Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politi...#ixzz1r4dL1dML

I love these guys!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politi...#ixzz1r4dL1dML

I love these guys!

Wes Harris, a Phoenix resident and tea-party member, also testified with Burges, repeating theories about the declaration that have been floated among conservative organizations such as the John Birch Society, which refer to the declaration as "Agenda 21."

Harris claimed the declaration "is an attempt to implement a one-world order. It's been going on for 20 years. It has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. It has been snuck around the back door by the Clinton administration."

Oh my god. This means that there are 20 other new-world-order agendas out there sneaking around America's undefended back door.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Oh my god. This means that there are 20 other new-world-order agendas out there sneaking around America's undefended back door.

Just because you're back door is undefended doesn't mean that the rest of ours are.

Although this revelation does explain why you stood Hank up.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Oh my god. This means that there are 20 other new-world-order agendas out there sneaking around America's undefended back door.

don't worry, it's not good, but also not quite as bad as it sounds.

I know the first five agendas had to do with putting our precious betamax and VHS technologies on Euro cyclic timing. Agenda 6 would make all of our pay phone booths British red.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This law student has cojones.

Justice Antonin Scalia got more than he bargained for when he accepted the NYU Annual Survey of American Law's invitation to engage students in a Q&A session. Randomly selected to attend the limited-seating and closed-to-the-press event, NYU law school student Eric Berndt asked Scalia to explain his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that overturned Bowers v. Hardwick and struck down the nation's sodomy laws. Not satisfied with Scalia's answer, Berndt asked the Justice, "Do you sodomize your wife?" Scalia demurred and law school administrators promptly turned off Berndt's microphone. As Berndt explains in his post to fellow law school students, it was an entirely fair question to pose to a Justice whose opinion--had it been in the majority--would have allowed the state to ask that same question to thousands of gays and lesbians, and to punish them if the answer is yes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Let me be the first to say that my reaction to Obama's comments on overturning ACA was "WTF?"

But hearing all the Rs passionately defending Judicial Activism is really enormously amusing. Do these guys ever listen to themselves speak?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This law student has cojones.

I was gonna say he has cajones but not originality as I recall hearing about someone asking that question years ago. But I see you've linked a 2005 article, so perhaps this is the original cajone-full law student I recalled.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I was gonna say he has cajones but not originality as I recall hearing about someone asking that question years ago. But I see you've linked a 2005 article, so perhaps this is the original cajone-full law student I recalled.

Huh. I must have missed it at the time, and just saw someone linking to it on Twitter so thought it was recent. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Let me be the first to say that my reaction to Obama's comments on overturning ACA was "WTF?"

But hearing all the Rs passionately defending Judicial Activism is really enormously amusing. Do these guys ever listen to themselves speak?

Obama's remarks were a post-argument brief to the conservatives on the Supreme Court -- to remind them that they cannot make a political decision without taking political heat, he turned up the temperature. It is wonderful to watch conservatives rise to the bait, because they are truly doing his work for him.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Huh. I must have missed it at the time, and just saw someone linking to it on Twitter so thought it was recent. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

But in 2005, who would have suggested to Scalia that if the light is out his tail is fair game?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Obama's remarks were a post-argument brief to the conservatives on the Supreme Court -- to remind them that they cannot make a political decision without taking political heat, he turned up the temperature. It is wonderful to watch conservatives rise to the bait, because they are truly doing his work for him.

The Court doesn't get hot. He fucked himself there. I'm starting to think about not voting this year, the man is not a good chess player.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The Court doesn't get hot. He fucked himself there. I'm starting to think about not voting this year, the man is not a good chess player.

And you think you not voting is a bad thing for Obama? Huh.

I'd think he and his people would see the best case scenario as those who usually vote republican choosing not to vote, even if that means losing some voters who don't always vote republican. This will be a very different election than the last time around, and voter turnout is going to be way down, in my opinion.

But for what it's worth, I have a very hard time seeing what it is that you are unhappy with about Obama, other than him being an democrat in all.

Just what has he done that you didn't expect when you voted for him or has he not done that you hoped for (aside from your teeth)?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The Court doesn't get hot. He fucked himself there. I'm starting to think about not voting this year, the man is not a good chess player.

I tend to think he just kind of flubbed it and is doing his best to recover. I find it a little uncharacteristic, actually. But the response to the Rs should have been limited to a bit of ridicule, not attempting to discuss the substance. Confronting dumb with dumb, wacko, and insincere really isn't the way to take advantage of dumb.

Though it's not a gimme on the scale of naming Sarah Pallin as your VP candidate, of course. Or attacking contraception.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I tend to think he just kind of flubbed it and is doing his best to recover. I find it a little uncharacteristic, actually. But the response to the Rs should have been limited to a bit of ridicule, not attempting to discuss the substance. Confronting dumb with dumb, wacko, and insincere really isn't the way to take advantage of dumb.

Though it's not a gimme on the scale of naming Sarah Pallin as your VP candidate, of course. Or attacking contraception.

I see him serving his political interests very nicely. I cannot figure out what you and Hank think he should be doing or why it would help him at all.