Attacking The Narrative

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Does your drinking keep you up late?

Says Mem, who posted made that post at 20 minutes till 4 AM in the wee hours of the morning. Don't you have a school bus to catch?

poor child. what time zone are you in?

 

[koshergrl]

That is what we folks in cyber world need to be doing. Not so much as attack the press directly but in their comments section. We simply cannot expect honesty in the press until we call them out in public for their lies. And I mean places like Yahoo news where public comment is asked for.

We had the shooting in Orlando and the press is still lying about the weapon of choice. Lets fix that by our comments there. The latest is he did that because he was a "dis-infranchised" homosexual. Despite the fact he swore his actions to islamic state and islam. Lets fix that.

There is no valid reason to accept lies by the press when in their OWN comment sections we CAN speak the truth. Take someone like Yahoo and challenge them head on. Put them in a position where they either have to tell the truth or shut the h#ll up.

Demanding the press tell us the truth has got us no where. We find little to no truth in cyber text, print, TV or radio. Many of those writers think they write above you or you are to stupid to understand. Not sure about you but I think....

We ARE USMB and we don't take to lying and bullsh#t.


Fury

 

[BULLDOG]

Look at your sorry ass excuse for numbers.

1. 
   
   
   • Joined:
     Oct 3, 2011
     Messages:
     40,949
     Thanks Received:
     5,781
     Trophy Points:
     1,832
     Location:
     Inside Mac's Head
     Ratings:
     +14,821
     
     Xband will be kicking your ass in six months. On a percentage he is ALREADY better than you.

Hold on! Are those numbers important? Explain.

Xband carries more rank than you based on percentage. Pumpkin Row has great numbers for a new member. Dale Smith has great numbers. You are a LOSER and it shows.

WOW How exactly do those numbers effect anything? Do you think there is some kind of prize?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Wowza! KrisAnne Hall!!!

The Tea Bagger who got fired for speaking at Tea Party rallies and other conservative forums?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Look at your sorry ass excuse for numbers.

1. 
   
   
   • Joined:
     Oct 3, 2011
     Messages:
     40,949
     Thanks Received:
     5,781
     Trophy Points:
     1,832
     Location:
     Inside Mac's Head
     Ratings:
     +14,821
     
     Xband will be kicking your ass in six months. On a percentage he is ALREADY better than you.

Hold on! Are those numbers important? Explain.

Xband carries more rank than you based on percentage. Pumpkin Row has great numbers for a new member. Dale Smith has great numbers. You are a LOSER and it shows.

WOW How exactly do those numbers effect anything? Do you think there is some kind of prize?

He stopped responding.

By the way....you have HORRIBLE numbers. How can you even show your face here?

 

[BULLDOG]

Look at your sorry ass excuse for numbers.

1. 
   
   
   • Joined:
     Oct 3, 2011
     Messages:
     40,949
     Thanks Received:
     5,781
     Trophy Points:
     1,832
     Location:
     Inside Mac's Head
     Ratings:
     +14,821
     
     Xband will be kicking your ass in six months. On a percentage he is ALREADY better than you.

Hold on! Are those numbers important? Explain.

Xband carries more rank than you based on percentage. Pumpkin Row has great numbers for a new member. Dale Smith has great numbers. You are a LOSER and it shows.

WOW How exactly do those numbers effect anything? Do you think there is some kind of prize?

He stopped responding.

By the way....you have HORRIBLE numbers. How can you even show your face here?

How will I ever be able to live with the shame?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

precious

Steve Sailer Sucks: Krisanne Hall reaches mediation in court case

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

"I feel your shame" - DK

 

[koshergrl]

Wowza! KrisAnne Hall!!!

The Tea Bagger who got fired for speaking at Tea Party rallies and other conservative forums?

precious

Steve Sailer Sucks: Krisanne Hall reaches mediation in court case

Good for her.

And now she travels the country, teaching the tenets of the Constitution.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Wowza! KrisAnne Hall!!!

The Tea Bagger who got fired for speaking at Tea Party rallies and other conservative forums?

precious

Steve Sailer Sucks: Krisanne Hall reaches mediation in court case

Good for her.

And now she travels the country, teaching the tenets of the Constitution.

and her audiences walk away more ignorant and ill-informed than they were before they walked in

No surprise though. Even one of Donald Trump's backers knows how stupid that audience is US adults are dumber than the average human | New York Post

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Class has begun:
quotes:
The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

And there are times, although few of them in my view, when originalism is the right way to approach a constitutional issue. But when it comes to difficult, controversial constitutional issues, originalism is a totally inadequate approach. It is worse than inadequate: it hides the ball by concealing the real basis of the decision. But if the idea of a living Constitution is to be defended, it is not enough to show that the competing theory-originalism-is badly flawed. You can't beat somebody with nobody. So I will describe the approach that really is at the core of our living constitutional tradition, an approach derived from the common law and based on precedent and tradition.

* * *

The Common Law
Pick up a Supreme Court opinion, in a constitutional case, at random. Look at how the Justices justify the result they reach. Here is a prediction: the text of the Constitution will play, at most, a ceremonial role. Most of the real work will be done by the Court's analysis of its previous decisions. The opinion may begin with a quotation from the text. "The Fourth Amendment provides . . .," the opinion might say. Then, having been dutifully acknowledged, the text bows out. The next line is "We"-meaning the Supreme Court-"have interpreted the Amendment to require . . . ." And there follows a detailed, careful account of the Court's precedents.

Where the precedents leave off, or are unclear or ambiguous, the opinion will make arguments about fairness or good policy: why one result makes more sense than another, why a different ruling would be harmful to some important interest. ...​

 

[koshergrl]

Wowza! KrisAnne Hall!!!

The Tea Bagger who got fired for speaking at Tea Party rallies and other conservative forums?

precious

Steve Sailer Sucks: Krisanne Hall reaches mediation in court case

Good for her.

And now she travels the country, teaching the tenets of the Constitution.

and her audiences walk away more ignorant and ill-informed than they were before they walked in

No surprise though. Even one of Donald Trump's backers knows how stupid that audience is US adults are dumber than the average human | New York Post

No, they really don't.

Anti-American pieces of shit like you will lobby long and hard to keep people from discussing the constitution...just as you work hard to keep abortionists from using the latest developments meant to increase safety in clinics because it would result in the victims knowing too much about what is being done to them. How telling.

 

[koshergrl]

Class has begun:
quotes:
The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

And there are times, although few of them in my view, when originalism is the right way to approach a constitutional issue. But when it comes to difficult, controversial constitutional issues, originalism is a totally inadequate approach. It is worse than inadequate: it hides the ball by concealing the real basis of the decision. But if the idea of a living Constitution is to be defended, it is not enough to show that the competing theory-originalism-is badly flawed. You can't beat somebody with nobody. So I will describe the approach that really is at the core of our living constitutional tradition, an approach derived from the common law and based on precedent and tradition.

* * *

The Common Law
Pick up a Supreme Court opinion, in a constitutional case, at random. Look at how the Justices justify the result they reach. Here is a prediction: the text of the Constitution will play, at most, a ceremonial role. Most of the real work will be done by the Court's analysis of its previous decisions. The opinion may begin with a quotation from the text. "The Fourth Amendment provides . . .," the opinion might say. Then, having been dutifully acknowledged, the text bows out. The next line is "We"-meaning the Supreme Court-"have interpreted the Amendment to require . . . ." And there follows a detailed, careful account of the Court's precedents.

Where the precedents leave off, or are unclear or ambiguous, the opinion will make arguments about fairness or good policy: why one result makes more sense than another, why a different ruling would be harmful to some important interest. ...​

How dare people read the Constitution! Everybody knows it doesn't mean anything!

Do you think libraries should burn the constitution, along with the Bible?

Should people be imprisoned for gathering to discuss it?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Wowza! KrisAnne Hall!!!

The Tea Bagger who got fired for speaking at Tea Party rallies and other conservative forums?

precious

Steve Sailer Sucks: Krisanne Hall reaches mediation in court case

Good for her.

And now she travels the country, teaching the tenets of the Constitution.

and her audiences walk away more ignorant and ill-informed than they were before they walked in

No surprise though. Even one of Donald Trump's backers knows how stupid that audience is US adults are dumber than the average human | New York Post

No, they really don't.

Anti-American pieces of shit like you will lobby long and hard to keep people from discussing the constitution. It's telling.

too funny

I can't imagine sitting in a room full of Baggers discussing something that is clearly over their heads. I'd rather be forced to do a Bible study with Pentecostals!

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

How dare people read the Constitution! Everybody knows it doesn't mean anything!

Yeah, what we need is more morons and misfits thinking they have critical thinking skills after 'reading'

 

[koshergrl]

Class has begun:
quotes:
The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

And there are times, although few of them in my view, when originalism is the right way to approach a constitutional issue. But when it comes to difficult, controversial constitutional issues, originalism is a totally inadequate approach. It is worse than inadequate: it hides the ball by concealing the real basis of the decision. But if the idea of a living Constitution is to be defended, it is not enough to show that the competing theory-originalism-is badly flawed. You can't beat somebody with nobody. So I will describe the approach that really is at the core of our living constitutional tradition, an approach derived from the common law and based on precedent and tradition.

* * *

The Common Law
Pick up a Supreme Court opinion, in a constitutional case, at random. Look at how the Justices justify the result they reach. Here is a prediction: the text of the Constitution will play, at most, a ceremonial role. Most of the real work will be done by the Court's analysis of its previous decisions. The opinion may begin with a quotation from the text. "The Fourth Amendment provides . . .," the opinion might say. Then, having been dutifully acknowledged, the text bows out. The next line is "We"-meaning the Supreme Court-"have interpreted the Amendment to require . . . ." And there follows a detailed, careful account of the Court's precedents.

Where the precedents leave off, or are unclear or ambiguous, the opinion will make arguments about fairness or good policy: why one result makes more sense than another, why a different ruling would be harmful to some important interest. ...​

"The Khmer Rouge were very clever and brutal. Their tactics were effective because most of us refused to believe their malicious intentions. Their goal was to liberate us. ....

"Even after our warmest welcome, the first word from the Khmer Rouge was a lie wrapped around a deep anger and hatred of the kind of society they felt Cambodia was becoming. They told us that Americans were going to bomb the cities. They forced millions of residents of Phnom Penh and other cities out of their homes. They separated us from our friends and neighbors to keep us off balance, to prevent us from forming any alliance to stand up and win back our rights. They ripped off our homes and our possessions. They did this intentionally, without mercy. "


Children of Cambodia's Killing Fields

 

[paulitician]

Anyone who cares and has common sense, understands it's a 'Government/Corporate Media Complex' now. Just a handful of large Corporations control just about all information Americans receive. And these Corporations are in bed with Government. They've become one entity at this point.

The Corporate Media's job is to create Government-approved narratives to be fed to the Sheeple. Everyone should always question Government/Corporate Media narratives. Because it is all a big lie.

 

[DarkFury]

How dare people read the Constitution! Everybody knows it doesn't mean anything!

Yeah, what we need is more morons and misfits thinking they have critical thinking skills after 'reading'

Hate to break this to you stupid but critical thinking only ID's the problem. Clinical thinking cures the problem. Do try and keep up okay?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Class has begun:
quotes:
The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

And there are times, although few of them in my view, when originalism is the right way to approach a constitutional issue. But when it comes to difficult, controversial constitutional issues, originalism is a totally inadequate approach. It is worse than inadequate: it hides the ball by concealing the real basis of the decision. But if the idea of a living Constitution is to be defended, it is not enough to show that the competing theory-originalism-is badly flawed. You can't beat somebody with nobody. So I will describe the approach that really is at the core of our living constitutional tradition, an approach derived from the common law and based on precedent and tradition.

* * *

The Common Law
Pick up a Supreme Court opinion, in a constitutional case, at random. Look at how the Justices justify the result they reach. Here is a prediction: the text of the Constitution will play, at most, a ceremonial role. Most of the real work will be done by the Court's analysis of its previous decisions. The opinion may begin with a quotation from the text. "The Fourth Amendment provides . . .," the opinion might say. Then, having been dutifully acknowledged, the text bows out. The next line is "We"-meaning the Supreme Court-"have interpreted the Amendment to require . . . ." And there follows a detailed, careful account of the Court's precedents.

Where the precedents leave off, or are unclear or ambiguous, the opinion will make arguments about fairness or good policy: why one result makes more sense than another, why a different ruling would be harmful to some important interest. ...​

"The Khmer Rouge were very clever and brutal. Their tactics were effective because most of us refused to believe their malicious intentions. Their goal was to liberate us. ....

"Even after our warmest welcome, the first word from the Khmer Rouge was a lie wrapped around a deep anger and hatred of the kind of society they felt Cambodia was becoming. They told us that Americans were going to bomb the cities. They forced millions of residents of Phnom Penh and other cities out of their homes. They separated us from our friends and neighbors to keep us off balance, to prevent us from forming any alliance to stand up and win back our rights. They ripped off our homes and our possessions. They did this intentionally, without mercy. "


Children of Cambodia's Killing Fields

Funny, that sounds just like what American colonists who traced their families back to the original puritan settlers said when the mobsters/sons of liberty did the same thing to them: "They separated us from our friends and neighbors to keep us off balance, to prevent us from forming any alliance to stand up and win back our rights. They ripped off our homes and our possessions. They did this intentionally, without mercy. "

They also went after the guns -- they took away the guns of people who did not believe like they did. Loyalists. Loyalist subjects who founded British America

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Wowza! KrisAnne Hall!!!

The Tea Bagger who got fired for speaking at Tea Party rallies and other conservative forums?

precious

Steve Sailer Sucks: Krisanne Hall reaches mediation in court case

Good for her.

And now she travels the country, teaching the tenets of the Constitution.

and her audiences walk away more ignorant and ill-informed than they were before they walked in

No surprise though. Even one of Donald Trump's backers knows how stupid that audience is US adults are dumber than the average human | New York Post

No, they really don't.

Anti-American pieces of shit like you will lobby long and hard to keep people from discussing the constitution. It's telling.

too funny

I can't imagine sitting in a room full of Baggers discussing something that is clearly over their heads. I'd rather be forced to do a Bible study with Pentecostals!

No wonder your writing is shitty, lol. You're a brainwashed, bigoted moron.

Jane? Is that really you?

Saturday Night Live: Point Counterpoint: Lee Marvin and Michelle Triola