this post underscores *how*
narcissistic you are... that you'd subordinate an untold number of lives
of being falsely accused: of all manner of heinous crimes to some petty
usenet delusion you tirelessly bathe in. Get help, Snit... fast.
Snit
2019-07-31 02:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:42:30 -0400, Herr Gerrrrrgz Hell, Stinky Fleabitten
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial
Yes, but then, I'm not the government.
So you feel that it's OK for the press (because they're not "the
government", either) to claim someone is guilty of rape before they're
even charged with it (not that they're not basically already doing as
much), this would actually makes sense to you?
It is much better than you flat out lying to my wife and family, my
clients and co-workers, my neighbors and more -- and then crying about
how you have rights when the police talk to you about it as you deny
those same rights to others.
Not only did I not do any of that
And yet your family held an intervention of sorts and the police, if you
are to be believed, came to your door to talk to you about your
harassment of others.

Surely you cannot expect everyone to believe you are just a victim of
everyone, can you?

Hey, at least you have your socks!
Post by Steve Carroll
... but this post underscores *how*
narcissistic you are... that you'd subordinate an untold number of lives
of being falsely accused: of all manner of heinous crimes to some petty
usenet delusion you tirelessly bathe in. Get help, Snit... fast.
Ah, you are called out on your harassment of others and suddenly you are
the victim. Poor you.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 14:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:42:30 -0400, Herr Gerrrrrgz Hell, Stinky Fleabitten
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial
Yes, but then, I'm not the government.
So you feel that it's OK for the press (because they're not "the
government", either) to claim someone is guilty of rape before they're
even charged with it (not that they're not basically already doing as
much), this would actually makes sense to you?
It is much better than you flat out lying to my wife and family, my
clients and co-workers, my neighbors and more -- and then crying about
how you have rights when the police talk to you about it as you deny
those same rights to others.
You never proved he did that so I don't believe you.
Siri Cruise
2019-07-31 09:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
So you feel that it's OK for the press (because they're not "the
government", either) to claim someone is guilty of rape before they're
even charged with it (not that they're not basically already doing as
much), this would actually makes sense to you?
When the press taints the jury pool to make a fair trial impossible, the judge
dismisses the case. Thus the press uses 'alleged' and says they're reporting not
judging.

And you're still a bot. Or botfly.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 13:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Steve Carroll
So you feel that it's OK for the press (because they're not "the
government", either) to claim someone is guilty of rape before they're
even charged with it (not that they're not basically already doing as
much), this would actually makes sense to you?
When the press taints the jury pool to make a fair trial impossible, the judge
dismisses the case. Thus the press uses 'alleged' and says they're reporting not
judging.
Obviously.
Post by Siri Cruise
And you're still a bot. Or botfly.
Obviously not.
Just Wondering
2019-07-31 15:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
When the press taints the jury pool to make a fair trial impossible,
the judge dismisses the case.
I bet you can't cite a single criminal case that a judge
dismissed because of pretrial publicity.
When the defendant thinks that's happened he brings a motion
for a change of venue. If he persuades the judge, the judge
will order the trial moved to another location.
Checkmate
2019-07-31 05:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <qhqppo$so3$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.invalid
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:42:30 -0400, Herr Gerrrrrgz Hell, Stinky Fleabitten
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial
Yes, but then, I'm not the government.
<snicker>
Then perhaps you should STFU about the Government, Socialist KooK.
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Checkmate
2019-07-31 01:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial and even without any viable evidence.
"Yeah, but that was different..."
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Siri Cruise
2019-07-31 09:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial and even without any viable evidence.
Oh. I did? What was I at the time? Black out drunk?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-30 23:50:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:36:41 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty.
Leftists could learn from this.

But Kavanaugh got confirmed anyway.

[chuckle]
Snit
2019-07-31 00:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Right. It is fine for you or I *outside of a court* to note how someone
is guilty of a crime. Heck, if nobody did this then there would be few
trials (hey, those prosecuting, do you think your client is guilty... if
the answer is "no" why have a trial at all?).

But if we are adjudicating (as a judge or jury) we are obligated offer a
presumption of innocence.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 03:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Right. It is fine for you or I *outside of a court* to note how someone
is guilty of a crime.
Where "note" means to *opine* with no due process or seeing all the
evidence, which is why your *opinion* isn't as worthy as that of one
obtained *inside of a court*. But hey, why let little things like
reality and facts get in the way of a good delusion, right?

Do you *ever* think before you write this goofy crap?
kensi
2019-07-31 04:07:03 UTC
Permalink
If you're not a right-winger, k0ooOo0ky, then why are you such a
Kavanaugh fanboi that you want him to get away with at least three
counts of rape?
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-31 10:32:19 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 06:07:03 +0200, kensi
Post by kensi
If you're not a right-winger, k0ooOo0ky, then why are you such a
Kavanaugh fanboi that you want him to get away with at least three
counts of rape?
You mean the imaginary accusations by whores desperate for publicity?
Skeeter
2019-07-31 14:05:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhr457$6j4$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
If you're not a right-winger, k0ooOo0ky, then why are you such a
Kavanaugh fanboi that you want him to get away with at least three
counts of rape?
No rape, no proof, until I see proof he's innocent.
mixed nuts
2019-07-31 14:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
If you're not a right-winger, k0ooOo0ky, then why are you such a
Kavanaugh fanboi that you want him to get away with at least three
counts of rape?
No rape, no proof, until I see proof he's innocent.
Plus, he's well-connected and too rich for the cops to beat up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfMPTFTUs6c
--
Grizzly H.
Snit
2019-07-31 16:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
If you're not a right-winger, k0ooOo0ky, then why are you such a
Kavanaugh fanboi that you want him to get away with at least three
counts of rape?
No rape, no proof, until I see proof he's innocent.
Your view of his actions do not change his actions.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-31 04:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Right. It is fine for you or I *outside of a court* to note how someone
is guilty of a crime.
Below you babble a lot. Of course opinions and facts matter, both inside
and outside of a court. I mean, really, how can you think otherwise?

For example, your claim that child abuse is not, to you, a crime unless
you are caught is insane.
Post by Steve Carroll
Where "note" means to *opine* with no due process or seeing all the
evidence, which is why your *opinion* isn't as worthy as that of one
obtained *inside of a court*. But hey, why let little things like
reality and facts get in the way of a good delusion, right?
Do you *ever* think before you write this goofy crap?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
vallor
2019-07-31 04:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a
trial and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I,
section 9, paragraph 3.
Right. It is fine for you or I *outside of a court* to note how
someone is guilty of a crime.
Below you babble a lot. Of course opinions and facts matter, both inside
and outside of a court. I mean, really, how can you think otherwise?
For example, your claim that child abuse is not, to you, a crime unless
you are caught is insane.
Just realized that the way the ol' snitster spins and shades the truth is
a lot like a Trump speech.

So how do you like them peaches?
--
-v
The Col. Neal Gerg: https://imgur.com/lrQvLto
Skeeter
2019-07-31 01:29:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhqka9$2am$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.invalid
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Like Kavanaugh?
Siri Cruise
2019-07-31 09:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
People who get caught and know it's a fair cop, are only wasting time on legal
proceedings they know they will lose. It's better to be quickly free in Mexico
where they can earn enough money for another attempt.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-30 23:51:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:41:07 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
I didn't say anything about a trial, idiot.

We're talking about the presumption of innocence- something leftists
don't want to even contemplate.
Nadegda
2019-07-31 01:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:41:07 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
I didn't say anything about a trial, idiot.
We're talking about the presumption of innocence- something leftists
don't want to even contemplate.
Then you agree with myself, kensi, and Snit, and disagree with Kooky
Karroll, that accused undocumented immigrants should not be detained or
deported without a trial?

Excellent.

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Skeeter
2019-07-31 01:31:06 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhqpu2$so3$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.invalid
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:41:07 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
I didn't say anything about a trial, idiot.
We're talking about the presumption of innocence- something leftists
don't want to even contemplate.
Then you agree with myself, kensi, and Snit, and disagree with Kooky
Karroll, that accused undocumented immigrants should not be detained or
deported without a trial?
Excellent.
<snicker>
They aren't citizens.
Snit
2019-07-31 01:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:41:07 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
I didn't say anything about a trial, idiot.
We're talking about the presumption of innocence- something leftists
don't want to even contemplate.
Then you agree with myself, kensi, and Snit, and disagree with Kooky
Karroll, that accused undocumented immigrants should not be detained or
deported without a trial?
Excellent.
<snicker>
They aren't citizens.
How do you know without due process?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Just Wondering
2019-07-31 06:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Nadegda
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
We're talking about the presumption of innocence- something leftists
don't want to even contemplate.
Then you agree with myself, kensi, and Snit, and disagree with Kooky
Karroll, that accused undocumented immigrants should not be detained or
deported without a trial?
They aren't citizens.
How do you know without due process?
Due process means notice and an opportunity to be heard - not
necessarily by an Article III judge - which they get. Or do
you have a different definition of due process?
Skeeter
2019-07-31 13:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:41:07 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
I didn't say anything about a trial, idiot.
We're talking about the presumption of innocence- something leftists
don't want to even contemplate.
Then you agree with myself, kensi, and Snit, and disagree with Kooky
Karroll, that accused undocumented immigrants should not be detained or
deported without a trial?
Excellent.
<snicker>
They aren't citizens.
How do you know without due process?
undocumented immigrants....did that part elude you?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-31 14:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:41:07 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
I didn't say anything about a trial, idiot.
We're talking about the presumption of innocence- something leftists
don't want to even contemplate.
Then you agree with myself, kensi, and Snit, and disagree with Kooky
Karroll, that accused undocumented immigrants should not be detained or
deported without a trial?
Excellent.
<snicker>
They aren't citizens.
How do you know without due process?
undocumented immigrants....did that part elude you?
Are these people *ALL* this stupid?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-31 10:33:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:12:34 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Nadegda
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
I didn't say anything about a trial, idiot.
We're talking about the presumption of innocence- something leftists
don't want to even contemplate.
Then you agree with myself, kensi, and Snit, and disagree with Kooky
Karroll, that accused undocumented immigrants should not be detained or
deported without a trial?
If they're HERE, they've obviously committed a crime. No trial needed.
Put them on a bus and send them back.

So simple even a leftist could figure it out.
Siri Cruise
2019-07-31 09:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
We're talking about the presumption of innocence
Antifa? BLM? Anita? Hillary Clinton?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Snit
2019-07-31 00:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
He was going through a job interview... and he showed himself unfit.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 01:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
He was going through a job interview... and he showed himself unfit.
He won and the accusers ate shit.
Snit
2019-07-31 01:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
He was going through a job interview... and he showed himself unfit.
He won and the accusers ate shit.
Republicans did not care about fitness for office.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Siri Cruise
2019-07-31 09:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
He won and the accusers ate shit.
So it's not about whether he's a drunk and what's best for the country. It's
only about winning.

The joke is people like Kavanaugh are good for capitalists and businesses. That
is they make California richer and iDJT fanbois poorer. Eris bless the redneck
idiots for voting against their best interests.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Skeeter
2019-07-31 14:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Skeeter
He won and the accusers ate shit.
So it's not about whether he's a drunk and what's best for the country. It's
only about winning.
The joke is people like Kavanaugh are good for capitalists and businesses. That
is they make California richer and iDJT fanbois poorer. Eris bless the redneck
idiots for voting against their best interests.
<blink>
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-31 14:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Skeeter
He won and the accusers ate shit.
So it's not about whether he's a drunk and what's best for the country. It's
only about winning.
The joke is people like Kavanaugh are good for capitalists and businesses. That
is they make California richer and iDJT fanbois poorer. Eris bless the redneck
idiots for voting against their best interests.
<blink>
If only there were some sort of parable about, say, some fruit and
perhaps a small-to-medium-sized omnivorous mammals belonging to
several genera of the family Canidae that could be used here.

[chuckle]
Skeeter
2019-07-31 01:30:25 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhqkii$2am$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.invalid
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
Play on words, you still lost.
Snit
2019-07-31 01:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
Play on words, you still lost.
He was not even up for the job!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 13:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
Play on words, you still lost.
He was not even up for the job!
He was, He is and he won, the lying libs shot themselves in the foot.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 04:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
kensi
2019-07-31 04:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 04:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
Have you ever actually watched a trial? Do you *really* understand what
a presumption of innocence is? Or what an objection is?
Snit
2019-07-31 04:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
Have you ever actually watched a trial? Do you *really* understand what
a presumption of innocence is? Or what an objection is?
Oh, do go on and explain your view on those things and related topics. For
example please explain your view of being actually guilty of committing a
crime (say child abuse since we talked about that recently) and being found
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a legal adjudication process.

Really would love to hear you talk about that!

This might be fun if you don’t run off or use your “Carroll of socks”.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 05:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
Have you ever actually watched a trial? Do you *really* understand what
a presumption of innocence is? Or what an objection is?
Oh, do go on and explain your view on those things and related topics. For
example please explain your view of being actually guilty of committing a
crime (say child abuse since we talked about that recently) and being found
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a legal adjudication process.
JHC! How many times do you need to see it? AGAIN, you're talking about
*moral* guilt vs. *legal* guilt. There is no "actually guilty" in the
legal realm, it's either "guilty" or "not guilty" and you don't even
have to have committed the crime to be *found* "guilty" in a legal
sense.

You argument started off with "felony child abuse", which is a reference
to 'the law', which means only 'the law' is qualified to assess if the
abuse *is* felonious. But here's the kicker... moral or legal, the
finding of guilt (it's *always* done via a finding unless a dishonest
jackboot like you is doing it) is still... wait for it... an
*opinion*... be it a layperson talking moral guilt, or a judge, talking
legal guilt.
Post by Snit
Really would love to hear you talk about that!
I've told you about 8000 time now! What's so confusing about this for
you? Meds?
Snit
2019-07-31 05:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
Have you ever actually watched a trial? Do you *really* understand what
a presumption of innocence is? Or what an objection is?
Oh, do go on and explain your view on those things and related topics. For
example please explain your view of being actually guilty of committing a
crime (say child abuse since we talked about that recently) and being found
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a legal adjudication process.
JHC! How many times do you need to see it?
The more you post the more you contradict yourself and I find that funny.
Post by Steve Carroll
AGAIN, you're talking about
*moral* guilt vs. *legal* guilt.
So you agree you can be guilty of child abuse even if you were never
caught?
Post by Steve Carroll
There is no "actually guilty" in the
legal realm, it's either "guilty" or "not guilty" and you don't even
have to have committed the crime to be *found* "guilty" in a legal
sense.
Well, judicial opinions speak of the distinction between being actually
guilty vs being found guilty, but other than some nits sounds like you are
getting it.

For example, Bush could be ACTUALLY guilty of war crimes but never have
that be adjudicated by the legal system. Seems you get that now. If so I am
happy to hear it.
Post by Steve Carroll
You argument started off with "felony child abuse", which is a reference
to 'the law',
You can actually engage in felonies and not have your actions be
adjudicated. You do know that, right? For example, if your kids are
estranged from you based on you abusing them, that abuse might rise to
felony abuse even if you are never caught by the legal system. You would
not be deemed a felon of course unless you were adjudicated and found
guilty by the legal system.
Post by Steve Carroll
which means only 'the law' is qualified to assess if the
abuse *is* felonious. But here's the kicker... moral or legal, the
finding of guilt (it's *always* done via a finding unless a dishonest
jackboot like you is doing it) is still... wait for it... an
*opinion*... be it a layperson talking moral guilt, or a judge, talking
legal guilt.
See how you lash out. Your guilt is showing. Relax. This is just a friendly
conversation where I get to be amused by your contradictions with your past
comments. :)
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Really would love to hear you talk about that!
I've told you about 8000 time now! What's so confusing about this for
you? Meds?
More of your lashing out even as you amuse me.

See: you finally figured out someone, say Bush, can ACTUALLY commit war
crimes but not be held legally accountable. As a random example, of course
(but a real world one with plenty of evidence).

And you could have ACTUALLY abused your kids even if the law never caught
you (the evidence is not as strong here though you have suggested it might
be true as you discuss your estrangement from your kids, the multiple wives
who have left you, and how you did not see abuse as illegal unless you were
caught).

So good to see you have figured this out!

Thanks!

See, I knew this would be fun!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 14:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
Have you ever actually watched a trial? Do you *really* understand what
a presumption of innocence is? Or what an objection is?
Oh, do go on and explain your view on those things and related topics. For
example please explain your view of being actually guilty of committing a
crime (say child abuse since we talked about that recently) and being found
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a legal adjudication process.
JHC! How many times do you need to see it?
The more you post the more you contradict yourself and I find that funny.
Post by Steve Carroll
AGAIN, you're talking about
*moral* guilt vs. *legal* guilt.
So you agree you can be guilty of child abuse even if you were never
caught?
Why do you have such trouble with this?
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
There is no "actually guilty" in the
legal realm, it's either "guilty" or "not guilty" and you don't even
have to have committed the crime to be *found* "guilty" in a legal
sense.
Well, judicial opinions speak of the distinction between being actually
guilty vs being found guilty,
Said Snit as he conflated dicta with opinion.
Post by Snit
but other than some nits sounds like you are
getting it.
I've had it all along.
Post by Snit
For example, Bush could be ACTUALLY guilty of war crimes but never have
that be adjudicated by the legal system.
Even you agreed it was merely moral guilt... after I corrected you over
and over when you had been arguing legal guilt. It didn't help that you
kept changing your mind, IOW, trolling and looking stupid while doing
so. But there is the issue of the term "war" crimes, given that no "war"
had actually taken place in a legal sense. I realize you like to lump
everything together to simplify things for yourself but the world
doesn't really work that way ;)
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
You argument started off with "felony child abuse", which is a reference
to 'the law',
You can actually engage in felonies and not have your actions be
adjudicated.
You can even have laypeople *opine* that you're "guilty", but it's not a
fact until it's been established by the legal system that the felonies
are codified under (theirs is the only opinion that matters). Of course,
it doesn't make any sense to do that, which is probably why only people
like you are found doing it.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
which means only 'the law' is qualified to assess if the
abuse *is* felonious. But here's the kicker... moral or legal, the
finding of guilt (it's *always* done via a finding unless a dishonest
jackboot like you is doing it) is still... wait for it... an
*opinion*... be it a layperson talking moral guilt, or a judge, talking
legal guilt.
See how you lash out.
No. The kind of thing you're suggesting isn't reality for normal
people.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Really would love to hear you talk about that!
I've told you about 8000 time now! What's so confusing about this for
you? Meds?
More of your lashing out even as you amuse me.
What do you attribute your goofiness to, then?
Post by Snit
See: you finally figured out someone, say Bush, can ACTUALLY commit war
crimes
I already knew that laypeople can make inconsequential opinions <shrug>.
Snit
2019-07-31 15:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
Have you ever actually watched a trial? Do you *really* understand what
a presumption of innocence is? Or what an objection is?
Oh, do go on and explain your view on those things and related topics. For
example please explain your view of being actually guilty of committing a
crime (say child abuse since we talked about that recently) and being found
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a legal adjudication process.
JHC! How many times do you need to see it?
The more you post the more you contradict yourself and I find that funny.
Post by Steve Carroll
AGAIN, you're talking about
*moral* guilt vs. *legal* guilt.
So you agree you can be guilty of child abuse even if you were never
caught?
Why do you have such trouble with this?
I have trouble with your DENIAL of this where you insisted you COULD NOT
BE guilty of such felony actions unless you were caught. You can be.
Your comments came implied YOU have engaged in such abuse but you did
not see yourself as guilty of anything (even morally) unless you were
caught (by the law). This ties into what YOU have called "law worship".
You do not separate what is moral with what is legal -- you confuse and
combine the two. While there is some overlap they are NOT the same!
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
There is no "actually guilty" in the
legal realm, it's either "guilty" or "not guilty" and you don't even
have to have committed the crime to be *found* "guilty" in a legal
sense.
Well, judicial opinions speak of the distinction between being actually
guilty vs being found guilty,
Said Snit as he conflated dicta with opinion.
Just one example of a Supreme Court opinion where the phrase is used
PROVES you wrong:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1027_7lio.pdf
-----
Opinion of the Court
...
“And where a Man arrests another, who is actually guilty of the Crime
for which he is arrested, . . . he needs not in justifying it, set forth
any special Cause of his Suspicion”
-----
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
but other than some nits sounds like you are
getting it.
I've had it all along.
They why claim otherwise, for years on end?
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
For example, Bush could be ACTUALLY guilty of war crimes but never have
that be adjudicated by the legal system.
Even you agreed it was merely moral guilt... after I corrected you over
and over when you had been arguing legal guilt. It didn't help that you
kept changing your mind, IOW, trolling and looking stupid while doing
so. But there is the issue of the term "war" crimes, given that no "war"
had actually taken place in a legal sense. I realize you like to lump
everything together to simplify things for yourself but the world
doesn't really work that way ;)
Notice you do not say if he could be ACTUALLY guilty of war crimes, and
then you speak for me. As you do so you use vague language you can play
games with. Here, proof... you will run from this question:

In the above, by "legal guilt" do you mean went against the law -- which
we have evidence for, or do you mean was found guilty, which is the more
common meaning but for which NOBODY claimed?

You will run from that question. Your semantic game depends on sometimes
using one definition and sometimes using the other.

And then you pretend war crimes can only happen in a declared war. Oy.
Do you ever stop just making things up and speaking for others and
playing semantic games?
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
You argument started off with "felony child abuse", which is a reference
to 'the law',
You can actually engage in felonies and not have your actions be
adjudicated.
You can even have laypeople *opine* that you're "guilty", but it's not a
fact until it's been established by the legal system
This is your law worship -- your immature moral code where you insist
one cannot be actually guilty of, say, child abuse unless that is found
to be the case by the legal system. Utter hogwash... and it suggests you
are trying to excuse your own actions by saying they were not REALLY bad
unless you were caught.

Which fits with the discussion on child abuse before where you have
whined about your kids being estranged from you and having multiple
wives leaving you and then you insist you could not have REALLY done
something illegal unless you were caught.

Do you realize how you repeatedly suggest you may very well have abused
your own kids?

...

And you snipped past here... as you do.
Post by Steve Carroll
that the felonies
are codified under (theirs is the only opinion that matters). Of course,
it doesn't make any sense to do that, which is probably why only people
like you are found doing it.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
which means only 'the law' is qualified to assess if the
abuse *is* felonious. But here's the kicker... moral or legal, the
finding of guilt (it's *always* done via a finding unless a dishonest
jackboot like you is doing it) is still... wait for it... an
*opinion*... be it a layperson talking moral guilt, or a judge, talking
legal guilt.
See how you lash out.
No. The kind of thing you're suggesting isn't reality for normal
people.
It is completely normal to note one can be ACTUALLY guilty of breaking
the law but never have it be adjudicated. Your claims of it being fine
unless you are caught is what is not normal.

And the you get all angry and lash out. Geeez... just relax a little.

Here is something you snipped:

-----
See: you finally figured out someone, say Bush, can ACTUALLY commit war
crimes but not be held legally accountable. As a random example, of
course (but a real world one with plenty of evidence).
-----

Given how you go back and forth on this so much no wonder you snipped
it. At times you accept one can be guilty without being caught, at other
times you deny it and then pretend one must be caught to be ACTUALLY guilty.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Really would love to hear you talk about that!
I've told you about 8000 time now! What's so confusing about this for
you? Meds?
More of your lashing out even as you amuse me.
What do you attribute your goofiness to, then?
Post by Snit
See: you finally figured out someone, say Bush, can ACTUALLY commit war
crimes
I already knew that laypeople can make inconsequential opinions <shrug>.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 14:06:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhr48a$6j4$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 14:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Snit
2019-07-31 14:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.

Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence. That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely... for example it is fair to say that there
is proof you lied when you brought up "The Old Neighborhood Restaurant"
website and claimed it was made with WordPress. Here is the overwhelming
evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that you lied... what would
commonly be known as proof:

http://web.archive.org/web/20150217224456/http://oldneighborhoodrestaurant.net/
OR <http://tinyurl.com/y2u3goth>
-----
<meta name="generator" content="Starfield Technologies;
Go Daddy Website Builder v6.1.7"/>
-----

When shown this you responded <qhpgof$3jh$***@dont-email.me>:
-----
If I'm the one lying, prove I had anything to do with that site.
----

Yes, you got yourself so twisted up you demanded I prove you made the
site you just insisted you made... LOL!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Danny Luongo
2019-07-31 14:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:42:49 -0700, Snit
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of
innocence. Does not mean you as an individual cannot note someone
engaging in a crime, or that the crime is not really a crime
unless the person is caught, but the government is supposed to
presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any
such presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a
perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit,
they apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging
something.
Once again
Did you say something snit?
Skeeter
2019-07-31 16:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Danny Luongo
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:42:49 -0700, Snit
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of
innocence. Does not mean you as an individual cannot note someone
engaging in a crime, or that the crime is not really a crime
unless the person is caught, but the government is supposed to
presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any
such presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a
perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit,
they apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging
something.
Once again
Did you say something snit?
His new nym is Snip.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 14:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence.
In the real world people view those screaming "guilty" without even
knowing the quality of the "evidence" as kooks <shrug>.
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.

(snip delusions of "proof")
Ratchetjaw
2019-07-31 15:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence.
In the real world people view those screaming "guilty" without even
knowing the quality of the "evidence" as kooks <shrug>.
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
(snip delusions of "proof")
Could you imagine snit serving on a jury?
The other 11 jurors would kill him and then they themselves
would be on trial.
--
Ratchet Jaw
The Locked and Loaded Jew

More on Snit's trolling
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html

Over 100 people ridicule Snit
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

Typical Snit trolling methods
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 15:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ratchetjaw
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence.
In the real world people view those screaming "guilty" without even
knowing the quality of the "evidence" as kooks <shrug>.
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
(snip delusions of "proof")
Could you imagine snit serving on a jury?
The other 11 jurors would kill him and then they themselves
would be on trial.
Hehe ;)

I figure the local cops have already alerted the necessary folks to see
to it that he never gets a summons, well... a jury summons, anyway
(apparently he has a bit of a criminal history).
Ratchetjaw
2019-07-31 15:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Ratchetjaw
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence.
In the real world people view those screaming "guilty" without even
knowing the quality of the "evidence" as kooks <shrug>.
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
(snip delusions of "proof")
Could you imagine snit serving on a jury?
The other 11 jurors would kill him and then they themselves
would be on trial.
Hehe ;)
I figure the local cops have already alerted the necessary folks to see
to it that he never gets a summons, well... a jury summons, anyway
(apparently he has a bit of a criminal history).
There are several LEO in my family so I get to hear the "war stories"
at family gatherings and such so believe me the local PD typically
know the cranks in their precinct.

A total wanker like snit is most
certainly on the radar even if he has never committed a crime. Oddball
behavior, a nosey neighbor etc is all it takes to raise suspicion.
And this is even more prevalent in a small town where people know
each other's business.

And then there is the Internet. So who hasn't Googled their neighbors
or friends names at some point?
Everybody does it and most people have boring, uninteresting lives so
the snoop moves on.
Try that same experiment with snit and see what happens.
And most if it is the result of him posting personal information
about himself and his family so he has nobody to blame but himself.
--
Ratchet Jaw
The Locked and Loaded Jew

More on Snit's trolling
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html

Over 100 people ridicule Snit
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

Typical Snit trolling methods
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html
Snit
2019-07-31 15:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ratchetjaw
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Ratchetjaw
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence.
In the real world people view those screaming "guilty" without even
knowing the quality of the "evidence" as kooks <shrug>.
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
(snip delusions of "proof")
Could you imagine snit serving on a jury?
The other 11 jurors would kill him and then they themselves
would be on trial.
Hehe ;)
I figure the local cops have already alerted the necessary folks to see
to it that he never gets a summons, well... a jury summons, anyway
(apparently he has a bit of a criminal history).
There are several LEO in my family so I get to hear the "war stories"
at family gatherings and such so believe me the local PD typically
know the cranks in their precinct.
A total wanker like snit is most
certainly on the radar even if he has never committed a crime. Oddball
behavior, a nosey neighbor etc is all it takes to raise suspicion.
And this is even more prevalent in a small town where people know
each other's business.
And then there is the Internet. So who hasn't Googled their neighbors
or friends names at some point?
Everybody does it and most people have boring, uninteresting lives so
the snoop moves on.
Try that same experiment with snit and see what happens.
And most if it is the result of him posting personal information
about himself and his family so he has nobody to blame but himself.
Ah, Carroll is playing with his socks again... a sure sign he knows he
backed himself into a corner.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 16:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Ratchetjaw
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Ratchetjaw
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence.
In the real world people view those screaming "guilty" without even
knowing the quality of the "evidence" as kooks <shrug>.
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
(snip delusions of "proof")
Could you imagine snit serving on a jury?
The other 11 jurors would kill him and then they themselves
would be on trial.
Hehe ;)
I figure the local cops have already alerted the necessary folks to see
to it that he never gets a summons, well... a jury summons, anyway
(apparently he has a bit of a criminal history).
There are several LEO in my family so I get to hear the "war stories"
at family gatherings and such so believe me the local PD typically
know the cranks in their precinct.
A total wanker like snit is most
certainly on the radar even if he has never committed a crime. Oddball
behavior, a nosey neighbor etc is all it takes to raise suspicion.
And this is even more prevalent in a small town where people know
each other's business.
And then there is the Internet. So who hasn't Googled their neighbors
or friends names at some point?
Everybody does it and most people have boring, uninteresting lives so
the snoop moves on.
Try that same experiment with snit and see what happens.
And most if it is the result of him posting personal information
about himself and his family so he has nobody to blame but himself.
Ah, Carroll is playing with his socks again... a sure sign he knows he
backed himself into a corner.
Whoever that was had you "spot on"
Snit
2019-07-31 15:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Ratchetjaw
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence.
In the real world people view those screaming "guilty" without even
knowing the quality of the "evidence" as kooks <shrug>.
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
(snip delusions of "proof")
Could you imagine snit serving on a jury?
The other 11 jurors would kill him and then they themselves
would be on trial.
Hehe ;)
I figure the local cops have already alerted the necessary folks to see
to it that he never gets a summons, well... a jury summons, anyway
(apparently he has a bit of a criminal history).
When you play with your socks like this you show off how much you know
you have backed yourself into a corner.

Carry on!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 16:17:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhsbgh$vn6$***@dont-email.me>, "Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none
says...
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Ratchetjaw
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence.
In the real world people view those screaming "guilty" without even
knowing the quality of the "evidence" as kooks <shrug>.
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
(snip delusions of "proof")
Could you imagine snit serving on a jury?
The other 11 jurors would kill him and then they themselves
would be on trial.
Hehe ;)
I figure the local cops have already alerted the necessary folks to see
to it that he never gets a summons, well... a jury summons, anyway
(apparently he has a bit of a criminal history).
His antics with the children at his house should impede any jury duty.
Snit
2019-07-31 15:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ratchetjaw
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence.
In the real world people view those screaming "guilty" without even
knowing the quality of the "evidence" as kooks <shrug>.
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
(snip delusions of "proof")
Could you imagine snit serving on a jury?
The other 11 jurors would kill him and then they themselves
would be on trial.
Poor Carroll lashes out with insecurity again... too afraid to post his
comments without the use of a sock.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
chrisv
2019-07-31 15:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
There are some cases where guilt is obvious, despite the inability to
prove it, in court or otherwise.

The OJ case was one such case. The Kavanaugh case is not.
--
"you ignorantly thought Linux was *perfect* as so many cola nutcases
do" - DumFSck, lying shamelessly
Snit
2019-07-31 15:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
There are some cases where guilt is obvious, despite the inability to
prove it, in court or otherwise.
Exactly.
Post by chrisv
The OJ case was one such case. The Kavanaugh case is not.
Agreed... and there can be many other examples we can find or offer as a
hypothetical situation.

Carroll has referred to "law worship" -- he does not think one is
actually guilty unless one is caught. It is a very immature moral view.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 15:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
There are some cases where guilt is obvious, despite the inability to
prove it, in court or otherwise.
The OJ case was one such case. The Kavanaugh case is not.
The press/social media is often part of the problem. If you do what Snit
suggests doing, you risk the process backfiring. The point here is, you
should only say you *believe* someone is guilty... as based on what you
see. If you haven't seen all of the evidence you can't say any more than
that, in fact, even if you've seen it all it's still just an opinion...
no matters *who* renders it (judge or layperson). There must *always* be
a finding (in court or out) regardless of how "obvious" the guilt
appears to be. It's irresponsible (and potentially dangerous, the
Smollet case *could've* gotten *way* out of hand) to use the words "is
guilty" any other way but you must recognize that whenever they' re
used, they're still just an opinion. If you think about what I'm saying
you'll realize this thought process is the necessary bedrock of due
process. Only the person who 'did it' *knows*, beyond *all* doubt, that
he/she did. As I said, eyewitness testimony is problematic (someone did
it... but maybe that someone looks virtually identical to the person
being charged).

As to the OJ case, apparently it wasn't that "obvious" to all but his
case highlights what my point is... the appearance of how "obvious"
something is to one person, isn't as obvious to another (which is why we
even have things like a presumption of innocence). IOW... you're on the
slippery slope with what you're arguing, Snit is down at the bottom and
Lady Justice is at the top... turn around and go the other way. This is
a topic too many people take *way* too lightly.
Snit
2019-07-31 16:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by chrisv
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely...i
LOL! That's an understatement where *you* are concerned.
There are some cases where guilt is obvious, despite the inability to
prove it, in court or otherwise.
The OJ case was one such case. The Kavanaugh case is not.
The press/social media is often part of the problem.
Yes. And also a part of the solution.
Post by Steve Carroll
If you do what Snit
suggests doing, you risk the process backfiring.
You do not even say what you think I am suggesting!
Post by Steve Carroll
The point here is, you
should only say you *believe* someone is guilty... as based on what you
see. If you haven't seen all of the evidence you can't say any more than
that, in fact, even if you've seen it all it's still just an opinion...
no matters *who* renders it (judge or layperson). There must *always* be
a finding (in court or out) regardless of how "obvious" the guilt
appears to be.
No, Carroll -- you are guilty of your harassment even if the question
never appears before any court. YOU are responsible for your actions.
Period. No court or mother figure or whatever is needed.

Your moral code is such you need an authority figure to tell you what is
right and what is wrong. You have a very immature moral code.
Post by Steve Carroll
It's irresponsible (and potentially dangerous, the
Smollet case *could've* gotten *way* out of hand) to use the words "is
guilty" any other way but you must recognize that whenever they' re
used, they're still just an opinion. If you think about what I'm saying
you'll realize this thought process is the necessary bedrock of due
process. Only the person who 'did it' *knows*, beyond *all* doubt, that
he/she did.
The victims and witnesses can also have certainty (which does not mean
they always do). And the person who did it can be like you and insist
that unless they are caught they are not guilty.
Post by Steve Carroll
As I said, eyewitness testimony is problematic (someone did
it... but maybe that someone looks virtually identical to the person
being charged).
Eye witness accounts are very unreliable. Sure.
Post by Steve Carroll
As to the OJ case, apparently it wasn't that "obvious" to all but his
case highlights what my point is... the appearance of how "obvious"
something is to one person, isn't as obvious to another (which is why we
even have things like a presumption of innocence). IOW... you're on the
slippery slope with what you're arguing, Snit is down at the bottom and
Lady Justice is at the top... turn around and go the other way. This is
a topic too many people take *way* too lightly.
See how you lash out against me speaking FOR me. You do that a lot.

And you confuse ACTUAL guilt with being FOUND guilty. You do it above
repeatedly.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-31 15:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:42:49 -0700, Snit
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence. That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely... for example it is fair to say that there
is proof you lied when you brought up "The Old Neighborhood Restaurant"
website and claimed it was made with WordPress. Here is the overwhelming
evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that you lied... what would
http://web.archive.org/web/20150217224456/http://oldneighborhoodrestaurant.net/
OR <http://tinyurl.com/y2u3goth>
    -----
    <meta name="generator" content="Starfield Technologies;
    Go Daddy Website Builder v6.1.7"/>
    -----
    -----
    If I'm the one lying, prove I had anything to do with that site.
    ----
Yes, you got yourself so twisted up you demanded I prove you made the
site you just insisted you made... LOL!
Carroll snipped and ran from this. He simply has no reasoned response.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-31 15:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:42:49 -0700, Snit
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence. That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely... for example it is fair to say that there
is proof you lied when you brought up "The Old Neighborhood Restaurant"
website and claimed it was made with WordPress. Here is the overwhelming
evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that you lied... what would
http://web.archive.org/web/20150217224456/http://oldneighborhoodrestaurant.net/
OR <http://tinyurl.com/y2u3goth>
    -----
    <meta name="generator" content="Starfield Technologies;
    Go Daddy Website Builder v6.1.7"/>
    -----
    -----
    If I'm the one lying, prove I had anything to do with that site.
    ----
Yes, you got yourself so twisted up you demanded I prove you made the
site you just insisted you made... LOL!
Carroll snipped and ran again.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 16:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence. That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely... for example it is fair to say that there
is proof you lied when you brought up "The Old Neighborhood Restaurant"
website and claimed it was made with WordPress. Here is the overwhelming
evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that you lied... what would
http://web.archive.org/web/20150217224456/http://oldneighborhoodrestaurant.net/
OR <http://tinyurl.com/y2u3goth>
-----
<meta name="generator" content="Starfield Technologies;
Go Daddy Website Builder v6.1.7"/>
-----
-----
If I'm the one lying, prove I had anything to do with that site.
----
Yes, you got yourself so twisted up you demanded I prove you made the
site you just insisted you made... LOL!
He didn't say that, you did.
Snit
2019-07-31 16:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Ridiculous!
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Once again Carroll speaks FOR others instead of trying to understand
what they are saying.
Proof is a term used in math and logic... in the real world you never
truly have "proof", you have evidence. That is why the standard in court
is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In casual conversation, though, we use
the term proof more loosely... for example it is fair to say that there
is proof you lied when you brought up "The Old Neighborhood Restaurant"
website and claimed it was made with WordPress. Here is the overwhelming
evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that you lied... what would
http://web.archive.org/web/20150217224456/http://oldneighborhoodrestaurant.net/
OR <http://tinyurl.com/y2u3goth>
-----
<meta name="generator" content="Starfield Technologies;
Go Daddy Website Builder v6.1.7"/>
-----
-----
If I'm the one lying, prove I had anything to do with that site.
----
Yes, you got yourself so twisted up you demanded I prove you made the
site you just insisted you made... LOL!
He didn't say that, you did.
I literally quoted him and provided a message ID and yet you still deny
he said what he said. LOL!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
chrisv
2019-07-31 14:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Idiots. In a real trial, evidence is presented, and that includes
testimony. Just like what happened in the Kavanaugh case.

The actual differences are, obviously, the need to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the penalties for being found "guilty".
--
'The results (http://tinyurl.com/DumFSck) from last year prove, once
again, that "choice!" isn't nearly as important to Linux users as
(chrisv) and RonG and others claim it is.' - DumFSck, lying
shamelessly
Ratchetjaw
2019-07-31 14:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Idiots. In a real trial, evidence is presented, and that includes
testimony. Just like what happened in the Kavanaugh case.
The actual differences are, obviously, the need to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the penalties for being found "guilty".
I agree with this. The problem with snit is that not only does he make
accusations he cannot prove, but then he couples them with his convoluted
thought process and poor reading comprehension skills which just adds
fire to his false, statements.

The guy is really fucked up in the head.
--
Ratchet Jaw
The Locked and Loaded Jew

More on Snit's trolling
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html

Over 100 people ridicule Snit
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

Typical Snit trolling methods
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html
Snit
2019-07-31 15:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ratchetjaw
Post by chrisv
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Idiots. In a real trial, evidence is presented, and that includes
testimony. Just like what happened in the Kavanaugh case.
The actual differences are, obviously, the need to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the penalties for being found "guilty".
I agree with this. The problem with snit is that not only does he make
accusations he cannot prove, but then he couples them with his convoluted
thought process and poor reading comprehension skills which just adds
fire to his false, statements.
The guy is really fucked up in the head.
Another Carroll sock post.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 15:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Idiots. In a real trial, evidence is presented, and that includes
testimony. Just like what happened in the Kavanaugh case.
The actual differences are, obviously, the need to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the penalties for being found "guilty".
And, as I alluded to earlier with my question, that you can object at
the direct point in time when 'side issues' are dragged in to confuse
things, potentially silencing them (that's huge IMO).
Snit
2019-07-31 15:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Skeeter
In a real trial you have to show proof.
That appears to be the issue with some of these posters, like Snit, they
apparently to believe "proof" is someone merely alleging something.
Idiots. In a real trial, evidence is presented, and that includes
testimony. Just like what happened in the Kavanaugh case.
The actual differences are, obviously, the need to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the penalties for being found "guilty".
With Kavanaugh it was not just about if he was guilty but if he was
qualified for a job (one could be not guilty but still not qualified).
The question of guilt was never made clear, but it was very clear by his
responses he was not fit for the job.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-31 04:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
He was given a job interview, showed himself to be unfit for the job,
and then got it anyway. The Republicans failed the US.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 14:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
He was given a job interview, showed himself to be unfit for the job,
and then got it anyway. The Republicans failed the US.
He did fine, how would you react if a bunch of whores "conveniently"
showed up with a bunch of lies?
Snit
2019-07-31 16:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
He was given a job interview, showed himself to be unfit for the job,
and then got it anyway. The Republicans failed the US.
He did fine,
He showed himself to be unfit for the job. His bias makes him unfit.

And below you push to irrelevancies.
Post by Skeeter
how would you react if a bunch of whores "conveniently"
showed up with a bunch of lies?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Siri Cruise
2019-07-31 09:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Just wait. His drunk driving arrest is imminent.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Skeeter
2019-07-31 14:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Just wait. His drunk driving arrest is imminent.
Tissue?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-31 14:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
True... things would have gone *much* easier for him in a trial.
Just wait. His drunk driving arrest is imminent.
Before or after Trump's imminent impeachment?

"Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
-Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.  It's more like 100
yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
CAUTION: Hazardous Machinery. Remain outside of yellow lines while
goalposts are in motion.
<snicker>
Most of the border area is desolate and there's no good reason to be
just wandering around there.
Who decides that? You?
BRB, I think I hear the phone.
It's France calling, they want their statue back.
SPANKY-SPANKY!

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........

Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 03:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........
Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
Pointing out what they can do is not defending them. As I've said a
number of times, I think Trump is a pathologically lying narcissist, not
quite Snit level but close enough (but that doesn't mean I believe he's
incapable of doing the job... most politicians share those traits). I've
also said I don't like some of the stuff that's being done... but I
understand why. To me, the irony here is Trump's moves on this are based
on things largely put into action by Dem Presidents (Johnson's INA and
Clinton's IIRIRA). Trump would *never* stand a chance of getting things
like that through but he didn't have to, the Dems of old already signed
them. Regarding immigration rights, some of the things you're in here
complaining about the loudest (that you're pissed at Trump about) are
'Dem approved' and not a word from any of you, despite the fact that
Trump would be unable to tag policy to those acts if Dems didn't sign
them into law in the first place.
kensi
2019-07-31 04:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........
Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
Pointing out what they can do is not defending them.
You've done more than that, disingenuous k0Ok; you've argued that the
awful things they are doing near the border are somehow "necessary" for
America's "security", though nothing could be further from the truth.
And while doing so you've also evinced racial animus toward Latinx
people and Hispanics.

*That* constitutes defending them. And it makes you a goosestepping
jackbooted fascist Nazi thug.

SPNAK!
Post by Steve Carroll
some of the things you're in here complaining about the loudest (that
you're pissed at Trump about) are 'Dem approved'
Center-right corporate DINO approved, perhaps. Which is why we need to
primary nearly every single one of those motherfuckers and replace them
so that in 2020 there are 538 Ocasio-Cortezes running for the House of
Representatives on the Dem ticket, 100 Ilhan Omars running for the
Senate, and a Rashida Tlaib and an Ayanna Presley on the Pres/Veep
ticket (though those last two's actual names would likely be "Warren"
and "Sanders").
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Snit
2019-07-31 04:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........
Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
Pointing out what they can do is not defending them.
You've done more than that, disingenuous k0Ok; you've argued that the
awful things they are doing near the border are somehow "necessary" for
America's "security", though nothing could be further from the truth.
He wants to toss out equal rights so he does not have to see as many
people who are of the race(s) he wants to be profiled.
Post by kensi
And while doing so you've also evinced racial animus toward Latinx
people and Hispanics.
Absolutely correct.
Post by kensi
*That* constitutes defending them. And it makes you a goosestepping
jackbooted fascist Nazi thug.
At least echos of that.
Post by kensi
SPNAK!
Post by Steve Carroll
some of the things you're in here complaining about the loudest (that
you're pissed at Trump about) are 'Dem approved'
Center-right corporate DINO approved, perhaps. Which is why we need to
primary nearly every single one of those motherfuckers and replace them
so that in 2020 there are 538 Ocasio-Cortezes running for the House of
Representatives on the Dem ticket, 100 Ilhan Omars running for the
Senate, and a Rashida Tlaib and an Ayanna Presley on the Pres/Veep
ticket (though those last two's actual names would likely be "Warren"
and "Sanders").
I would be happy to see any two of Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg in any
order. Have not watched tonight's debate yet -- I do know Sanders did a
poor job in the first, hopefully he did better tonight.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 14:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........
Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
Pointing out what they can do is not defending them.
You've done more than that, disingenuous k0Ok; you've argued that the
awful things they are doing near the border are somehow "necessary" for
America's "security", though nothing could be further from the truth.
He wants to toss out equal rights so he does not have to see as many
people who are of the race(s) he wants to be profiled.
Post by kensi
And while doing so you've also evinced racial animus toward Latinx
people and Hispanics.
Absolutely correct.
Post by kensi
*That* constitutes defending them. And it makes you a goosestepping
jackbooted fascist Nazi thug.
At least echos of that.
Post by kensi
SPNAK!
Post by Steve Carroll
some of the things you're in here complaining about the loudest (that
you're pissed at Trump about) are 'Dem approved'
Center-right corporate DINO approved, perhaps. Which is why we need to
primary nearly every single one of those motherfuckers and replace them
so that in 2020 there are 538 Ocasio-Cortezes running for the House of
Representatives on the Dem ticket, 100 Ilhan Omars running for the
Senate, and a Rashida Tlaib and an Ayanna Presley on the Pres/Veep
ticket (though those last two's actual names would likely be "Warren"
and "Sanders").
I would be happy to see any two of Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg in any
order. Have not watched tonight's debate yet -- I do know Sanders did a
poor job in the first, hopefully he did better tonight.
They all still acted like sore losing libtards, nothing to see.
Snit
2019-07-31 16:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........
Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
Pointing out what they can do is not defending them.
You've done more than that, disingenuous k0Ok; you've argued that the
awful things they are doing near the border are somehow "necessary" for
America's "security", though nothing could be further from the truth.
He wants to toss out equal rights so he does not have to see as many
people who are of the race(s) he wants to be profiled.
Post by kensi
And while doing so you've also evinced racial animus toward Latinx
people and Hispanics.
Absolutely correct.
Post by kensi
*That* constitutes defending them. And it makes you a goosestepping
jackbooted fascist Nazi thug.
At least echos of that.
Post by kensi
SPNAK!
Post by Steve Carroll
some of the things you're in here complaining about the loudest (that
you're pissed at Trump about) are 'Dem approved'
Center-right corporate DINO approved, perhaps. Which is why we need to
primary nearly every single one of those motherfuckers and replace them
so that in 2020 there are 538 Ocasio-Cortezes running for the House of
Representatives on the Dem ticket, 100 Ilhan Omars running for the
Senate, and a Rashida Tlaib and an Ayanna Presley on the Pres/Veep
ticket (though those last two's actual names would likely be "Warren"
and "Sanders").
I would be happy to see any two of Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg in any
order. Have not watched tonight's debate yet -- I do know Sanders did a
poor job in the first, hopefully he did better tonight.
They all still acted like sore losing libtards, nothing to see.
What parts of the debate do you mean?

And off you run.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 04:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........
Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
Pointing out what they can do is not defending them.
You've done more than that, disingenuous k0Ok; you've argued that the
awful things they are doing near the border are somehow "necessary" for
America's "security",
Some of them unquestionably are but most of the bitching I've seen is
based on the fact that the laws I've pointed out exist, which is goofy
ESPECIALLY given the fact of *why* they can exist (see below).
Post by kensi
though nothing could be further from the truth.
And while doing so you've also evinced racial animus toward Latinx
people and Hispanics.
*That* constitutes defending them. And it makes you a goosestepping
jackbooted fascist Nazi thug.
SPNAK!
Post by Steve Carroll
some of the things you're in here complaining about the loudest (that
you're pissed at Trump about) are 'Dem approved'
Center-right corporate DINO approved, perhaps.
<https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/23/2019-15710/designating-aliens-for-expedited-removal>

The authority for it? The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965,
enacted by the 89th United States Congress.

The President: Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson.

The composition of the 89th Congress:
Senate Majority - Democratic
House Majority - Democratic
Snit
2019-07-31 14:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........
Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
Pointing out what they can do is not defending them.
But saying they should do what they do, which you have repeatedly done,
is. And when you specifically brought up people of different races and
backed racial profiling you were directly backing racial bigotry.
Post by Steve Carroll
As I've said a
number of times, I think Trump is a pathologically lying narcissist,
Hence why you identify with him. OK.
Post by Steve Carroll
not
quite Snit level but close enough (but that doesn't mean I believe he's
incapable of doing the job... most politicians share those traits).
You think Trump is a capable president. Oy. Yeah, you describe him as a
CAPABLE "pathologically lying narcissist". As I said, you identify with him.
Post by Steve Carroll
I've
also said I don't like some of the stuff that's being done... but I
understand why.
You understand and BACK it. Which is reprehensible.
Post by Steve Carroll
To me, the irony here is Trump's moves on this are based
on things largely put into action by Dem Presidents (Johnson's INA and
Clinton's IIRIRA). Trump would *never* stand a chance of getting things
like that through but he didn't have to, the Dems of old already signed
them.
See: here you are working to make excuses and defend. I do not give a
rats ass about who is abusing children, Democrat or Republican, IT IS WRONG.

You are so caught up in your partisan crap you can only look to excuse
Trump (the "capable" "pathologically lying narcissist") and demonize the
Democrats. You did the same thing as you BACKED the conservative
Democrats of old by supporting the honoring of the symbols of slavery
and racial oppression even as you tried to associate those opposed to
such actions with them.

You are a complete and utter hypocrite, blaming others for what YOU support.
Post by Steve Carroll
Regarding immigration rights, some of the things you're in here
complaining about the loudest (that you're pissed at Trump about) are
'Dem approved' and not a word from any of you, despite the fact that
Trump would be unable to tag policy to those acts if Dems didn't sign
them into law in the first place.
A direct lie from you: I have repeatedly said I denounce it no matter
what party. I do not play your partisan games.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 14:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........
Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
Pointing out what they can do is not defending them.
But saying they should do what they do, which you have repeatedly done,
is.
As I said, I begrudgingly see the need for certain things. You twist
this into "racist!", which is absurd... but that's you.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
As I've said a
number of times, I think Trump is a pathologically lying narcissist,
Hence why you identify with him. OK.
I identify him *with* you... as I said.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
not
quite Snit level but close enough (but that doesn't mean I believe he's
incapable of doing the job... most politicians share those traits).
You think Trump is a capable president.
Like all Presidents, they're not all "capable" in all things. For
example, Obama *sucked* on foreign policy IMO... and had the fed not
kept interest rates in the tank he'd not look half as good as he did on
the economy (which isn't as good as the leftist media portrays him).
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
I've
also said I don't like some of the stuff that's being done... but I
understand why.
You understand and BACK it. Which is reprehensible.
Where "BACK it" means to begrudgingly see the need for certain things in
certain situation.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
To me, the irony here is Trump's moves on this are based
on things largely put into action by Dem Presidents (Johnson's INA and
Clinton's IIRIRA). Trump would *never* stand a chance of getting things
like that through but he didn't have to, the Dems of old already signed
them.
See: here you are working to make excuses and defend.
(snip projections)
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Regarding immigration rights, some of the things you're in here
complaining about the loudest (that you're pissed at Trump about) are
'Dem approved' and not a word from any of you, despite the fact that
Trump would be unable to tag policy to those acts if Dems didn't sign
them into law in the first place.
A direct lie from you: I have repeatedly said I denounce it no matter
what party. I do not play your partisan games.
So point to you denouncing it during the Obama administration, where you
mention and acknowledged that he was in charge. You can't... because
you're doing what I said you're doing.
Snit
2019-07-31 15:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........
Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
Pointing out what they can do is not defending them.
But saying they should do what they do, which you have repeatedly done,
is.
As I said, I begrudgingly see the need for certain things. You twist
this into "racist!", which is absurd... but that's you.
When you back racist profiling you are backing racism... even if you
claim you do not want to be backing racism.

Really, is this too hard for you to understand?
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
As I've said a
number of times, I think Trump is a pathologically lying narcissist,
Hence why you identify with him. OK.
I identify him *with* you... as I said.
You defend him... as shown below. I did not speak of your lies about
me... it is simply not possible to respond to your every lie.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
not
quite Snit level but close enough (but that doesn't mean I believe he's
incapable of doing the job... most politicians share those traits).
You think Trump is a capable president.
Like all Presidents, they're not all "capable" in all things. For
example, Obama *sucked* on foreign policy IMO... and had the fed not
kept interest rates in the tank he'd not look half as good as he did on
the economy (which isn't as good as the leftist media portrays him).
But overall you think Trump is "capable" and referred to him as such,
even though you think he is a "pathologically lying narcissist".

You identify with those traits. Sure.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
I've
also said I don't like some of the stuff that's being done... but I
understand why.
You understand and BACK it. Which is reprehensible.
Where "BACK it" means to begrudgingly see the need for certain things in
certain situation.
Where back it means backing bigotry... even if you say you do not really
want to back what you back you are backing it (good grief you play the
dumbest games).
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
To me, the irony here is Trump's moves on this are based
on things largely put into action by Dem Presidents (Johnson's INA and
Clinton's IIRIRA). Trump would *never* stand a chance of getting things
like that through but he didn't have to, the Dems of old already signed
them.
See: here you are working to make excuses and defend. I do not give a rats ass about who is abusing children, Democrat or Republican, IT IS WRONG.
You are so caught up in your partisan crap you can only look to excuse Trump (the "capable" "pathologically lying narcissist") and demonize the Democrats. You did the same thing as you BACKED the conservative Democrats of old by supporting the honoring of the symbols of slavery and racial oppression even as you tried to associate those opposed to such actions with them.
You are a complete and utter hypocrite, blaming others for what YOU support.
Carroll snipped and ran from this. His partisan crap is completely
indefensible.
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip projections)
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Regarding immigration rights, some of the things you're in here
complaining about the loudest (that you're pissed at Trump about) are
'Dem approved' and not a word from any of you, despite the fact that
Trump would be unable to tag policy to those acts if Dems didn't sign
them into law in the first place.
A direct lie from you: I have repeatedly said I denounce it no matter
what party. I do not play your partisan games.
And below Carroll pretends I was obligated to, years ago, predict this
conversation and let him know my views on it... which is insane. More of
his dishonest crap.
Post by Steve Carroll
So point to you denouncing it during the Obama administration, where you
mention and acknowledged that he was in charge. You can't... because
you're doing what I said you're doing.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 16:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
And below Carroll pretends I was obligated to, years ago, predict this
conversation and let him know my views on it... which is insane. More of
his dishonest crap.
You didn't say shit about the border when Obummer was in charge.
Snit
2019-07-31 16:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
And below Carroll pretends I was obligated to, years ago, predict this
conversation and let him know my views on it... which is insane. More of
his dishonest crap.
You didn't say shit about the border when Obummer was in charge.
Actually I did... repeatedly spoke about how he had more people deported
and how it was not something I backed. Of course, now things are MUCH
worse, and Obama, as far as I know, never ignored court orders over the
border.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Sex ed doesn't work, people like to fuck and they are going to.
That's the reason why *abstinence-only* sex ed doesn't work.
*Comprehensive* sex ed is, of course, another matter.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
2019-07-31 00:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Sex ed doesn't work, people like to fuck and they are going to.
That's the reason why *abstinence-only* sex ed doesn't work.
*Comprehensive* sex ed is, of course, another matter.
I think it's high time somebody arranged for Nads to
disappear before she can reproduce her faulty genetics.
--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregory

Nadegda, kensi and Pandora » the three are easily
ignored misandrists and anti-American, leftist liars.
Checkmate
2019-07-31 01:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Sex ed doesn't work, people like to fuck and they are going to.
That's the reason why *abstinence-only* sex ed doesn't work.
*Comprehensive* sex ed is, of course, another matter.
I think it's high time somebody arranged for Nads to
disappear before she can reproduce her faulty genetics.
That would require a guy desperate enough to pork her. The purple hair would
be enough to put ME off.
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
kensi
2019-07-31 03:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by Nadegda
Sex ed doesn't work, people like to fuck and they are going to.
That's the reason why *abstinence-only* sex ed doesn't work.
*Comprehensive* sex ed is, of course, another matter.
I think it's high time somebody arranged for Nads to
disappear before she can reproduce her faulty genetics.
Ko000KTHr34t!!1!
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Snit
2019-07-31 00:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Sex ed doesn't work, people like to fuck and they are going to.
That's the reason why *abstinence-only* sex ed doesn't work.
*Comprehensive* sex ed is, of course, another matter.
Correct.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-31 01:32:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhql9p$2am$***@dont-email.me>, ***@gmail.invalid
says...
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Sex ed doesn't work, people like to fuck and they are going to.
That's the reason why *abstinence-only* sex ed doesn't work.
*Comprehensive* sex ed is, of course, another matter.
Nice kilfile.
Nadegda
2019-07-31 00:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
...
         -----
         There's more people in NY city than there
         is along the border.
         -----
...
It is a simple fact that there is a 100-mile wide border on the US
which is commonly called the "Constitution-free zone".
It's commonly called the 100-mile border zone.
Yes, which makes it only that much more clear that it is "along the
border".
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone -----
• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people
living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that
Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and
across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the
100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal
border. That's about 200 million people.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely
or almost entirely within this area.
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the
2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San
Jose.
-----
They list Phoenix there, but while outlying areas around Phoenix are in
that zone, Phoenix itself I do not think is. The closest part of Phoenix
itself seems to be about 105 miles away (again based on using Google
Maps... certainly not a perfect measure).
And there's a ticking bomb lurking beneath the liberty of nearly every
American living *outside* of the Constitution-free zone.

When some point is reached, it's a sure bet the rightards will push an
interpretation of that law whereby the perimeters of the little bits of
foreign territory containing embassies, and the Customs desks of
international airports, also count as borders and get 100-mile
Constitution-free zones surrounding them. At which point every major city,
even in flyover states, and most of the rest of the interior becomes part
of the Constitution-free zone. That 67% becomes over 99% then.

And it's a sure bet that the Kavanaugh court will accept that
interpretation ...
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-31 00:19:23 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:14:56 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
And there's a ticking bomb lurking beneath the liberty of nearly every
American living *outside* of the Constitution-free zone.
It's called The Democratic Party.

Trouble is, it's underneath the ones living INSIDE the zone as well.
Snit
2019-07-31 00:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
...
         -----
         There's more people in NY city than there
         is along the border.
         -----
...
It is a simple fact that there is a 100-mile wide border on the US
which is commonly called the "Constitution-free zone".
It's commonly called the 100-mile border zone.
Yes, which makes it only that much more clear that it is "along the
border".
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone -----
• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people
living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that
Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and
across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the
100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal
border. That's about 200 million people.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely
or almost entirely within this area.
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the
2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San
Jose.
-----
They list Phoenix there, but while outlying areas around Phoenix are in
that zone, Phoenix itself I do not think is. The closest part of Phoenix
itself seems to be about 105 miles away (again based on using Google
Maps... certainly not a perfect measure).
And there's a ticking bomb lurking beneath the liberty of nearly every
American living *outside* of the Constitution-free zone.
When some point is reached, it's a sure bet the rightards will push an
interpretation of that law whereby the perimeters of the little bits of
foreign territory containing embassies, and the Customs desks of
international airports, also count as borders and get 100-mile
Constitution-free zones surrounding them. At which point every major city,
even in flyover states, and most of the rest of the interior becomes part
of the Constitution-free zone. That 67% becomes over 99% then.
Excellent point. They already count the Great Lakes as a border, even
though that is not where the border is (and Lake Michigan is fully within
the US borders).
Post by Nadegda
And it's a sure bet that the Kavanaugh court will accept that
interpretation ...
I fear you are correct.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Just Wondering
2019-07-31 06:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
...
         -----
         There's more people in NY city than there
         is along the border.
         -----
...
It is a simple fact that there is a 100-mile wide border on the US
which is commonly called the "Constitution-free zone".
It's commonly called the 100-mile border zone.
Yes, which makes it only that much more clear that it is "along the
border".
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone -----
• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people
living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that
Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and
across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the
100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal
border. That's about 200 million people.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely
or almost entirely within this area.
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the
2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San
Jose.
-----
They list Phoenix there, but while outlying areas around Phoenix are in
that zone, Phoenix itself I do not think is. The closest part of Phoenix
itself seems to be about 105 miles away (again based on using Google
Maps... certainly not a perfect measure).
And there's a ticking bomb lurking beneath the liberty of nearly every
American living *outside* of the Constitution-free zone.
When some point is reached, it's a sure bet the rightards will push an
interpretation of that law whereby the perimeters of the little bits of
foreign territory containing embassies, and the Customs desks of
international airports, also count as borders and get 100-mile
Constitution-free zones surrounding them. At which point every major city,
even in flyover states, and most of the rest of the interior becomes part
of the Constitution-free zone. That 67% becomes over 99% then.
It's funny how y'all have convinced yourselves that there even is
such a thing as a Constitution-free zone.
kensi
2019-07-31 03:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Outer filthers are scum.
*ducks into small interior room in basement and waits for
planetary-surface-sterilizing blast wave to pass*

Well, there goes every single irony meter ever manufactured,
simultaneously. And here I'd thought it would be a nuclear war that did it!
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Skeeter
2019-07-31 14:04:44 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhr378$24t$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Outer filthers are scum.
*ducks into small interior room in basement and waits for
planetary-surface-sterilizing blast wave to pass*
Well, there goes every single irony meter ever manufactured,
simultaneously. And here I'd thought it would be a nuclear war that did it!
I have never outer filthed anyone. Nice KilFile you have there.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-31 14:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-31 14:38:57 UTC
Permalink
...
Hmmm, looking at https://youtu.be/PSHDc1Fg8eE?t=12 I see
Carroll shows
his real name... he has denied that was his name in the past.
View it quickly before he deletes that video.
How can I delete a video on an account you made using my name?
You have Snip going to all that trouble? Good job old bean.
First, it is not his name. As he shows in the video his name is
Steven
Petruzzellis. But now that Carroll has disavowed those videos,
I can
repost them with comments and not worry about copyright issues.
He just did me a favor with this claim of his.
Your obsession and stalking is noted. He must have really found
your
button.
Here's another little 'Snit funny'... the video there labeled "Old
Neighborhood" uses WordPress (I took a theme and tweaked it). Anyone
doing web dev would have been able to figure this out easily,
especially
if they had the additional info Snit had (WP plugin data coming from
that site) but Snit was unable to figure out it was WP, he even
denied
it when I kept telling him it was... yet, elsewhere, he bragged
how WP
sites were easy for him to spot because they used templates. You
can't
pay for his kind of comedy ;)
Ah, your pasta trolling... but this time I will bite (your lie
here is
so amazingly easy to show it makes it fun to do so).
http://web.archive.org/web/20150217224456/http://oldneighborhoodrestaurant.net/
OR <http://tinyurl.com/y2u3goth>
     -----
     <meta name="generator" content="Starfield Technologies;
     Go Daddy Website Builder v6.1.7"/>
     -----
Why do you tell lies so trivial to show to be lies?
LOL! Ran out of material so soon?
If I'm the one lying,
There is no "if". You are.
Yet, you're unable to show it. OTOH, I pointed to the single piece of
what you called your "evidence" that linked me to the site you claim I
built... but that "evidence" points to a WP site. So how does this all
work in your head? How does a WP plugin work on a Sitebuilder site?
You're a Pro Web Dev, explain it. LOL!
Carroll, brought up his "The Old Neighborhood Restaurant" website and
says it was originally made with WordPress. It was trivial to show
http://web.archive.org/web/20150217224456/http://oldneighborhoodrestaurant.net/
OR <http://tinyurl.com/y2u3goth>
     -----
     <meta name="generator" content="Starfield Technologies;
     Go Daddy Website Builder v6.1.7"/>
     -----
     -----
     If I'm the one lying, prove I had anything to do with that site.
     ----
Carroll is demanding I prove he made the site he just insisted he
made... LOL!
....
Of course Carroll snipped and ran. He got himself more twisted up with
his "pretzel logic" than his norm. Rather amusing... but really he did
this to change the topic from how he demands he has rights when the
police speak to him about his harassment of others that he denies to
people of darker skin. He is a liar, a hypocrite, and a bigot.
Carroll ran again, crying I am reminding him of what he is too cowardly
to face.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Loading...