Post #196,020
2/22/05 8:06:26 PM
|
I Call Fscking B.S.
This is the most fundadmental of his and my "strict" readers of the Constitution..and obviously something that a room full of lawyers and Judges are going to dispute. Any-fucking-body with an IQ of 40 or greater would dispute, that is. You don't fucking believe this. I know you can't. Because even though I only know you from the fucking drivel that comprises most of what you post, I know you aren't that fucking evil.
Emphasis Mine.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
Wanna fucking defend that "from a literalist POV"???? Of course you don't. Hell fire fuck, no SANE PERSON would. This is what kills me about you so called "literalist" fucks. You don't have the conviction of your words. Oh hell yes, if it benefits corporate Murica, you're all for literalist interpretation. But even the biggest fucking advocates of "literal interpretation" run away from that position when it becomes clear that holding such a view rightly and indisputeably labels them racist. Now, before you give the fucking hand-wave that, "Well, but wait. See, I'm human. I said the legislature should correct this." FUCK that argument with the donkey dick it deserves to be fucked with. You're either a fucking literalist, or you're not. IF the fucking legislature passed a law saying that the people heretofore counted as 3/5 a free white man count for more than that then I'd expect you and all your fucking ilk to raise holy hell because that is NOT what the vaunted Founders intended. Piss off with all this "literalist" crap or goddamnit, accept it en toto. (Aside: And YOU had the fucking balls to call me a racist.) bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,023
2/22/05 8:28:49 PM
|
I'm not a literalist
And I'll defend that.
The Constitution as written reflected the consensus of the day. The point of view of literalists is not that this was an ideal consensus, but that it was a workable one, with a given structure for being updated to reflect changing values. It was a structure that furthermore reflected the fact that several different pillars of government had distinct roles.
The Constitution today bears those words that remind us of the past. The Constitution today very explicitly denies the legality of slavery. Those words are as obsolete as the provisions allowing people born before the USA existed to become President. It did not take unilateral action by the courts to effect this change, as well it should not have.
The worry is that no branch of government should attempt to exceed its authority. The fear is that if any branch of government attempts to take on the power and privileges of another, we're on a road to possible dictatorship and tyranny. That does not deny that the result of this compromise is always going to be human and imperfect. But predictable imperfection is infinitely preferable to predictable tyranny.
After all imagine what could have happened if the courts replaced the legislative and executive branches in the 1850s. The last word on slavery in the USA might well have been the Dredd Scott case. Democracy, while flawed, has produced a far better result in the long run, and I (for one) am thankful for it.
And that is before we consider the potential additional abuses of a dictatorship.
Regards,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,026
2/22/05 8:38:47 PM
|
Hey hoser, you forget which forum you're in, eh?
:-)
Very well said.
Mike needs to find some way to get out of his funk....
Hey Mike, how are you at installing crown molding? >:-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #196,062
2/23/05 9:20:00 AM
|
*chuckle*
I need the damned winter to be over so I can get back in my airplane! I've only flown three times since November. We've had ceilings of 300-400 feet or snow or sleet or both or visibility < 1 mile practically every day I'd have otherwise been able to fly.
My wife (and some co-workers) tell me that I get psychotic as hell if I can't fly at least once a week. I'll get better soon. ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,063
2/23/05 9:36:16 AM
|
We can all chip in for this...
[link|http://www.fs2000.org/a380/index.htm|Fly the Airbus 380].
You know you want to. Yes, you do. Come join the Dark Side and Fly By Wire.
Muahahah!
>:-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #196,082
2/23/05 11:46:19 AM
|
Ya know.
That's why I have never purchased Flight Sim. I'm afraid I'd look awfully silly as an ancient member of the Nintendo generation because I'm sure I'd spend entirely too much time playing with it. :0)
Of course, I'd be more likely to spend hour upon hour with this instead:
[link|http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulator/fs2004_radial_engine.asp|http://www.microsoft...radial_engine.asp]
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,059
2/23/05 8:39:27 AM
|
Feh.
with a given structure for being updated to reflect changing values.
That is the very thing Scalia was arguing against. He said explicitly that he did not believe that those values change and you have to look at original intent.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,072
2/23/05 10:40:28 AM
|
You're wrong about Scalia
Of course he thinks that values change over time. After all the Constitution admits of the possibility of being amended for a reason.
He doesn't think that it is the job of the courts to decide when fundamental values have shifted.
Given that the courts are an unelected body of unaccountable people chosen from a non-representative subset of society, his point makes some sense.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,080
2/23/05 11:38:51 AM
2/23/05 11:39:32 AM
|
Wrong on so many levels.
First, let's take a look at YOU not understanding Scalia. Why speculate about what Scalia means/thinks/whatever (aside from whatever it is that sometimes makes you think you know more than you do)? Here is what the man said himself: What I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what it was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted and I don't think it changes since then. It's about 29 minutes into the clip listed here: [link|http://www.cspan.org/Search/advanced.asp?AdvancedQueryText=scalia&StartDateMonth=1&StartDateYear=2005&EndDateMonth=2&EndDateYear=2005&Series=&ProgramIssue=&QueryType=&QueryTextOptions=&ResultCount=10&SortBy=bestmatch|http://www.cspan.org...&SortBy=bestmatch] Top link, run it up to 28:11 at about 29:00 is where I took the quote. Watch, listen, learn and chow down on crow. Second, WTF does this mean? Given that the courts are an unelected body of unaccountable people chosen from a non-representative subset of society,... Judges are either elected directly or appointed by elected officials who fucking well are "representative". But thanks for playing. bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
Edited by mmoffitt
Feb. 23, 2005, 11:39:32 AM EST
|
Post #196,085
2/23/05 11:49:29 AM
|
But they are NOT legislators, as defined.
So...thanks for playing yourself.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,086
2/23/05 11:52:15 AM
|
Huh?
See if you can follow at least this much:
Ben: Given that the courts are an unelected body of unaccountable people chosen from a non-representative subset of society, his point makes some sense.
Me: Judges (the courts) are either directly elected or are appointed by elected representatives (i.e. chose from a representative, not non-representative subset of society.
Shucks, you baited me and I took it. Dang.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,102
2/23/05 1:52:37 PM
|
Yes, you are indeed
First, let's take a look at YOU not understanding Scalia.
Why speculate about what Scalia means/thinks/whatever (aside from whatever it is that sometimes makes you think you know more than you do)? Here is what the man said himself:
What I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what it was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted and I don't think it changes since then. You know there should be a word for the situation when person M jumps up and down and says what person B would have predicted, and claims it as an example where person B is wrong. The word "irony" sort of fits. "Idiocy" fits better. You don't believe me? Well what would I have predicted? I said that Scalia doesn't think that it is the job of the courts to decide when fundamental values have shifted. Therefore when he, as a judge, attempts to decide based on the Constitution and legislation, he thinks that it is his job to decide based on what was originally meant. Thus he's interested in figuring out what they meant, not what he'd like them to have meant. If what was decided back then is not what society wants today, society knows how to change the Constitution. We've actually succeeded in doing so a couple of dozen times. Once changed it becomes Scalia's job to decide in accord with the amended version, trying to understand the amendments in accord with what people thought they were agreeing to when said amendments are passed. Therefore what Scalia said both fits with what I said, and is what I would have predicted him saying. It's about 29 minutes into the clip listed here:
[link|http://www.cspan.org/Search/advanced.asp?AdvancedQueryText=scalia&StartDateMonth=1&StartDateYear=2005&EndDateMonth=2&EndDateYear=2005&Series=&ProgramIssue=&QueryType=&QueryTextOptions=&ResultCount=10&SortBy=bestmatch|http://www.cspan.org...&SortBy=bestmatch]
Top link, run it up to 28:11 at about 29:00 is where I took the quote. Watch, listen, learn and chow down on crow. Thank you for the detailed instructions for how to learn what I already knew. Incidentally you just confirmed that "idiocy" is definitely the better word to use. Second, WTF does this mean?
Given that the courts are an unelected body of unaccountable people chosen from a non-representative subset of society,... I'd guess it means that the courts (by which I meant the courts that Scalia accuses of legislating from the bench - which is not all courts - I should have been clearer about that) are an unelected body of unaccountable people chosen from a non-representative subset of society. At least that is what I meant it to mean, and it is pretty muchwhat I said. Judges are either elected directly or appointed by elected officials who fucking well are "representative". The judges who are elected directly are elected to lower-level courts that are supposed to take direction from higher-level courts. The judges who are in a position to come up with novel interpretations of the Constitution that other courts are bound to follow (courts up to and including the Supreme Court) are appointed officials and therefore are unelected. Once appointed they are accountable to nobody (how do you remove someone from the Supreme Court?), a measure which is normally considered necessary to reduce the amount of political manipulation that is necessary. Such judges are chosen from the ranks of prominent lawyers, particularly lawyers who have become judges. A brief bit of thought should suffice to indicate that the population of lawyers is hardly representative of society as a whole. That would seem to cover all of the things that I said about the courts. Yup, the important ones are not elected. Judges are unaccountable. And they are chosen from a non-representative subset of society. Check, check and check. But thanks for playing. If you consider this a game then I'd appreciate your making it more fun by saying things that aren't so trivially wrong. So far I've been reduced to pointing out the obvious, and frankly that is getting boring. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,103
2/23/05 1:57:28 PM
|
Judges can be impeached and removed. It's rare though.
|
Post #196,105
2/23/05 2:05:36 PM
2/23/05 2:07:36 PM
|
Edited for clarity.
Elected Representatives appoint the judges you have now twice erroneously claimed were appointed from a "non representative subset" of society. The people on the bench are there because we, The People, elected other folks who reflected our values so that we could have judges that also reflect our values.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
Edited by mmoffitt
Feb. 23, 2005, 02:07:36 PM EST
|
Post #196,106
2/23/05 2:17:33 PM
|
You're talking past each other.
The pool of people from which the judges are selected, ie. lawyers, judges, etc., are not representative of the society as a whole. Not the people appointing them.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #196,110
2/23/05 2:33:28 PM
|
Oh, I understood what Mike said perfectly well
I admit that I'm starting to wonder how many rounds will be needed before he realizes that he's addressing something unrelated to what I said.
Furthermore even what he said is wrong. While it is true that the pool of potential politicians is representative (for most posts, all citizens), the pool of elected politicians is rather non-representative. For instance what fraction of the population is made up of middle-aged millionaire men who graduated from Yale in the 60's and were members of Skull and Bones?
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,111
2/23/05 2:36:01 PM
|
I was being tactful...
I know, wrong forum.
ONE THOUSAND YEARS OF PAIN!!
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #196,113
2/23/05 2:38:35 PM
|
flees of 1000 camels and all that
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,368
2/25/05 6:54:58 PM
|
"Flees" or "Fleas"?
The second one makes somewhat more sense....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #196,369
2/25/05 7:14:01 PM
|
Oooh. Spelling flame. That's a good one.
;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #196,374
2/25/05 7:24:46 PM
|
Yabut...
The first one makes a better LRPDism...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #196,402
2/26/05 7:16:49 AM
|
Ouch
I really am going to have to really watch my typing around here. Being enshrined in a LRPD with a typo is...just...so...you know....
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,406
2/26/05 9:56:43 AM
|
I*DON'T*CLRPD
Come on, Bill. Has anyone ever tried more blatantly for a lrpdism?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #196,408
2/26/05 10:15:55 AM
|
Yes, I've done^H^H^H^Hseen many attempts.
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey[link|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]
|
Post #196,235
2/24/05 4:59:06 PM
|
Hey, if you can't be loose w/an argument here,
where can you? But I still claim its not unrelated. Our elected officials in theory are representative of us (what's that House called again?). And by extension, they serve as our proxies for selecting judges. IOW, our representatives select the type of judges that we would if we were asked.
What I find curious is what I infer from what you've said. You seem to suggest, without explicitly saying so, that it would be better if our judges came from a more representative pool of the public than from lawyers and law professors. I don't like that idea at all.
I'll leave alone your conjecture that a pool of law professors and attorneys are not representative of the public except to say that of the people posting in these fora over the years, I'd wager a pool of lawyers is more likely to be representative of us than a pool comprised of your average Muricans.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,246
2/24/05 6:10:04 PM
|
You mean you're claiming a right to idiocy?
Because you're certainly demonstrating it. How you ask? Well...
- I know few groups who're more likely to pick up on significant details and nitpick than this one. This is a particularly bad choice of places to be loose with your reasoning. I'm amazed that you haven't noticed.
- My claim was that judges are selected from a non-representative population. Your repeated comments about the people doing the selecting do not affect my claim one bit, and your insistance on acting as if it does demonstrates that, having stuck head up ass, you're straining to find daylight at the end of the tunnel.
- I'm not suggesting in any way that judges should come from a more representative pool of people. The pool that they come from is appropriate to the job that they're intended to do. I'm saying that they are not appropriate choices of people to be creating legislation. That's a significant, if subtle, difference. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised if it escapes you, after all right now you're having trouble with the significant non-subtle points, let alone anything that smacks of nuance.
But to give you your due, you've made one very accurate point. A random group of lawyers probably is more representative of this group than a random group of Americans. At least they lawyers could be counted on to be literate... Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,250
2/24/05 6:32:59 PM
|
Have you read any lower court opinions lately?
Considering some of the crap that makes the news, I can only wonder at what the rest of it looks like.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #196,251
2/24/05 6:35:40 PM
|
I've liked the SCO opinions so far :-)
That's a lower court.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,266
2/24/05 8:35:52 PM
|
How about this one
[link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=196262|Post #196262]
Tell me one literate person who's not a judge or lawyer who would use the word "donee" instead of "recipient".
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #196,272
2/24/05 9:09:36 PM
|
Point but...
All present understand what he meant when he said it. How many in the general public would be scratching their heads over whether "donee" was really a word?
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,278
2/24/05 10:20:28 PM
|
what do you call the lawyer that graduates in the bottom of
their class?
Your Honor
quite often the above is true.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #196,321
2/25/05 11:01:38 AM
|
Same deal with physicians. And that's DEADLY.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,322
2/25/05 11:04:03 AM
|
Well, what can I say?
But FUCK YOU, YOU ARROGANT ASS.
My claim was that judges are selected from a non-representative population.
I'm not suggesting in any way that judges should come from a more representative pool of people.
So, what is the problem? What the FUCK is your point? Oh wait, nevermind. I know. You love hearing yourself.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,329
2/25/05 11:42:10 AM
|
My point was pretty simple
It was to respond to your excesses in [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=196020|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=196020]. If you hadn't been an idiot and an asshole, I'd not have responded. If you stop being an idiot and an asshole, I'll stop responding. If I get bored, I'll stop responding.
To be honest, I'm pretty close to the last one of those right now...
Sincerely,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,333
2/25/05 12:05:21 PM
|
Civility has returned - at last.
I actually have another conversation going with a friend on a related topic and we've come down to agreeing that "if the wrong in the Constitution is not directed at you personally, then waiting for a) the legislature to correct the wrong and b) having the Court rule as Scalia claims he does (trying to figure out what the document itself or any amendment within it meant at the time it was adopted) is palatable." I'm actually almost on the other side in my other conversation. I've been arguing with him that "If you believe in the principles upon which this country was founded and the notions of government within the Constitution, then you have to wait for the legislature to amend the Constitution before you can do anything to correct the injustices it contains." Moreover, I'm claiming that the Dred Scott decision (from this framework) was a good decision.
FWIW, I too, tire of the argument ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,334
2/25/05 12:08:38 PM
|
I unexpectedly reached my first condition for stopping
Since we no longer seem to have anything to argue about, I'll stop arguing. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,339
2/25/05 1:38:32 PM
|
:-)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,331
2/25/05 11:57:14 AM
|
The job of legislation was reserved for
common-folk representatives. Not for elite judges.
--
And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings?
-- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
|
Post #196,375
2/25/05 7:28:19 PM
|
On point 1, I meant in "Flame" not in general.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,028
2/22/05 8:45:39 PM
|
Formula is still good
'cause everyone is supposedly a free person now (excluding indians not taxed that is).
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #196,030
2/22/05 8:51:55 PM
|
Well now
wasn't that precious.
Find this and decide that it calls into question the fundamental structure and role of government.
Stick to the marxist revolution.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,031
2/22/05 9:24:38 PM
|
Because obviously
Corpses in the last century is preferable to freed slves the century before.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,032
2/22/05 10:42:55 PM
|
Obvious to some
not to others.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,061
2/23/05 9:15:03 AM
|
I didn't think you could defend your position. Thanks.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,083
2/23/05 11:47:34 AM
|
Defend against what?
An idiotic attack against a section of the document made irrelevent through legislation passed by the appropriate government organization?
You really need to do better than that.
Same situation gave the right to vote to all persons in Art XV...but then was revised again to allow it for WOMEN in XIX. This was done by following the process that the document itself proscribes.
Does this change the even more fundamental structure of government defined by the document that dictates that laws should be made by the appointed legislators?
I think not.
Your indignation is "duly noted" and dismissed.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,084
2/23/05 11:49:03 AM
|
The position that you said you had.
The same as Scalia's. Interpretting what it meant "at the time it was adopted" and not thinking it changed since then.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,093
2/23/05 12:13:24 PM
|
You may want to re-read the thread then.
Because I never stated that position.
I started this with "Legislators should legislate"
You then had some sort of brain spasm and launched into your tirade.
So...thanks again for the enjoyable read.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,100
2/23/05 1:26:01 PM
|
Will you quit baiting me, I'm compulsive.
Do the following words sound familiar to you?
This is the most fundadmental of his [Scalia's] and my "strict" readers of the Constitution..
Pint. Set. Match.
(And yes, Pint was intentional ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,109
2/23/05 2:32:45 PM
|
chuckle
sent off on a typo.
many
my point has simply been to agree with the principle that the bench should not legislate.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,176
2/24/05 6:03:24 AM
|
Re: You may want to re-read the [code] then.
Gawd knows what you or Scalia believe to be "The Intent of the Founders".
But it don't take Gawd to observe the placement of this phrase on the list of Far Right codewords, this very flexible Blab-word, this aging slogan:
It is "legislating from the bench" if it isn't in accord with [my Objective view].
It is [something else; but Good] if, oh just maybe.. this little bit of change is an umm clarification -?- Yes, that's it - just a simple restating of the Good view.
Been there, heard Gingrich's stuff (he literally Wrote the Book on means of obfuscation in political debates, to hand out to the less adept; this during that Contract On Murica spasm. Remember those halcyon days? That handshake about 'election reform' and other amusements for the gullible?)
You can repeat the phrase in all its pristine vagueness, and try to make that sound like profound brevity. Clearly you think you Said something deeep, Beep.
And you did: a code word meaning ... whatever you Want it to mean. cf. Alice
Unless of course, you think there is some book somewhere which perfectly describes the intent behind every English word uttered, to a Moral Certainty\ufffd. Umm, I think you can find a lot of folks who believe in Objective Morality, too.
Slogans. The cyanide pill in the top drawer of the Language Murder beginner's kit. Now sold at WalMart.
Sorry, Charlie - Scalia is a troglodyte; not as oily as Gingrich.. but then, he's got a sinecure and we got to fire the Grinch, back then. (But well may he be back for the final preparations for a nice Xian Armageddon.)
Ya never know How a particular coterie will choose to commit seppuku, natch: for the whole bunch..
|
Post #196,180
2/24/05 6:58:55 AM
|
And that 'code word' was?
Let's go over it again; you tend to forget. Perhaps it's your trouble with language. Perhaps you should get a coach.
Judges interpret the law.
Legislators make the law.
Executives enforce the law.
Judges are not SUPPOSED to legislate.
Legislators are not SUPPOSED to enforce.
Executives are not SUPPOSED to interpret.
etc, etc.
Beep said that Scalia should not make laws. Just interpret them. Of course, in your knee-jerk reaction to anything Beep says, added to feelings toward Scalia, you have to rationalize some half-baked 'reason' for opposing whatever he says. After all, Beep's an EVUL CAPITALIST (tm)
Of course, it's OK if YOU 'murder' the phrase "legislating from the bench".
But then, when you use language, it's NOT murder, it's "mercy killing".
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #196,189
2/24/05 8:51:28 AM
|
ICLRPD :-) (new thread)
Created as new thread #196188 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=196188|ICLRPD :-)]
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,288
2/25/05 5:54:59 AM
|
I do so love stories from True Believers in 'theories'.
Theories like, Judges interpret the law.
Legislators make the law.
Executives enforce the law. Funny. Especially when delivered in high dudgeon and considering all events since 1/00 VS your Theories. Every new decision is an interpretation as may be, on occasion quite different from precedent. Makes no difference if qualified/spun? as "well.. because I think that's 'what' the Legislators Really MEANT" ... yada cha cha. Next you'll be asserting that, Congress Critters '05 represent The Peepul and not preferentially, those who fund them. Because, theoretically: that's "true". Too. Map/territory; heard another person today, besotted with The Theory VS Actual Life involving homo-saps 'thinking'. All theory, dear friend is gray
but the golden tree of life is green.-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe It must be comforting to fit-in the daily shenanigans, ostensibly according to these nice clean \ufffds and pretend that this entire topic, "legislating from the bench cha" is not just a slogan, and in this case -- clearly coopted by the One Party with Two Right Wings. {yet another slogan? / or accurate description. You Be da Judge} Dream on, Mr. Theoretician. (I guess that's sorta expected though; regularly dealing with those neat logical tables which so often work exactly as Mr. Boole suggested. Gosh, so then: it Must Work with actual people, too Oh and, with that other 'Science', Econ. - right?) You can't fire me. I resign from this chicken thread.
.. the whole pseudo-science of The Law.
-- Fred C. Rodell, Dean, Harvard Law School
(Eons ago, I heard him use that phrase after a similar pointless exchange. Nothing. Changes.)
|
Post #196,293
2/25/05 7:28:10 AM
|
Since you are 'chickening' out from this thread
I'll conclude with why you are so completely, terribly wrong that you must raise the 'Boole' strawman again (since 'language murder' failed, and you seem to have a pathological need to rationalize your knee-jerk opposition to anything Beep says)
It's awful funny that the phrase 'legislating from the bench' is far older than the assholes in power right now.
Beep didn't coin it, and it's ALWAYS referred to the same thing.
You know, overstepping the separation of powers and trying to LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH.
Like children, all of our branches of government test their boundries constantly in their hunt for power.
So - because they try to cross them, they don't exist? They are meant to be permiable (gray) in some way? No. NOR SHOULD THEY BE, you idiot. Saying that Scalia shouldn't legislate from the bench is recognition that Scalia is overstepping the bounds for branches of government. It doesn't deny that it can happen. It's not a sloppy phrase.
Here's an illustration that might penetrate your completely closed mind: There are 'boundaries' painted on the shoulder of a road. They are necessary. They are clear. Sometimes cars pass on the shoulder (a dangerous act), however. That doesn't mean the boundary is a 'gray area', even if the get away with it. If another driver says 'Hey - you shouldn't be driving on the shoulder', that doesn't mean they are saying something wrong, or foolish. The comment isn't something that requires a weighty judgement call. It is, simply, correct.
Get it? I mean, this is so simple, even you SHOULD be able to get it - unless you decide to view things through your frosted glasses again.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #196,299
2/25/05 8:04:17 AM
|
He's got a point. As do you.
The problem with a lot of legislation these days is that it is vague. It seems to be written, in many cases, to invite court challenges. In addition, in many cases the law is written to say, "the executive agency shall draw up rules to enforce this act" or some such, inviting suits by those who disagree with the enforcement provisions, or lack thereof. The lines between the branches get blurred and the courts, in many cases, have to sharpen up what the legislation means over time. To do otherwise - "We can't decide this case because the legislation is too vague. Congress should change the law and make it clearer" - is to invite even more gridlock in the courts and in government.
I think Mike goes a little overboard when arguing against Original Intent. It's a fairly standard part of judging a case to look at the legislation as it was written, look at the arguements presented for and against the legislation at the time, etc. That doesn't mean that court decisions since the legislation was passed are ignored, or that subsequent amendments aren't relevant. But OI supporters present it as if it's a black-and-white approach to making rulings, and it is not. There's always a balancing act between the states and the federal government, between the individual and society, between privacy and public discourse and the free flow of information, between property rights and society's needs. Using OI still involves judgements because society changes and the law must as well. (E.g. the Constitution doesn't say anything about cloning.)
It's a balancing act. One person's Legislating from the Bench is another person's applying Original Intent. Was court-ordered busing LftB or applying the equal-protection laws? When a court makes rulings on a function of local government (e.g. overseeing the [link|http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/10893340.htm|school budget in Wichita, KS]), is that LftB?
One could probably make the argument that judges LftB every time they decide a civil case that involves another branch of government in some way. I think there are cases when judges do LftB, but more often than not it's a code word for rulings that go against one faction or another.
Is it black and white, or is it gray? It's both. :-)
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #196,371
2/25/05 7:18:30 PM
|
Oh hell no, you don't believe that do you?
The problem with a lot of legislation these days is that it is vague. It seems to be written, in many cases, to invite court challenges. And why in hell would a bunch of lawyers write legislation that causes other lawyers to have to go to court and argue? [image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...] That's the real flaw in the "don't let judges legislate" fan's reasoning. All law is written by lawyers in the first fucking place. Why not let the judges "legislate". Tell you what, I'd a FUCK of a lot rather let a judge - any judge from any court - selected at random legislate than leave it up to the Hasterts, DeLay's, etc. ad nauseum we have in the vaunted legislature. bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,376
2/25/05 7:42:28 PM
|
But of course YOU would.
You are an enemy of democracy. You stated opinion is that you would rather have an 'elite' cabal rule.
As long as YOU are a member of that cabal, of course. You are an enemy of freedom.
Period.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #196,442
2/26/05 7:23:08 PM
|
Yes, I'd rather have Breyer making law than Souder (R) IN.
And I'd be careful, if I were you, supporting having Souder write your laws for you.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,377
2/25/05 7:51:59 PM
|
You're a fan of Roy Moore then?
...rather let a judge - any judge from any court - selected at random legislate than leave it up to the Hasterts, DeLay's, etc. ad nauseum we have in the vaunted legislature. [link|http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alabam14.htm|Roy Moore], and our [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=114884|earlier discussion]. I'd much rather have DeLay have the limited power he does than have Roy Moore sitting on a state Supreme Court deciding what the law means. Hastert, DeLay, etc., can be voted out of office. Alabama Supreme Court justices are also elected (to 6 year terms it looks like), so Moore could have been voted out, but he was was [link|http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/|removed from office]. But Federal Supreme Court, Appellate Court and District Court judges serve for [link|http://www.uscourts.gov/faq.html|life] and can only be removed by impeachment. Courts have a lot of power vested in a judge. It's really not a good idea for them to take over functions of the legislature. Yes, quite often the law lags behind society and sometimes creative interpretations are needed. But those should be very rare decisions, IMHO. And your argument doesn't make much sense as presented: 1) Lawyers are in the legislature. 2) The legislature writes the laws. 3) Judges are lawyers. Therefore judges should be able to write laws? That doesn't make sense because high-ranking federal judges are supposed to be independent of the pressures of elections, political pressure, etc., and are supposed rule on the law impartially. Even elected judges are supposed to be impartial. Politics by its very nature is an endeavor filled with partiality. The legislature and judiciary are designed to be different and shouldn't usurp each others roles. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #196,441
2/26/05 7:21:06 PM
|
It all depends.
Most of the law written by legistlatures (State or the HOR) is poorly written and vague to the point of almost incomprehensibility. Legislatures are comprised chiefly of attorneys. Even in the case where a particular representative is not an attorney, he has on staff attorneys who read the bills and summarize them for the representative. It is from this basis that the representative votes up or down on the bill. The point I was trying to make is that attorneys write the legislation, even if you let the legislature write it. And I don't see the advantage of having one set of lawyers write laws over another set. Moreover, I'd argue that the lawyers that finally make it to "judge" are better legal minds than the attorneys advising legislaters.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,594
2/28/05 6:03:46 AM
|
Very good post, you fucking moron...
...so what the fucking fuck is it doing in *this* fucking forum?!?
(If you see what I mean... :-)
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #196,596
2/28/05 7:59:43 AM
|
That's a problem with this forum. (new thread)
Created as new thread #196595 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=196595|That's a problem with this forum.]
|
Post #196,737
3/1/05 2:35:53 AM
|
Received with appropriate satisfiction..
Your Civics 101-R Primer.. 'boundaries' | 'not-to-be-crossed' | Such Perfectly-Clear Ones | cha cha
Where we are unlikely to be reconciled is: in the degree of belief each of us places in the actuality following the lovely THEORY.
That's all. And yes, as too often hereabouts: j'accuse! of being lulled? massaged? besotted with the nice 'logical' sound of the admirably Reasonable tenets upon which (we all love to believe) "this nation was founded". You then suppose you may observe this mind-stuff in Action; izzat it, bunky? Hah! Next there shall be formulas; let's call them Statutes, then next we can ___
Human Reason is, however - never reducible to mere logical steps - as seems to be your major whine, here. Imagining that these putative boundaries [ever so MichelMerlin-clear to you] possess any measurable life outside of the neuron/language sphere whence they came: is a proposition up with which I shall not put.
There's {surely still..} a difference between saluting some lofty-sounding Principles and imagining that, much beyond lip-service ever is paid to Them. I cite, as an even more obvious example of human actual behaviour:
The pious protestations of the Religious [quoting endlessly from their inscripted encrypted dogma. Too.]
-VS-
How these acolytes LIVE 24/7 [less a couple hours a week on Good Behaviour, safely if briefly incarcerated: while renewing the unfulfilled pledges for yet another week].
Cutting to the chase:
I reiterate, Activist Judge {and synonyms} is so patently obvious a Partisan code phrase -whenever employed- it doesn't deserve this wasted space, EVEN in the FUCKING FLAME FORUM, >MORON<
ie. Language-space NEVER IS Living-space; language/Ideas! are. all. only. in. the. mind. HTH
|
Post #196,742
3/1/05 6:36:00 AM
|
I get it now
Since it is a goal unachievable, you've decided its time wasted on the attempt.
Why bother complaining then. Its a difficult fix at best, just give up. Save you alot of time and angst in the process.
And please...send me the Cracker Jack box from which you get yuour Ashtonizer Decoder Ring. This way I'll know what "code word" du jour is...and maybe even before you've spend 6 posts trying to make that point.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,744
3/1/05 7:19:17 AM
|
Bah. You are an idiot.
Again, because the line can be crossed, that means we should look the other way when it is? You believe that 'Lofty Principles' should be cynically sneered at because they are less adhered to than you like? Gee, I guess calling 'bullshit' on politicians and the like is useless too, then. Why, with your new attitude, who needs the press? Who needs to know what's going on? Who cares about even having separate branches of gummint, then?
I agree with you over one thing, though. Your posts regarding this subject are a waste of space.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #196,355
2/25/05 3:50:59 PM
2/25/05 4:53:20 PM
|
My goodness, Ashey, stop pussy footing around...
This is the flame forum. Nuff said... Put this in simpler terms:
Judges interpret the law.
Legislators make the law.
Executives enforce the law.
Should read: Judges interpret the law - thereby making NEW LAWS from their interpretations.
Legislators make the law - and interpret and enforce the law by adding riders and additional new laws if the original new law does not have the desired intent OR BY PROPOSING "NEW" LEGISLATION THAT SUPERCEDES EXISTING LAWS.
Executives enforce the law - ??? The executive branch? They create agencies that create new laws and enforce them. They appoint the supreme court justices who oversee all of the federal judges and have final authority over what laws reign supreme.
etc. Now in throwing my .02 into the ring, I have to once again come to the political agnostic conclusion that this whole thing (regardless of founders intent - what a f*cking travesty...), both Mike and all others who take any of this shit seriously have escaped the moronosphere, passed through the holey bozone layer and are on a collision course with the absurdosphere or worse, the black hole of total indifference... In other words - true believers - well, you know. ;-) Join me at the monthly meeting of Royal Astronomers? All are welcome. You MFACS right shifted me for this long for this conclusion? I'm going to have to make my avatar an mpeg... Just a few thoughts,
Danno
Edited by danreck
Feb. 25, 2005, 04:53:20 PM EST
|
Post #196,739
3/1/05 3:27:22 AM
|
Fucking Reillusionment. What a concept -
Hola, O endentured acolyte of the Insanely-Grreat new digi-University system.
How go the surds and other flighty remnants of the dread testable hypotheses?
S'OK.. we're just performing the necessary periodic NIST-recalibration between mind-fluff and the ackshull Mean Repo Streets du jour. {sigh} Every once in a while, I admit I even imagine that there is a There there; then I recall that I've been sentenced to a stretch; as-if I were a homo-sap. (I suppose that was something about a teaching assignment; strange though.)
(Sometimes it's all too thrillingly 'realistic'. Fortunately something usually wakes me up before a reset is necessary) Four Years More of that boring bunch of wannabe Calvinists on Tee Vee is going to be a real soporific; I think I'll be scheduling more unconscious periods, with main systems powered down.. kinda like the Mars Rovers: wait till Daylight returns; skip decoding garbage data.
Ashton
Reality Is: Sergei Nakariakov doing Perpetuum Mobile on the trumpet!
All the rest is inconsequential..
|
Post #196,922
3/2/05 2:11:48 PM
|
Waiting for Daylight...
If it were only 4 more years, I'd be happy as a pig in shit... I've got the mental image of my own idealistic "worldview" laying in wait next to Spirit and Opportunity (No shit, Ash, that's their names :-O ) for the first ray of hope to rise on the Martian horizon for this old Royal Astronomer. I've been lying dormant for about 30 years.
It's best for folks like me not to get involved in these types of discussions. I've stated many times that the Sacred Scrolls are in need of a serious rewrite. I think perhaps we could petition our congresspersons to venture into the Forbidden Zone of sanity and take stock once a century of how well the Scrolls are holding up. Perhaps they're afraid of ending up like Taylor... Staring at the ruins of a once great civilization?
Choose a side - are you a chimp, orang, or gorilla? I even felt like the old orangutan (Dr Zaius?) was a Royal Astronomer of the first magnitude. Ah, let the spectacle continue. As you know, each generation becomes smarter than the last! Buhahahahahahahah! Conversely, it's probable that each generation prior was as screwed up as the current... Etc.
Who am I to judge (or, bringing it back home to this thread, who are judges to judge)? And who are we to judge judges? Mike? Judge not and ye shall not be judged (unless of course you are a judge). And so on.
Wearing a face that I keep in a jar by the door,
Screamer
But take your time, think a lot,
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.
Y. Islam - Father and Son
|
Post #196,975
3/3/05 1:09:49 AM
3/3/05 1:14:46 AM
|
Hey.. I know_____Who. Knows.
what E-villl lluurrr--kkkks --- in the mind of man.
Recommend a literary diet of at least one/week, for the duration.
(I'm rationing.. lest I run out before we run these pecksniffs Out on a rail, try a few of them and see if the lease on Spandau prison can be renewed: that's where Wolfie and Perle go, for starters.)
I mean, of course -
Venue: Discworld
Creator, Messiah (er, author): Terry Pratchett
Samples:
And elsewhere in Ankh-Morpork, the Fools' Guild was on fire.
This was a problem, because the Guild's fire brigade largely consisted of clowns.
...
Semaphore had been around for centuries, and everyone knew that knowledge had a value and everyone knew that exporting goods was a way of making money. And then, suddenly, someone realized how much money you could make by exporting to Genua by tonight things known in Ankh-Morpork today. And some bright young man in the Street of Cunning Artificers had been unususally cunning.
Knowledge, information, power, words ... flying through the air ... invisible ...
And suddenly the world was tap dancing on quicksand.
[The Fifth Elephant]
...
"I fail to see the problem," said the Supreme Grand Master. In fact, he saw it all too clearly. This was the last hurdle. Help their tiny little minds over this, and he held the world in the palm of his hand. Their stupefyingly unintelligent self-interest hadn't let him down so far, surely it couldn't fail him now ...
...
"Got any suggestions about what we do next, Sergeant?' said Nobby.
Colon didn't reply. I wish Captain Vimes were here, he thought. He wouldn't have known what to do either, but he's got a much better vocabulary to be baffled in.
[Guards! Guards!]
ie Think of the mind-boggling perplexity of the similes of a G. I. Gurdjieff, the incisive quip of an HL (Mencken) and the Truth within a Marx Bros. skit (almost any one). And that doesn't begin to limn the n-dimensional save-phase-space of Mr. Pratchett
[safely: a UK resident :: unlikely to be incarcerated by Fatherland Security].
Any Discwork title can substitute for -
- a Presidential 'speech',
- word of new Chief Justice Clarence Thomas-Scalia (if he's formally adopted) or
- YAN episode of, The Pueriles of Pauline.
Bon appetit - - -
I Who Be
(and Who keeps his face in a Klein bottle, next to the Armagnac)
Edit tpoy tyop
"While I'm still confused and uncertain, it's on a much higher plane, d'you
see, and at least I know I'm bewildered about the really fundamental and
important facts of the universe."
Treatle nodded. "I hadn't looked at it like that," he said, "But you're
absolutely right. He's really pushed back the boundaries of ignorance."
-- Discworld scientists at work
(Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites) via our own Tom Sinclair
Lo, I have become Death. [link|http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/art.htm| Stealer of pie].
Edited by Ashton
March 3, 2005, 01:14:46 AM EST
|
Post #196,748
3/1/05 7:36:48 AM
|
YOU ARE ALL FUCKING IDIOTS AND ME > YOU (new thread)
Created as new thread #196747 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=196747|YOU ARE ALL FUCKING IDIOTS AND ME > YOU]
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
