I found an interesting video of Chomsky talking about Trump, calling him a distraction and a conman. Chomsky knows a thing or two about conning people and creating distractions 🙂
Open thread: July 21, 2018
21 Saturday Jul 2018
Posted in Uncategorized
Pumpkin Person 
of course that’s just a story.
there’s YUGE variation even in foam mattress prices.
whatever.
marketing is rent seeking. rent seeking is what lion calls “value transference”.
because of autistic goyim (fresh water economists) and evil jews lion is right.
rents ARE the economy today.
Rents ALWAYS were the economy and always will be until we reach the high point of civilization…
DO YOU EVEN MARXISM, BRO?
Biff lost in that movie swank.
I didn’t use it for the character of Biff or anything specific to Back to the Future, I used it for the stereotypical jock-nerd interaction to make the overall tone of my comment more jocular.
Don’t miss the point, my dude.
so you think profits are always expropriation of surplus value? that’s dumb. sometimes they are. sometimes they’re not. give entrepreneurs their due. property isn’t always theft.
i marxism more than you ever will. ask peepee.
not always, but generally.
one of my favorite things to do is take off all my clothes except for my mawashi, drink 3/4s of a liter of liquor, lie on the floor, and stare at the ceiling.
it’s funny how i can spend hours laughing without ANY input, just remembering all the things swank and peepee have said.
I’m not surprised that you lie around almost naked thinking about men.
as for the laughing…
unlike christians the jews worshiped whatever was written by jews. for > 2000 years jews wrote almost nothing, and what they did write was 100% religious and all about how great jews were. resentment builds against europeans.
the equivalent of the talmud for christianity is the Summa and the fathers of the church. both FAR superior to the talmud intellectually. resentment builds against europeans.
when the romans ruled what is today israel they didn’t claim that jews were really in control and that the romans were victims. whenever the jews complained the romans didn’t say, “aha! anti-roman-ism!” not as far as i know.
[redacted by pp, July 24, 2018]
so the correct division is that all this kripke crap and the rest of mathematical logic and theoretical computer science and formal linguistics be a department unto itself. but there are so few people in these fields that only a small minority of universities could support such departments.
luke ford won’t return my emails. am i almost done sitting shiva or what? my brother was telling me a story that involved what he termed “little people”. i said, “the polite term is ‘midgets’…or ‘italians’.” he hung up on me.
at what point did nobel laureate [redacted by pp, july 25, 2018] go insane? are his tweets written by someone else? or is he forced to write this? read from bottom to top /1 – /8.
@paulkrugman
Jul 22
More
I don’t know the answer, but it seems like an essential question to ask, because even if democracy survives Trump — which is far from guaranteed — the GOP is clearly ready to do it all over again 8/
616 replies 1,231 retweets 4,350 likes
Reply 616 Retweet 1.2K Like 4.4K
Show this thread
Paul Krugman
Verified account
@paulkrugman
Jul 22
More
And the question then becomes, why? America isn’t or wasn’t obviously a collapsing state; the GOP’s supporters were hardly oppressed by historical standards (and its rich donors have done very well). So why this willingness to break all norms, including basic patriotism? 7/
236 replies 966 retweets 3,354 likes
Reply 236 Retweet 966 Like 3.4K
Show this thread
Paul Krugman
Verified account
@paulkrugman
Jul 22
More
So what’s going on here? The record seems to say that the modern Republican party is something special: corrupt and disloyal not simply to a degree unprecedented in American history, but as far as I can tell, in all history. Am I missing something? 6/
131 replies 1,529 retweets 4,137 likes
Reply 131 Retweet 1.5K Like 4.1K
Show this thread
Paul Krugman
Verified account
@paulkrugman
Jul 22
More
And treason was a thing in ancient Greek city-states, typically collusion with the Persians. But Persia was a superpower, versus small Greek polities; colluding with a small power when your own country is far bigger is new in history, I think 5/
35 replies 572 retweets 2,217 likes
Reply 35 Retweet 572 Like 2.2K
Show this thread
Paul Krugman
Verified account
@paulkrugman
Jul 22
More
So my first question is, is there anything like this in history? Certainly not in America: we’ve had traitors, but never at this level. You can, perhaps, get a bit closer in some European experiences: some countries had fascist politicians colluding with the Axis pre-WWII 4/
70 replies 828 retweets 2,837 likes
Reply 70 Retweet 828 Like 2.8K
Show this thread
Paul Krugman
Verified account
@paulkrugman
Jul 22
More
And even more remarkable is the willingness of the whole Congressional GOP to go along with the obvious, ongoing betrayal of U.S. interests. Not one important players has offered anything more than a few sad tweets. 3/
62 replies 1,010 retweets 3,299 likes
Reply 62 Retweet 1.0K Like 3.3K
Show this thread
Paul Krugman
Verified account
@paulkrugman
Jul 22
More
I mean, here we have a superpower’s head of state clearly a puppet not just of a foreign power but of a foreign power that is much smaller and weaker than we are. And it’s not just Trump: Russian influence evidently reached deep into the GOP 2/
58 replies 1,006 retweets 3,082 likes
Reply 58 Retweet 1.0K Like 3.1K
Show this thread
Paul Krugman
Verified account
@paulkrugman
Jul 22
More
I’ve been traveling, and (blissfully) somewhat detached from events. But I have some questions about Trump/GOP/Russia/Treason. Not about the facts, which are clear, or the nature of Putin’s hold on Trump; we just don’t know (yet). I want to know about precedents 1/
This is something that Swank would tweet on his twitter account like a fuckin troll who knows hes making shit up.
IMO Krugman isn’t insane either. Hes trolling.
Krugman sounds deranged.
this swank thing…
1. whatever the rules of the game the game still sucks…even if the game has rules for how to change its rules. swank’s right about that..
2. let’s be garlic eaters and cheat…because racism. trey gowdy looks like the banjo player in Deliverance
does swank have ANY pre-revolution american ancestors?
no!
(1) the game is shitty
(2) one should play the game
swank is like a boer arguing zulu law.
it’s sad!
After Roe, Blackmun began to drift away from the influence of Chief Justice Warren Burger to increasingly side with liberal Justice Brennan in finding constitutional protection for unenumerated individual rights. For example, Blackmun wrote a dissent to the Court’s opinion in 1986’s Bowers v. Hardwick, denying constitutional protection to homosexual sodomy (Burger’s opinion in Bowers read: “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.” To which Blackmun responded by quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes: “it is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.”) Burger and Blackmun drifted apart, and as the years passed, their lifelong friendship degenerated into a hostile and contentious relationship.
So basically this guy who ruled Roe v Wade was making shit up.
If the government can ban hard drugs, can ban child porn, can ban certain heavy duty firearms how does this guy say banning abortion is an ‘invasion of privacy’….presumably the father of the child would want to know what is happening~
Im pretty neutral on sodomy laws. I think theyre dumb. But a government can make them if they want to. The government bans bestiality and paedophilia. And now, 4-5% of the population demand the majority recognise sodomy. I don’t see any definitive moral reason why it shouldn’t be banned either.
But the principle of what he was doing was clear. He was finding new rights people had that had no basis in prior decisions, not mentioned in the consitution and basically was his personal moral beliefs.
It is still more revolting if…
yet if any time has ever justified rules against buggery it was the very time of this case.
it wasn’t the promiscuity. it was the buggery. and it still is today. new cases of HIV in the US are still almost 75% so-called MSMs.
this just shows again how high IQ goyim are intentionally excluded from such positions of power.
… justified
ruleslaws against…What I want to ask these people like Warren and Blackmun and Swanky is
Is there any limit at all to regulations on peoples behaviours?
Why is banning cocaine use consitutional and not an invasion of privacy, but banning abortions, which many people consider murder, ‘a private matter for the mother only’.
Why is bigamy banned? Thats an invasion of privacy too.
Why not legalise child porn? You can ban the manufacture of it. By why prevent anyone sharing or downloading it? If you agree with Blackmun, I don’t see why you can just make arbitrary distinctions to point of basically saying “Its not legal because the people aren’t ready yet”.
indeed. all the “arguments” for gay marriage support plural marriage.
swank knows he’s wrong but is entertained by triggering gentiles.
There is a limit, and I’ve explained that limit several times. You guys just hate reality that much.
explain it again for the first time.
take notes so that your amnesia allows you to reconstruct what was said.
the decision must preserve legitimacy.
you believe that people “have no choice” which is silly — people (1) disobey laws all the time and (2) violently rebel not infrequently.
He said it himself – ‘;why should people from 300 years ago regulate our behaviour’.
This is 100% true.
But thats not what a judge should be saying.
This is what the amendment process is for in the legislature or referendums in other countries. If you want to call yourself a christian you have to follow the papal decrees or the bible or whatever. You don’t have discretion to make up new definitions of being a christian and especially not on completely personal reasons. Henry IV literally did that and basically created a new church just to get a divorce. But he couldn’t keep pretending he was a catholic anymore.
Robert is right. If judges go AWOL like Warren and Blackmun and basically make their job a moral crusade it raises a lot of issues namely
(a) other judges will obviously disagree causing confusion
(b) its has no legitmacy coming from an unelected judge
(c) it makes the law a joke and something closer to astrology
(d) it encourages people not to follow the law if they think it will keep changing anyway
(e) why can’t a police officer or detective use ‘equity’ in their law enforcement?
(f) it encourages politicans to appoint complete hacks like warren to the court
All of this political horsetrading over the supreme court nominees started after warren. If Warren didn’t go AWOL appointing justices to the supreme court would be about as interesting as who the surgeon general is going to be.
if tomorrow the pope spoke ex cathedra and said jesus wants us all to worhip satan, swank would start worshipping satan.
i said “start”. i meant “continue”.
Lol no.
You guys are really struggling with this.
No one would accept the Pope saying such a thing.
tell us how the people accepted brown vs board swank. oh right. they didn’t. tell us how the people accepted roe vs wade. oh right they didn’t. tell us how the people accepted heller. oh right. they didn’t. tell us how the people accepted bush v gore. oh right. they didn’t.
the people have no choice fucktard. they can’t even impeach arrant frauds like scalia.
plus the roman church is clearly already a church of satan.
1. telling women if they use birth control they will go to hell. it’s a mortal sin. thus more children raised in the worst poverty. satanic.
2. hiding pedophiles. satanic.
try again swank.
We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God.
—paul vi
now it’s nothing but the smoke of satan.
And we get to the core of muggy’s error: the people DO have a choice and always have.
How un-American.
(1) you don’t have the right to judge whether or not someone else procreates, only God does. you are satanic.
(2) that’s not an explicit policy of the Church. That’s a moral failing of the church. Not the same thing. Kind of like how the in the U.S. a judge can’t say elected officials are above the rule of law, but in practice they most definitely are.
Henry IV literally…
actually it was henry VIII.
Rehnquist elaborated on several of White’s points, asserting that the Court’s historical analysis was flawed:
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[63][64][65]
From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded, “There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” Therefore, in his view, “the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”
1000% correct decision.
These jews keep saying the people that wrote the consitution ‘meant’ this or that. THEY ACTUALLY LIVED IN THEIR OWN LIFETIMES WITH SEGREGATION, ABORTION, HOMOSEXUALITY, IMMIGRATION, ETC ETC
THERE IS NO NEED TO SPECULATE. JUST LOOK IT UP. ITS NOT HARD.
JUST LOOK IT UP. ITS NOT HARD.
exactly!
and yet (((people))) will keep claiming borkism is too much work or too subjective or impossible in practice or tries to ascertain intent where there is none or etc.
scalia = hack!
dude made straight As from the first grade through law school. not a single A- or lower. that’s not genius. that’s retardation.
Swanky should be disbarred and sent back to being a rabbi. I have no doubt Swank is a great rabbi. An excellent example of a jew. Well respected in the jewish community. But he should be nowhere near a courtroom. If he ever becomes a judge, the people should tar and feather him.
it’s even worse than pill may know. in the american system the lawyers do most of the judges’ work for them. combined with amicus briefs all the judge is charged with doing is deciding which side has made the better argument or that both sides are incompetent. the latter should happen infrequently though it was scalia’s opinion in heller.
swank is like a chess player who says after losing, “that’s not checkmate. look my king can quantum tunnel through the board to safety.”
If I make that argument and you accept it…I win. Thanks for proving my point.
the people have no choice in accepting swank-tard.
they don’t even have the choice of voting frauds like scalia out of office.
I know. Violent rebellion doesn’t exist, right dumbass?
swank: judges can do whatever they want as long as no violent rebellion.
now i’m thinking swank really does have autism.
bork seems to combine original intent with scalia’s fraud of original meaning. he is equivocal, contradictory on this issue. but he did say that there is another reason why almost all appeals court judges are frauds; they value the esteem of law school professors and almost all law school profs advocate for judicial usurpation, tyranny.
Preserving legitimacy and power is the chief aim of any branch of government. So the efficacy of a jurisprudence comes down to the level of disobedience it generates. This may mean that different issues require different jurisprudence….and that society itself helps create the law.
did jews engage in violent rebellion in nazi germany or kulaks in stalin’s soviet union? did slaves following dred scott?
according to swank andrey vishinsky is up there with scalia in the firmament of great jurists.
yet almost the only reason why appellate courts are contemned by non law professors is for usurpation, not following borkism.
after drowning swank is just gurgling now, the death rattle.
because neither of you can wrap your minds around equity, still
This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to all other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.
William “The Entire U.S. Legal Profession Cites Me as An Authority on What the Founders Thought All the Time” Blackstone.
Maybe…ya just don’t get it.
You get the concept of free speech…
…but not the fact that free speech was the result of following the ABOVE principle and (1) outright IGNORING the law then (2) judges CREATING new law to accommodate the illegality.
did jews engage in violent rebellion in nazi germany or kulaks in stalin’s soviet union? did slaves following dred scott?
Here, read it again:
So the efficacy of a jurisprudence comes down to the level of disobedience it generates.
The (theoretically) best jurisprudence would have those who disagree with the ruling accepting it without any protest whatsoever. The hierarchy from there would be varying levels of disobeying the law, with the highest being outright rebellion.
It may be that the issue is such that the best possible jurisprudence is the one that will prevent violent rebellion. Although that’s rare — that’d be an issue such as slavery or desegregation.
With regard to those regimes…
Worse — in Nazi Germany Hitler’s own military officers conspired to assassinate him.
And Stalin’s regime also gave rise to several resistance movements.
Your attempt to strip away the legitimacy of any uprising if it isn’t confined specifically to X minority group misses the point.
there is no usurpation if the approach is sanctioned by the constitution.
^^^you have a vagina. it’s 100% obvious.^^^
Indeed, I am something you’re not good at getting. It’s 100% obvious.
WOW
So you’re saying if people don’t shoot the judge, anything goes?
LITERALLY
WOW.
Stop being a lawyer, youre hurting peoples lives.
Is shooting a judge the only level of disobedience?
Retard.
And Stalin’s regime also gave rise to several resistance movements.
no.
“equity” is something you made up swank.
The Entire U.S. Legal Profession Cites Me as An Authority on What the Founders Thought All the Time
and lawyers are mostly stupid and evil.
no, it’s something you don’t understand. but sure, a concept developed by catholic academics and put into law by the same has nothing to do with fairness…the fact that lawyers in the equity courts were trained specifically in canon law has nothing to do with it, either…
we-tahd.
and lawyers are mostly stupid and evil.
well if they all agree on a source….that means even the ones who aren’t stupid and evil agree with me about “equity.”
not that it matters — I’m right anyway.
has nothing to do with it…
exactly! go back to italy.
and yes you’re stupid and evil.
exactly!
i’d LOVE to, but you people are RETAHDED.
Caesar, in writing home, said of the Britons, “They are the most ignorant people I have ever conquered. They cannot be taught music.” Cicero, in writing to his friend Atticus, advised him not to buy slaves in England, “because,” said he, “they cannot be taught to read, and are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw.”
and he was…
…and still is…
….RIGHT.
which is why it’s a great compliment to be called stupid and evil by a guy who quotes Ed Meese.
that mugsy thinks the catholic church being involved with equity has “nothing to do with it” is WHY he believes him quoting Ed Meese has nothing to do with how he views the law and original intent —>
As Reagan’s chief of staff, Meese was instrumental in the decision to crack down on student protesters at People’s Park in Berkeley, California, on May 15, 1969. Meese was widely criticized for escalating the official response to the People’s Park protest, during which law enforcement officers killed one student protestor and injured hundreds of others, including bystanders
Under Meese’s direction, police were permitted to use whatever methods they chose against the crowds, which had swelled to approximately 6,000 people. Officers in full riot gear (helmets, shields, and gas masks) obscured their badges to avoid being identified and headed into the crowds with nightsticks swinging.”[22]
Authorities initially claimed that only birdshot had been used as shotgun ammunition. When physicians provided “00” pellets removed from the wounded as evidence that buckshot had been used
“The indiscriminate use of shotguns [was] sheer insanity,” according to Dr. Harry Brean, chief radiologist at Berkeley’s Herrick Hospital
…
because he just CANNOT get it in the way that others CANNOT understand free speech.
if you watch that vid bork says what i said. the principle can never change but the facts known to the judges can. in the case of separate but equal in public schools the court determined this was impossible. whether that was the correct determination might be a question. but the point is what changed were the facts known to the judges, not the principle.
the same might apply to homos if one claimed it has been shown that they are “born that way” and are not insane, perfectly capable of being useful members of society, etc.. but gay marriage is something else, because the whole point of marriage is to assure that the issue of the marriage have the best. homo couples can have no issue. so kennedy might’ve extended marriage rights to homo couples with adopted children only. and yes. if a man and a woman can’t have children then they should not be able to marry.
issue sense 4: offspring, progeny
the principle can never change but the facts known to the judges can.
indeed.
the first and most important principle is:
can x lead to a fair result? will x uphold the appearance of fairness?
“separate but equal” was a made up principle/doctrine to preserve the appearance of fairness within the context of a racially discriminatory regime.
Mariage has been divorced from “offspring, progeny” a long time.
swank sees the judiciary as a shadow government, but one which differs from the legislatures in that judges can’t be voted out of office and are very rarely impeached.
if swank thinks appellate judges are and should be politicians, then he should also support term limits for these judges and their election rather than their appointment.
swank does not support this because he is a retarded woman.
the judiciary is first and foremost an arm of the government which is why any pretense of “it isn’t political” is malignant autism.
then he should also support term limits for these judges and their election rather than their appointment.
many states have politically elected judges. i’m fine with it. people who ‘hate’ the idea are people who buy into a lot of jive about what the law is and isn’t — probably you, for instance.
there are good reasons to prefer politically appointed judges, but they’re almost never talked about or even known about.
so appellate judges in the US are like jews.
criticize judaism and jews say, “but jews aren’t a religion.”
criticize jews and jews say, “but jews are a religion.”
criticize the judiciary and judges say, “but we aren’t politicians.”
criticize judicial usurpation and swank says, “but judges are politicians.”
muggy….do judges make decisions about who gets what, when?
the real reason bork was borked?
his JD was from chicago rather than harvard or yale.
maybe swank can clear up why renquist and kennedy had LLBs rather than JDs.
The Supreme Court seems to be one of the few institutions where an elite college degree is absolutely necessary. Anything less than the best (Harvard and Yale) basically makes you unqualified.
in general the american elite don’t want un-corrupted and un-corruptible people.
and people like you are duped into supporting and cheering on the most corrupt people because of model > reality thinking.
for instance…
you quoting Ed Meese.
women like romance novels. one of the things i like to fap to is my own blog comments. i read them and i think…
italy didn’t send their best.
pish posh, old sport, I simplified the argument: free speech.
answer….?
if swank were in naples and spoke of how much he esteemed Thriller…
he would be instantaneously whacked.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=racism&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cracism%3B%2Cc0
https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=Holocaust&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CHolocaust%3B%2Cc0
https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=WASP&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CWASP%3B%2Cc0
hahaha, still waiting…
still waiting for what? i don’t speak guido.
I am having one of my good days.
Music is so crisp, clear and saturated.
My brain has more parallelism going on.
I feel the opposite of heavy,
I fell tingly sensations in my head.
I can see more, feel more.
I realized something important about A.I.
Thinking requires a model of reality.
I saw a blog from DeepMind where they understand episodic memory.
It has to do with how the hippocampus sparse distribution encoding.
I believe that a scalable approach to modeling reality is possible.
Then thinking can expand without memory constraints.
Self-regulation has a lot to do with intelligence.
Since the front and back brain work together,
increased perception increases parallelism.
Regulation gets the whole brain working together with itself.
Everything becomes fluid, effortlessly graceful.
The ability to switch attention makes the mind super fast.
Executive control meets no resistance to carry out commands.
You can hold more than several things in mind at once.
You can do many things at the same time.
More than usual with self-regulation.
All the brain at once. ❤
Keeping track on multiple items at the same time (keeping things in mind) is part of IQ but a big part, it is fluid intelligence. Because the more you hold the more you can manipulate. Tasks on the IQ I took that I cannot do can be done by other people with brains that can hold and manipulate more information than me. That’s how they get a higher score on those sections.
Manipulating a greater amount of information and finding rulesets (finding convergent patterns) on IQ tests miss a couple of things. Creativity (combining patterns) and divergent thinking (multiple paths to a solution).
single path
multiple paths
finding patterns
combining patterns
IQ is single path and finding patterns.
IQ misses multiple paths and combining patterns.
But all four if you can do more of any you are still doing more. And more is better.
There are no multiple paths to a solution. There are different solutions, all of which have a single path (to those solutions).
convergent thinking
divergent thinking
finding patterns
combining patterns
During the last ice age whites had to stop hunting for long periods. Asians even longer because it was colder where they were. Subsaharan Africans, on the other hand, had to move constantly never stopping. So this means even though most African countries are 70 IQ they do not meat the retardation requirements white do or autism. Autism is a problem of not moving. But because whites had to stop they also had to reflect on survival without mobility. They had to learn to survive well immobile most of the year. Subsaharan Africans have the mental capacity to survive without stopping so they have less autism and retardation that whites have.
The evolution of whites Africans and Asians can be explained by how mobile they each were during the last ice age. (autism and IQ)
pill and i are definitely formalists. anything else is usurpation. common law is usurpation for example.
as your hero nino-the-midget-shyster said, “how can the constitution be ‘living’ when all other laws are ‘dead’?”
if you are a formalist, then you are a strict constructionist or at worst a textualist you fucking ang-hole.
you don’t know what formalism means. where did you pretend to go to law school?
if you are a formalist, then you are a strict constructionist FALSE! or at worst a textualist FALSE! you fucking ang-hole.
Those are the only approaches with any pretense to removing any and all judicial discretion for considerations of fair results….
Why do you pretend to understand the law?
Why do you pretend to understand the law?
why do you swank?
There are many reasons to do me, but i don’t like you like that.
leave the jokes to funny people swank[redacted by pp, july 29, 2018]
which comedian do you want me to leave you with?
swank’s vagina tells him that judges must be moral authorities in addition to legal experts. that judges’ morality is just as likely to be evil as good doesn’t occur to him because vagina.
the constitution tells me that, actually:”[t]he judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…” and that judges can know what is objectively fair doesn’t occur to muggy because virgin.
judge swank: [to the convicted] the law says you owe a fine of $250 for coming to a california stop at a stop sign, but because you’re an incredible douche i’m sentencing you to 1,000 life sentences.
judge swank: [to accused] you have been found guilty of killing 100 people by your own hand and ordering the killing of 100 more, but because you are my paisano you are free to go after paying a fine of $250.
that’s a neat model you have of reality.
….
here is reality:
Dred Scott (your side) v. Free Speech (my side)
what’s the answer, mugsy?
i’m waiting for you to stop tapdancing and take off the blackface.
what’s the answer, the refutation then to free speech?
one very simple solution to the swank rot in the appelate courts is to make all appeals jury trials too.
swank would claim that layman couldn’t understand the legal arguments.
and also establish grand juries in order to decide which cases will be cert-ed by the appellate courts.
swank would oppose this because he has ZERO interest in doing what is right or what will be “accepted” by the governed.
swank is like rr. swank was brainwashed by his jew law profs. or he’s a jew.
The latter almost definitely.
i wouldn’t oppose it. i don’t care either way. the only thing it would change is the time lag between social change and judicial changes to the law reflecting those social changes, in favor of a lower lag time….which is something mugsy claims to be against…
…but he doesn’t know anything about the law because he cannot understand equity and believes fairy tales like “the judiciary is not political” and that it “ought not to be political,” so he thinks this will lead to something else…
The way gay marriage was legalised in most european countries was through the parliament of in some countries popular referendums. Judges didn’t legalise it after finding phantom rights in ‘the constitution’ or ’14th amendment’ just like Blackmun found a phantom right to abortion in the 14th.
I am not against gay marriage. I am not for banning sodomy.
But these things should be done the way it was done in Europe.
Even then I question whether jewish control of mass media actually led people to the right conclusion on this issue. Its an issue that effects maybe 2-3% of the population i.e. marriage age gays that actually want to be married and are no disabled or insane etc etc.
The attitude to gay marriage is seen in President Obama, the liberal lion. As a candidate in 2008 obama said he wasn’t for gay marriage but respected gays etc.
If the main elected liberal politican is not for gay marriage, what legitimacy does a judge have?
IT wasn’t so bad on gay marriage because polling showed it was popular enough.
But Brown led to riots, governors calling in the national guard. Police refusing to enforce the law and CIA head Allen Dulles going down to Mississippi to ‘have a chat’ with local elites about following the ruling.
obama feigned his opposition to gay marriage pill.
The fact he couldn’t publicly endorse it is the point knucklehead.
IMO, we have de facto segregation anyway. Now we have the curious situation that Steve Sailer talks about where people like Rahm Emmanuel threaten to ‘bring diversity’ to his opponents neighbourhoods if they don’t comply.
If Swank tries to argue that the constitution says people should forced to live alongside blacks then he should be banned from this blog.
Who needs the constitution….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act
more comments from swank can be found here: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/.
i only suspected swank was a “queer-ass nonbinary trans person”. now i’m sure.
not only does america’s governing elite not want incorruptible people as their agents, neither do gangsters anywhere.
In Singapore indian, malay, and chinese are forced to live in government tenement housing together with careful planning by administrators.
But the Singapore government is basically a dictatorship like most east asian countries.
The reason why it works is because indians, malays and chinese are not so different give or take.
But blacks really are very different.
In the media they never mention the technical reason Roe v Wade legalised abortion – i.e. its based on the 14th amendments due process clause in regards to privacy.
If people thought about that for more than 10 seconds they’d realise why the anti Roe campaigners are so livid about it.
If they wanted to legalise abortion normally they should have went through congress. The fact is, it would have never have made it through congress. So the fact Blackmun took it upon himself to ‘bend the great arc of history towards judaism’ is cause for debarring and tarring and feathering.
indeed. there needs to be a constitutional amendment. judges deviating from borkism will be impeached summarily and given long prison sentences.
This article is a complete abomination.
It literally makes me shiver to read some of it.
They should actually investigate what the man who literally wrote the text of the law thought about ‘minorities’ instead of pretending Rabbi Tim Wise wrote it.
“T. J. Stiles has received the National Book Award for Nonfiction and the Pulitzer Prize twice, for biography and, most recently, for history for “Custer’s Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America.” He is currently writing a biography of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Im starting to think if I took a full time job as a parody journalist I could win a pulitzer. I’d just keep talking about magic negroes literally non stop and reinvent history to make sure everyone had the sensibilities of a 21 year Berekley sociology student.
even if these dupes thought that never ending propaganda and affirmative action is necessary for social cohesion, it would mean american society is a society which shouldn’t exist.
look forward to august 12.
Actually I had a look at the Pulitzer winners for the last few years one day. My god. I started thinking that the IQ of journalists is either ridiculously low or,
Really high and most of them are writing solid psychological warfare.
The organisation prizes are solid winners. No real issue here:
2001: The Oregonian (Portland, OR), “for its detailed and unflinching examination of systematic problems within the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, including harsh treatment of foreign nationals and other widespread abuses, which prompted various reforms.”
2002: The New York Times, “for a special section published regularly after the September 11th terrorist attacks on America, which coherently and comprehensively covered the tragic events, profiled the victims, and tracked the developing story, locally and globally.”
2003: The Boston Globe, “for its courageous, comprehensive coverage of sexual abuse by priests, an effort that pierced secrecy, stirred local, national and international reaction and produced changes in the Roman Catholic Church.”
2004: The New York Times, “for the work of David Barstow and Lowell Bergman that relentlessly examined death and injury among American workers and exposed employers who break basic safety rules.” (This was moved by the board from the Investigative Reporting category, where it was also entered.)
2005: Los Angeles Times, “for its courageous, exhaustively researched series exposing deadly medical problems and racial injustice at a major public hospital.”
2006: Biloxi Sun Herald (Mississippi), “for its valorous and comprehensive coverage of Hurricane Katrina, providing a lifeline for devastated readers, in print and online, during their time of greatest need.”
2006: The Times-Picayune (New Orleans), “for its heroic, multi-faceted coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, making exceptional use of the newspaper’s resources to serve an inundated city even after evacuation of the newspaper plant.”
2007: The Wall Street Journal, “for its creative and comprehensive probe into backdated stock options for business executives that triggered investigations, the ouster of top officials and widespread change in corporate America.”
2008: The Washington Post, “For the work of Dana Priest, Anne Hull and photographer Michel du Cille in exposing mistreatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital, evoking a national outcry and producing reforms by federal officials.”
2009: Las Vegas Sun and notably Alexandra Berzon, “for the exposure of the high death rate among construction workers on the Las Vegas Strip amid lax enforcement of regulations, leading to changes in policy and improved safety conditions.” Original series
2010: Bristol Herald Courier, “for the work of Daniel Gilbert in illuminating the murky mismanagement of natural-gas royalties owed to thousands of land owners in southwest Virginia, spurring remedial action by state lawmakers.”
2011: Los Angeles Times, “for its exposure of corruption in the small California city of Bell where officials tapped the treasury to pay themselves exorbitant salaries, resulting in arrests and reforms.”
2012: The Philadelphia Inquirer, “for its exploration of pervasive violence in the city’s schools, using powerful print narratives and videos to illuminate crimes committed by children against children and to stir reforms to improve safety for teachers and students.”
2013: Sun-Sentinel (South Florida), “for its well documented investigation of off-duty police officers who recklessly speed and endanger the lives of citizens, leading to disciplinary action and other steps to curtail a deadly hazard.”
2014: The Washington Post and The Guardian for their coverage of the National Security Agency’s worldwide electronic surveillance program, and the leaking of documents pertaining to it by whistleblower Edward Snowden.[2]
2015: The Post and Courier “for ‘Till Death Do Us Part,’ a riveting series that probed why South Carolina is among the deadliest states in the union for women and put the issue of what to do about it on the state’s agenda.”[3]
2016: Associated Press, “for an investigation of severe labor abuses tied to the supply of seafood to American supermarkets and restaurants, reporting that freed 2,000 slaves, brought perpetrators to justice and inspired reforms.”
2017: New York Daily News and ProPublica “for uncovering, primarily through the work of reporter Sarah Ryley, widespread abuse of eviction rules by the police to oust hundreds of people, most of them poor minorities.”[4]
2018: The New York Times and The New Yorker “for their coverage of the sexual abuse of women in Hollywood and other industries around the worl
But the indidividual journalism prizes…fuckin ‘el.
Bret Stephens won an awared writing about bombin Iran.
Wow.
This week demonstrated once again, as if it needed demonstrating, that there are two major political parties in the U.S.A.:
The party of Open Borders on behalf of big-money business donors, and
The party of Open Borders on behalf of Cultural Marxists, anti-white ethnic lobbies, and public-sector employee lobbies.
but what only eric weinstein, zizek, me, and a few others get is the latter party is just the story told by the first party and believed by the dupes, and that there’s a third party that wants open borders because it makes white gentiles weaker.
swank is a jew or a dupe.
there’s a saying of some protestants. swank won’t understand because catholics never read the bible and view it with contempt.
where the bible speaks we speak. where the bible is silent we are silent.
substitute “law/constitution” for “bible” and that’s formalism. it is NOT textualism, and it is NOT strict constructionism. only a dimwitted guinea would think that. textualism is the obviously false belief that the meaning of law is contained entirely in the text of the law. thus when a judge asks himself, “what does this mean? what was meant by this?” if he’s a textualist he just rereads it 1,000 times. strict constructionism is just another word for bad taste. it means the judge interprets the law so as to give it the narrowest conceivable meaning, irrespective of what it actually meant to those who drafted it.
swank’s been shown a fraud so many times it’s sad. his hero nino-the-midget described himself as a formalist but NOT a strict constructionist.
textualism does not say the entire meaning of the law is entirely in the text, it just says when interpreting the law, the text controls.
strict constructionism = no judicial discretion in interpreting the law, what muggy (theroetically) wants. but muggy doesn’t know the law from his ass, so he doesn’t understand what he really wants.
“actually meant to those who drafted it” —> judicial discretion.
A question to RR, but anyone else can awnser if they desire:
You claim that testosterone production has large enviromental factors behind it. And you also claim that certain facial features are linked to testosterone, Would that mean that environment can make faces more masculine indirectly though testosterone? and is the change in skull morphology more plastic in adolescence?
Why dont bantu africans look less masculine than African americans? they seem to look pretty equal to me.
formalism: legal principles (not moral principles) + facts = decision
textualism: some facts are a priori barred from consideration
strict constructionism: bars the same facts as textualism + bars most interpretations a priori
if swank actually went to law school he’s an example of what a fraud law schools are.
Yes. Formalism is a continuum from strict constructionism to textualism. Good job, grasshopper.
FALSE!
since when do law school admit illiterates?
whom do you think you’re fooling?
maybe swank knows more cases, but i doubt it. there is one case i know of where the law instructs the deciders to use their own moral judgement. this is in the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt”. what it really means is “convict if you feel comfortable with convicting, if you can live with yourself, otherwise acquit.” but this is not an exception to formalism as the law gives this instruction. “preponderance of the evidence” is theoretically a lower bar but amounts to the same instructions in practice.
when bork said judges aren’t mathematicians he meant this in the sense that their decisions are based on the facts known to them and that these facts may change and that the judge often decides according to greatest likelihood rather than certainty. that is, the judge is a mathematician under imperfect information.
that is, there IS one BEST decision even when there is not one CORRECT decision.
perfect information —> CORRECT decision
imperfect information —> BEST decision (which may be in-CORRECT)
Ah…you’ve made another small step….
original intent was first championed by “liberals” at the beginning of the 20th c. then (((italian criminals))) like swank flooded the country.
Justice Black rejected reliance on what he called the “mysterious and uncertain” concept of natural law. According to Black that theory was vague and arbitrary, and merely allowed judges to impose their personal views on the nation. Black was, in addition, an opponent of the “living constitution” theory.
I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time, and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must, with all deference, reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change, and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people’s elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and, being somewhat old-fashioned, I must add it is good enough for me.
“mysterious and uncertain” concept of natural law = swank’s “equity”