I am confused as to how this adds or subtracts from what i said (assuming it is aimed at me).... if it is not aimed at me please ignore thisOriginally Posted by Rat Faced
![]()
I am confused as to how this adds or subtracts from what i said (assuming it is aimed at me).... if it is not aimed at me please ignore thisOriginally Posted by Rat Faced
![]()
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Thanks RF but I'm certain that j2 got the reference at once.Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Apparently, avoiding the "appearance of impropriety", long a cornerstone of ethical standards, is just a sop demanded by "silly, know-nothings", eh?Originally Posted by j2k4
Boy, that makes things a lot more expedient.
Ya know, if we could dispense with that silly Constitution that would speed things up too.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
The cynical side of me says the Republican contingent has finally decided to play the game as Democrats have played it for years:Originally Posted by clocker
"What you think you see is an illusion, and if what you think you see actually is happening, you are misinformed as to it's character, relevance, or importance.
Trust us."
In reality, the problem is only one of perception, as it is still formed by the media and liberalism in general.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
I see.Originally Posted by j2k4
So, investigations by the SEC, Justice Dept. and the Pentagon are merely liberal perceptions fueled by the media.
I had no idea we were so supernaturally adept.
Instead of voting against Bush why didn't we think to just levitate him?
Last edited by clocker; 09-25-2005 at 02:47 AM.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
Levitate him rather than vote for him?Originally Posted by clocker
I'm not sure of the political effect of it, but as parlor tricks go, levitation ranks among the best, and doing it for an audience could produce significant revenue.
In these cash-strapped times, I'm sure he could be persuaded; I say, go for it!
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Originally Posted by bill maher
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Originally Posted by vidcc
Would this be the same Bill Maher who thought the 'right to privacy' was given to us in the Constitution?![]()
Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"?Originally Posted by Everose
9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I guess you are laughing at U.S. Court Justice John Roberts 'cause he feels the Constitution covers it too.
(also look up Amendments 3-5 when you get done laughing)
Last edited by Busyman; 09-28-2005 at 12:49 PM.
Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!
Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
---12323---4552-----
2133--STRENGTH--8310
344---5--5301---3232
Originally Posted by JPaul
Hey, I'm all for pulling together to help out my countrymen that are in a jam, make no mistake, but what the Louisiana Legislature is asking for is absurd. That are asking the US federal govt to give them (without even batting an eye) $250 billion on top of the 100's of millions that the govt and private organizations such as the United Way and The Red Cross have done already. They want the federal govt to float the entire bill.
I'm sorry, that those people have been hit so hard, but I don't want my rates and taxes increased so that NO can get a new Superdome ffs. I don't want to pay the $25,000,000 that they're asking for to fund sugarcane research either for example. The LA Legislature is simply being unreasonable. Just like the looters that stole 6 televisions when they only had 2 bedrooms to put them in were going overboard, so is this LA legislature.
I can see where this going already, and I saw it when it happened years ago when the govt paid all the families of 9/11 something like $2.5 million each. They set precedence. If we give LA the money they're asking for, then guess what's going to happen when the next big tornado hits Kansas, or the next fire rips through Arizona.....
yo
Originally Posted by Busyman
No, actually, I am laughing at Bill Maher.![]()
Maher Admits Naivete, Thought “Right
to Privacy” in Constitution
The controversy last week over Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about the slippery slope of the Supreme Court finding a right to any kind of consensual sex based on a “right to privacy” in the penumbra of the Constitution, has had one benefit: A well-known liberal commentator on political issues has conceded his naivete about which rights are in the Constitution.
On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, Maher admitted: “This has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.”
Maher's admission of his naivete came after columnist/author Ann Coulter observed on the April 25 program: “I think what he said was completely defensible and I think it's an important point, which is, you know, the Constitution describes a limited form of government and then there's a Bill of Rights with very few rights. And I think that Americans should start to recognize there are a lot of good things that aren't constitutional rights.”
Maher then conceded: “You know what, this has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.”
You wonder how many journalists share Maher's basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution, a lack of knowledge which may explain much of the bad reporting on the matter.
A right to “privacy” was first broached by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision overturning a state ban on birth control and solidified in the majority's Roe v Wade discovery of a privacy right in the “penumbra” of the Constitution in order to find rationale for overturning state bans on abortion. But it isn't in the Constitution.
Bookmarks