Monday, February 13, 2017

He's not a joker...he's not a smoker...he's not a midnight toker....he is just telling it the way it is!





Finally. President Trump has found a spokesman who clearly and decisively spells out the facts in a plain spoken manner that anyone can understand. He cites the law. He explains simply and clearly why the politicians in judicial robe were totally wrong in stopping the Presidents executive order with respect to travel from terrorist supporting countries.

You can tell how effective he was by the response. Listen to the servant of the duopoly Chris Wallace sputter and fail away at him as the Joker just steamrolls him. Noted Intern Killer Joe Scarface went nuts this morning as well in attacking him and calling him irresponsible. George Porgie also lost it when he interviewed Miller on his crap fest on Sunday. They have to get him out there more. Let him lay it out straight. I think Miller and Sebastian Gorker are two of the most effective spokesman that the Trump administration has and the news media has no answer to them.


The media is really losing it today. There was brief little appearance today with that asshole from Canada and the President took two questions. One from ABC and one from The Daily Caller. A mainstream media dinosaur and a new media conservative blog. Well the Boy who Called Wolf Blitzer and Lying Sack of Shit Brian Williams and Cunty Tur are going nuts because they did not follow the media meme of demanding the scalp of General Kelly which is what they all coordinated in the last Jounalist circular memo. They can't believe that they are being bypassed. Well guess what assholes. This is just the beginning. This administration is going to talk directly to the people in clear and easily understood language. People are smart. They get it. The monopoly of the lap dog main stream media is over.

As Mr. Miller has said this usurpation of power by unelected judges will not stand. It is a clear violation of the statue. So much so that another judge in the Ninth Circuit demanded that the full court hear  an appeal. They must have an inkling that this is big mistake. As Mr. Miller has said there have been many instances of foreign born terrorists using a visa to come and kill Americans. By stopping the travel ban a huge number of questionable visas were approved in the rush to get in before this ridiculous stay is overturned. There only has to be one terrorist in the bunch. One guy with a bomb. One Somali scumbag with a knife who wants to stab somebody in a mall. Once that happens they should go on TV and put up a split screen. With the terrorist. With the victim. With these judges.

They will be lucky if they are not torn limb by limb.

More Steve Miller. Please.


77 comments:

edutcher said...

Miller was reputed to have been the smartest man on Capitol Hill (a pretty low bar, but he was lightyears above anyone else) when Sessions loaned him to the Trump campaign, so it's not hard to see how he helped Trump behind the scenes formulating policy last year and will do much more in the years to come.

He may not be the Space Cowboy, but he may replace Manafort as oopsy's Gangster of Love.

PS I think you meant decisively, not deceively.

Trooper York said...

Fixed. Thanks ed.

edutcher said...

Miller also looks to be point man on vote fraud (are they ever in trouble now) and we can look forward to more stories like this.

Amartel said...

Slow Joe is already taken.
How about Morning D'oh? TRINO (Token Republican in Name Only)?

The first I heard of this guy Miller was a lot of media sputtering and outrage so my initial assumption was that he must be very effective. Apparently he's latched on about voter fraud and won't unclamp.

Trooper York said...

Just listen to what he has to say to Chris Wallace. Wallace was flumoxed. He expected him to buy into his false narrative that it was dangerous for the President to critize a judge.

They don't have any idea of the danger these judges are in. If there is a terror event caused by someone who was let in because of this courts ruling....I don't know what will happen. But it will be really, really bad.

President Trump is not going to make excuses like President Bush did. He is not going to ignore terror the way the Jug Eared Jesus did. He is going to pin it where it belongs. On these out of control leftists who want to bring in more members of a death cult who want to destroy us.

It is not going to be pretty.

edutcher said...

Trooper York said...

Just listen to what he has to say to Chris Wallace. Wallace was flumoxed. He expected him to buy into his false narrative that it was dangerous for the President to critize a judge

Remember when Sam Alito mouthed, "Not true", when President Pissy, gutless punk that he is, tried to lecture the Supremes during the SOTU and the Lefties were all enraged at this unconscionable breach of etiquette?

Amartel said...

Wallace is easily flummoxed as are most people who rarely venture outside the progressive bubble. When his progressive talking points are questioned, he gets all quiet and offended. He gives good crumple face.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

He explains simply and clearly why the politicians in judicial robe were totally wrong in stopping the Presidents executive order with respect to travel from terrorist supporting countries.

Is he a judge? No? Then it's not his place. Tell this little piece of shit to go back to the days before the Constitution was drafted.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

On these out of control leftists -

It's not partisan. People on the right still want an independent judiciary and separation of powers, also. This fascism will pass.

For all the people who flunked 9th grade U.S. civics. This is not their country. Everyone who wants to fight a religious war is welcome to do it from the vantage point of Rome or Mecca. This is not our fight.

edutcher said...

Crankipants didn't work out so Ritmo is now Toothless. Some days, it's more like Witless, but we shall see.

He seems to forget free speech gives everybody the right to debate judicial decisions, especially bad ones like Marbury.

Toothless forgets John Marshall overstepped his bounds because his ego was more important than the Constitution. He also forgets Andrew Jackson understood Marshall's arrogance only survives if the other branches connive with it and Old Hickory refused to connive.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Noted Intern Killer Joe Scarface went nuts this morning as well in attacking him and calling him irresponsible.

He was both irresponsible and appalling. No one expects that 214 years of judicial precedent holding our republic together gets to be shredded and thrown out the window because Administration Freak-Out dictates orders before checking whether they were done in a constitutional manner or not. This is not the Mussolini regime. This methed-up administration's executive branch doesn't own the courts.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

He seems to forget free speech gives everybody the right to debate judicial decisions, especially bad ones like Marbury.

Your pipsqueak dork engaged in no such thing as "debate." He said this:

“Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”

Looks like pipsqueak is the one who feels he has the right to end debate. "Will not be questioned?" My fucking ass. Everything they do will be questioned. You reckless paranoid fools are the ones attempting to end "debate." People open to debate do not act like authoritarian kings and say that certain powers "will not be questioned." Everything this regime from hell with its lousy 40% approval rating will go questioned. Keep it up. Hitler seized power with just a third of the vote, but I'm sure your fascists will get their approval rating down even lower than that before they feel they've accumulated the "power" to try that move.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Marbury v. Madison survives because it is precedent and therefore law. These paranoid freak-out religious crusaders will not change that with their flimsy case that's all for the purpose of propaganda and will make no dent in the record that the previous administration and its practices achieved with somehow preventing the thousands dead on American soil that your previous "decider" allowed for.

Trooper York said...

The relevant statute was cited and totally ignored by these left wing politicians in judicial robes. The order was totally constitutional. It was much the same as one issued by both Bush and Obama. It is simply a lie to say that anyone on the planet is entitled to rights under our Constitution.

These judges and the left want to import more members of a Medieval death cult to rape and enslave women. Murder homosexuals. Destroy Christian churches. Clip the clits out of little girls. Stab and run down our citizens who don't bow down to their cult. Enslave members of other religions who do not follow Sharia law. Even a moron like Merkel is realizing that they do not belong in a civilized Western society. She is going to try to outdo Trump.

The totally bogus political decisions of this out of control politicized circuit court will be overturned. Sooner rather than later.

In the meantime radical elements will try to infiltrate into our country. I just hope that they can be caught in time.

Trooper York said...

Marbury vs. Madison is still the law of the land. This bogus decision will be appealed and will be overturned. This was a radical misreading of the law for political purposes. The President has authority to control immigration. It has been the law since the beginning of the Republic. This order was reasonable and necessary. It was based on precedent that the Court ignored. The nations that were selected had been previously chosen by Obama and the Congress.

Another judge on that Court has demanded to rehear the case. I don't think it was to just reaffirm it.

edutcher said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Marbury v. Madison survives because it is precedent and therefore law.

Marbury could be overturned tomorrow, just like Dred Scott and Plessy, and with it, juduicial. Marbury survives because it's easier for gutless politicians to let the appellate courts rape the Constitution than force them to take up-or-down positions on things like abortion or same sex marriage.

And let me remind Toothless that his Mulatto Messiah ignored court decisions for most of his 8 year reign.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

These judges and the left want to import more members of a Medieval death cult to rape and enslave women.

Straw man.

Murder homosexuals. Destroy Christian churches. Clip the clits out of little girls. Stab and run down our citizens who don't bow down to their cult. Enslave members of other religions who do not follow Sharia law.

Propaganda.

Even a moron like Merkel is realizing that they do not belong in a civilized Western society. She is going to try to outdo Trump.

Exactly right. Here is where we agree. This is a European problem. It's not an American problem. Most Americans don't care how you go about vetting or limiting immigration. They just want it done constitutionally. The shame is that our previous (and still current) immigration policy was and remains pretty stringent already - (just look at how difficult it is for even a white European to immigrate here) and led to no greater number of terrorist attacks. It was still pretty low. So the impetus on this is flimsy. Perhaps he's stirring up his base. Come to think of it, he's always stirring up his base. But we have allies abroad and the Islam ROW problem is a theological and social one for civil society - not for a professional presidency to muck up, especially when we need allies abroad and an example to set in the world. American immigration policy will not solve Islam's problems. Be as restrictive as you want on immigration, but for god's sake, get the damn EO's reviewed with legal and DHS and the rest of them before just doing a press-release signing and rush job to satisfy Steve Bannon's ego and sense of his hold on power and over the administration.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Marbury could be overturned tomorrow -

No it couldn't. You have no case, and the administration knows it has no case - all the fulminating that comes naturally to it notwithstanding. Even they wouldn't go so far - at least those among them who actually went to an accredited law school. They'll argue broad discretionary powers which they may already have anyway, whether or not this is a rational or necessary or even the most effective one they could justify, but it's mostly to save face at this point. Overturning Marbury is an effective end to separation of powers, as far as I can tell. Maybe you're into that, but it won't go gently. They'll ultimately get persuaded by his son-in-law or whoever still has any sense left in that administration and argue narrower grounds that may or may not prevail. But there is no case they have for going as far as you seem to salivate for. At least, that's my bet. I'm not a lawyer either but goddamn it I seem to remember what these things are all about and why we have them and the traditions surrounding them and how they keep the country together by not devolving into an arbitrary strongman state.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Most Americans don't care how you go about vetting or limiting immigration. They just want it done constitutionally.

And I'll just add here - (because I owe you a bone Trooper and it's been a while since I've thrown you one) - that yes, they want it done effectively, also. The EO as it passed regardless of whatever anyone knows is in it may indeed be popular. That may be true. Whether it will do anything more effectively than has been done already I'm not convinced of. Other people are free to disagree, perhaps I even have a minority opinion on that. But I try to go by the facts and I think the courts will want to also, whatever they rule on the administration's powers in this case or others or not.

Thanks -

edutcher said...

Hah! If the Administration had no case, one of the 9th Circus wouldn't have requested a review. Toothless is the right name for him; anytime he's called on something, we get the usual bluster.

Overturning Marbury is an effective end to separation of powers, as far as I can tell.

Funny, there's nothing in the Constitution about appellate courts having the power to rewrite or overturn law. The first 4 Chief Justices seem to have agreed.

PS On a note related to the actual subject of the post before Toothless arrived, looks like there's evidence that not only CA, but NH may have gone to the wrong candidate in the last election.

as I say, if Miller is point man on vote fraud, the Lefties are in big trouble.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Funny, there's nothing in the Constitution about appellate courts having the power to rewrite or overturn law. The first 4 Chief Justices seem to have agreed.

THere was no rewriting or overturning. THere was something called a "stay," meaning that the hold on it remains in effect until it goes up the chain to the higher court. Please ed, there are civics texts out there if you want some suggestions I could find. Propaganda may be something you find fun to do but maybe you might get a kick out of actually learning how the court system works. Hell, you could find yourself in it someday. ANyone can. A course in "practical law" such as they used to do in high schools makes sense if you want to live in a citizen's republic - and value being informed of your rights and how the courts decide where they apply. But if not, that's fine. Your choice. I have a co-worker from Russia who seems to get fine without educating himself on these things, also. The co-worker from Ukraine has the opposite view, though. I guess that's because he values his rights differntly.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Propaganda may be something you find fun to do but maybe you might get a kick out of actually learning how the court system works. Hell, you could find yourself in it someday. ANyone can.

And I would add, DJT sure seems to. Often. But he seems to prefer using lawsuits and the threat thereof for media purposes. Not that it prevents him from losing cases.

Methadras said...

I did not have to come into this thread to know that Mr. Occupy Democrats was going to use his typical Occupy Democrats techniques to tell us how e-vil we all are.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

These judges and the left want to import more members of a Medieval death cult to rape and enslave women.

Straw man.

Murder homosexuals. Destroy Christian churches. Clip the clits out of little girls. Stab and run down our citizens who don't bow down to their cult. Enslave members of other religions who do not follow Sharia law.

Propaganda.

Even a moron like Merkel is realizing that they do not belong in a civilized Western society. She is going to try to outdo Trump.

Exactly right. Here is where we agree. This is a European problem. It's not an American problem.


More Occupy Democrat hand wringing on display here. It is primarily a Euro problem for now, with smatterings of these issues here in the US, but Proglodyte Islamocrats like yourself would be happy as nude grinding Folsom Street Fair participants at importing such sub-human vermin into this country to satisfy the check box of your kind believing that they are fighting some sort of social injustice by giving US Citizens rights to those that are not US Citizens. Stop lying. I'm not sure why you and your kind are even advocating bringing these Islamists into the country anyway? Yes, that was a rhetorical question to get you to further explain your particular brand of lunacy, not that I particularly care.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

More Occupy Democrat hand wringing on display here. It is primarily a Euro problem for now, with smatterings of these issues here in the US, but Proglodyte Islamocrats like yourself would be happy as nude grinding Folsom Street Fair participants at importing such sub-human vermin into this country to satisfy the check box of your kind believing that they are fighting some sort of social injustice by giving US Citizens rights to those that are not US Citizens. Stop lying. I'm not sure why you and your kind are even advocating bringing these Islamists into the country anyway? Yes, that was a rhetorical question to get you to further explain your particular brand of lunacy, not that I particularly care.

Nothing in here about the law, just incendiary and bigoted religious war rhetoric which has no place in a secular constitutional republic. You guys are overplaying your hand, and that's because you actually think you'll win some sort of "war" on Islam through religious and traditional culture and politics and the government, and you won't. Only secular rationalism - including ATHEISM - and persuading Muslim reformers has a chance. So no one needs care about your propaganda and insults, just like they don't care when your Blonde Ambition president hurls them. Go fight your religious war and your preoccupation to turning America into some type of "New Europe." Keep it up, and good luck. Maybe you'll actually convince someone who actually cares about his rights someday, but for now it's just the usual chest beating. Whatever it takes for your 20-someodd percent of the population to feel emboldened enough to dictate terms to the rest of the country. Must get tiring. I can see how much it tires out your dictator.

edutcher said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Funny, there's nothing in the Constitution about appellate courts having the power to rewrite or overturn law. The first 4 Chief Justices seem to have agreed.

THere was no rewriting or overturning. THere was something called a "stay," meaning that the hold on it remains in effect until it goes up the chain to the higher court


That's in the common law. If we're talking the Constitution as it relates to the Federal bench, there's nothing in it that allows the Federal bench the unchallenged power to overturn law without some recourse by the states or the people (a recurring theme is said Constitution and its Amendments). If there is, kindly quote the passage.

Of course, American history is clear that John Marshall thought the office of Chief Justice as constituted was too plebian for a man of his unrivalled abilities and he set out to elevate the position to something more fitting a man of his ambitions. Certainly President Jackson understood his game when he said, "Mr Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it".

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Stop lying. I'm not sure why you and your kind are even advocating bringing these Islamists into the country anyway?

It must be an interesting abdication of thought and morals to lie about someone after you say, "stop lying."

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

That's in the common law. If we're talking the Constitution...

The common law is incorporated into the Constitution. Mentioned in there twice. It applies wherever it might when courts can't find anything in the Constitution or other statutes to overrule it.

Go take that course.

edutcher said...

No, sweetie, you rambled on about stays and such and there's no mention of stays as I recall in the Constitution. Certainly not in the Article establishing the courts.

Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


Say good night, Gracie

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

No, sweetie, you rambled on about stays and such and there's no mention of stays as I recall in the Constitution.

Doesn't have to. As a common law practice, it's operative unless the Constitution says otherwise - which you can see (if you read all that), that it doesn't. The Constitution's existence and failure to mention all that other stuff doesn't mean they're unconstitutional - let alone inappropriate. Does the Constitution spell out what robes a judge wears? You are silly.

And moreover, you are mistaking the constitution and our common-law system with European civil code - which does try to anticipate every detail. Where the constitution is silent, it defers to the law (inc. common law), and where that is silent, there is no legal problem. It's the Euros under Napoleon who tried to micromanage and guide through every detail. Our English system, OTOH, leaves well enough alone - including allowing a higher court's ruling to stand. You simply don't even understand how the appeals process works.

It's funny that as ignorant as you are (and proudly wish to advertise yourself to be, and remain) - you default into assuming a European model of jurisprudence. One popularized by Napoleon. Too funny, esp. given the way your current dictator overestimates his own stature in so many ways.

Best to get him a cell ready somewhere in Elba!

And stop quoting George Burns, you premature victory declarer. Try a new saying. Be original. Learn something new, too. For once. Recycling old info is just making you look ridiculous. (Not that you seem to care).

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I want any law school in the country, any judge, any lawyer, to comment on this edutcher guy's insistence that stays are to be violated by an executive because they're "not mentioned in the constitution."

Are laws against murder mentioned in the Constitution? No? Yipee! Ed says Trump can murder Americans! Yeay!

Tell me what else that the constitution didn't mention and can therefore be violated, ed.

Hilarious! Behold, America: Our resident Trump-at-all-costs defender. Ed.

edutcher said...

As always, Toothless turns into Witless when holes are poked in his nonsense.

The usual bluster is trotted out because straw men are all he has.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

You poked no hole. You said that stays aren't in the constitution (even though due process is), so that invalidates the whole appeals process. Which is the dumbest and most ill-informed thing anyone's ever said on the topic.

Houses aren't mentioned in the constitution either, ed. Do they have to be dismantled, also?

Don't forget the fact that clocks aren't mentioned in Article III. They will no have to be removed from every courtroom.

You know you're ridiculous and are just blustering it. Bring your 9:39 PM comment to any lawyer and ask them what they think.

If you're the caliber of supporters that Trumpists have to rely on, I think it's safe to say none of their forays into judicial intervention will ever stand.

Move to Russia. They're as ignorant and contemptuous of U.S. law as you are.

edutcher said...

You said the common law is incorporated into the Constitution and that's utter nonsense. There was, in fact, no US law at that point except for state statutes, so anything could have been legislated.

As always, Witless just blusters on.

The common law is incorporated into the Constitution. Mentioned in there twice. It applies wherever it might when courts can't find anything in the Constitution or other statutes to overrule it.

That's a lie. I went through the whole thing and there's no mention of remedies of the common law. I said quote it and he can't because it isn't there.

He's just throwing the usual dust in the air because his idiotic pronouncements have no basis except in a mind grown soft in his gated community.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Hi Moron! Having a good night?

What kind of gates are around my "community?" Do they have big "T"s on them, in gold? Like at the Trump Tower?

Are they like the border wall?

Yep, I forgot about that whole thing where the constitution did away with the common law, like the Code Civil did in non-common law countries. It's good that you're here to remind me of it. Maybe it was the constitution's mention of common law that did that, MORON!

In any event, I like your argument that appellate courts cannot uphold stays issued by lower courts based on such basic legal procedure not being mentioned in the Constitution. You know what else is not mentioned in the Constitution? The word "innocence." All parties brought before courts are therefore guilty!

Which other legal proceedings are not constitutional by virtue of their not being mentioned in it? Are lawyers constitutional? They're also not mentioned.

Enlighten us, Edward! Come out of your gated community, into the agora, and teach the masses about how all courtroom activity not mentioned in the four pages of the U.S. constitution is to be barred!

Did your mother consume toxic chemicals when she was pregnant with you? I really would like to know how someone like you gets to be this persistently and proudly stupid.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Ed's not in the Constitution.

Ed's unconstitutional!

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

I like Gorker a lot.

ndspinelli said...

If Trump were smart, he would have been working to force Ginsburg to recuse herself from all litigation involving executive orders bases on her outrageous comments during the election. I am amazed that hasn't occurred. I thought Trump was a tough NYer. That would be a Bob Gibson head hunting pitch.

Trooper York said...

Ruth Bader Ginsberg would never recuse herself. For any reason. Can you imagine the attacks that Trump would face if he tried to "bully" that old lady? There is a difference between being tough and being stupid. Trump was tough on that old lady that had a house in AC that he needed for a parking lot. He offered her a lot of money. Used every legal means to get her out. Paid her off. Still got roasted to this very day. The optics just don't work.

What the administration has to do is build a record. They are absolutely right on the law as Mr. Miller has so forthrightly shown in his appearances. The reason why they are squawking so loudly is they know he is being effective..

ricpic said...

"...stab and run down our citizens who don't bow down to their cult."

I thought that was the Mexicans' job?

ndspinelli said...

LOL! Wipe the Trump semen off your mustache.

Trooper York said...

That's just silly. An honest analysis is somehow being a toady. Look Trump makes enough enemies as it is. He is not afraid of attacking sacred cows. Witness him going after Pocahontas. But there is literally no value in him attacking Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Do you seriously think she would recuse herself? Ever? For anything? Liberals never do that.

Now put your football helmet on and get on the short bus back to the group home.

ndspinelli said...

If Trump or you came up w/ the idea it would be brilliant. I grew up w/ NY assholes. You are all so insular you don't realize you are laughed at by all outside your circle.

On substance, The chances are as slim as Ginsburg that she would recuse herself. But, you know jack shit about law. Requesting a judge recuse themselves is not "beating up" on her. You simply put together a brief outlining her prejudicial comments and respectfully request she recuse herself[NO tweets, just briefs] from all EO's written by Trump. Then, you make it the first step in establishing a code of conduct for SCOTUS, something that does not currently exist. It's going to the body, ass eyes. Soften her up for later rounds.

ndspinelli said...

But, keep NYer 'splaining stuff for us. It's so edifying.

Trooper York said...

So now you are a lawyer too. Nice.

Every asshole in the media is already flipping out about Trump going after the out of control liberal judiciary. How is it smart to start a beef with Ginsberg who we already know is piece of worthless shit.

He just has to wait until a refugee or immigrant commits a crime or terrorist act. Don't worry it will happen soon. Then he has to hang it on the judges and the media. He just has to be patient.

Hey don't you live in Minnesota now. Why don't you go to the mall. Maybe a nice Somali immigrant can stab you or something.

Happy Valentines Day.

Leland said...

I agree with Troop. RBG wouldn't recuse herself. It's not a legal matter, it is political. Trump is wise to save his political capital for fights he at least has the potential to win. Asking RBG to recuse will just be setting up a rhetorical tit for tat at a time when Democrat Senators are itching to put Trump's SCOTUS nominee in a position to recuse himself in the future.

ndspinelli said...

I have worked in the legal profession for 40 years. You don't have to be an attorney to understand the workings of the justice system. And, like most NYers, you don't know when to just stop talking. Because on this issue, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and your ass. "Every asshole in the media is already flipping out" WTF? So what!! Virtually every post and comment you make is how Trump plays the media. And, in many respects that's correct. The long game is getting a long overdue code of conduct for SCOTUS. The first step is pointing out again, the intemperate and injudicious comments made by Ginsburg[correct spelling BTW]. It's a twofer. Maybe a 3fer, getting her to stroke out and replacing her.

Your personal animus is causing you to say stupid shit just because I made a suggestion, and tweaked the manhood of your boyfriend. You're easy to bait. And, nice job wishing I get murdered. You stay classy, Jimmy.

ndspinelli said...

Leland, I agree she wouldn't recuse herself. I said that. Why have you guys all of a sudden become pussies worried about "tit for tat?" I'm not going to have to start calling you guys "low energy" am I?

ndspinelli said...

You two don't seem to understand just how injudicious Ginsburg's comments were. This would be a great opportunity to have them replayed, again and again. Even liberal attorneys called her out on them.

Trooper York said...

Hey no fair. I don't want you to be murdered.

I just want you to suffer.

Happy Valentines Day!

ndspinelli said...

A move Trump should push is limiting the authority of US District judges to their geographical district. That is a long overdue reform and I have heard DOJ attorneys support that over the years.

ndspinelli said...

if you want me to suffer, you should wish on me having to hang out w/ women all day.

Methadras said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Stop lying. I'm not sure why you and your kind are even advocating bringing these Islamists into the country anyway?

It must be an interesting abdication of thought and morals to lie about someone after you say, "stop lying."


That's a fairly cheap thing to say and I wholly expect that from you because you are a deflector and an obfuscater. You never answer questions directly and instead quip towards that which you want to avoid. But what else should I expect from a cheap, shallow thinker who upholds a cheap and shallow ideology. You reduce all arguments to I know you are but what am I, because you are incapable of handling the hard questions due to the fact that in doing so would utterly shatter your ideological narrative.

When you end up spending your own money and put up any of these Islamic fascists into your home, then get back to me. So off with you now, go report back to your Occupay Democrat stooges that you did your duty of the day and showed those evil conservative what meanie heads they are.

Sixty Grit said...

Ritmo morphed into Peewee Herman so slowly I never even noticed.

Trooper York said...

That's ok buddy. Just being you should be enough suffering for anyone.

ndspinelli said...

Let's see, whose life would someone want. The life of a guy who is happily retired, travels often, is healthy and exercises daily, spends winters in paradise, and lives for his granddaughter. Or, would you rather be a curmudgeon who lives in the past. A guy who almost daily swears off some former pleasure like TV, movies, baseball, football, etc. A guy who hates kids and complains incessantly about where he lives and works.

Let's end this. Or, are you just trolling for comments?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...

That's a fairly cheap thing to say and I wholly expect that from you because you are a deflector and an obfuscater. You never answer questions directly and instead quip towards that which you want to avoid. But what else should I expect from a cheap, shallow thinker who upholds a cheap and shallow ideology. You reduce all arguments to I know you are but what am I, because you are incapable of handling the hard questions due to the fact that in doing so would utterly shatter your ideological narrative.

When you end up spending your own money and put up any of these Islamic fascists into your home, then get back to me. So off with you now, go report back to your Occupay Democrat stooges that you did your duty of the day and showed those evil conservative what meanie heads they are.


If you can't cite where I ever once advocated "bringing Islamists into the country" then you would, as an honorable person, retract such a calumny. And you would understand that all the insults you levy at me above apply to what you just did. I do an effective job of criticizing 6th c. barbarians and the theology behind it regardless of whether or not I direct a whole bunch of ineffective, sloppy hatred and wasted energy at a billion and a half people who are their own answer-in-waiting to their own culture's problems.

But you could instead keep blustering instead, if you want. How low an approval rating do you want your Savior of All Western European Civilization to drop to before you have to just kill every other American off? This guy is giving red meat and not doing anything smartly. It's just about indulging excess - to no end. He's got the money to make endless numbers of enemies and failures and errors and the lack of self control not to care. You don't.

Methadras said...

This one is rich. Nice try though. You don't have to say that you directly want Islamists in the country. Do you have to say it to know what we all know you are saying? Is that how this works now with you? That if you don't say it, but fight against the temporary ban of immigrants from seven known Islamic terrorist nations and the president who signed it, then you aren't for it? So what are you saying then? Are you against the ban and letting in Islamist into the country temporarily? Or are you against the ban and against Islamists entering into the country? Which is it?

Do you I need to cite your advocacy for bringing in Islamists into the country? Is that even a legitimate question considering your perpetual tirades against the executive order, which is actually an enforcement action that your prior president put into place back in December of 2015 and added more countries to in 2016 as a six month ban to boot? You do realize Obama did this right? So why the sudden breathless vapors from you and your Occupay Islamocrats? Because your corrupt, evil, and communist candidate didn't win?

My honor isn't in question here? Your implicit and explicit lying is and always has been. Personally, I don't believe you've been an honest arbiter of the truth in any way shape or form. You are nothing more than a stooge, an agitprop. I've never seen you do remotely an effective job against Islam. You don't even know what the fuck Islam truly is. Every single Muslim on the face of this earth from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia is nothing more than a cowed supplicant to a religio-political ideology of submission, hatred, slavery, and genocide that is ongoing to this day. If even 10% of the followers of the pedophilic goat fucker are the true fundamentalist crazies, that means we are dealing with 125 million radical fundamentalist Islamic extremist terrorists that keep the other 90% under their thumb through fear, beatings, and beheadings. And you and your filthy piece of shit cadre of other leftists are going to direct their hate towards Trump using #resist as if they believe they are playing revolutionaries like they were in the Hunger Games or some stupid shit like that?

On one hand defending your god-awful ideology and on the other defending another god-awful ideology and then pretending to be its critic because you may have said something about Islam that wasn't to your liking? Like you get to pick and choose the dirtier bits of it while leaving the choicer more acceptable bits alone? This is why I call you a liar. This is why I think you are a piece of goblin shit. This is why you don't deserve and iota of respect. This is why you are an odious and detestable individual. You and the rest of you unamerican, unpatriotic pieces of garbage that mewl and cackle and incite riots, violence, and chaos because #resist is the bourgeois cattle call for all of the angry little cockroaches who have it so bad in the US. Go to any one of these countries and denounce Islam and Sharia. Do it. Put your fucking money where your mouth is instead of from the comfort of your keyboard at home. Let's see how far you get.

/cont

Methadras said...

I don't need to cite you advocating bringing in Islamist into this country since you do it by the very actions you undertake in denouncing the executive order against it. You implicitly want them here. I've never seen you say they shouldn't come. You've never addressed whether non-citizens should have the right to come to this country. I still defy you to invite these people you implicitly advocate to come into this country against the executive order to come in on your dime and into your home. Let's see how far your hospitality goes. For someone who claims to rail against 6th century barbarism, you sure have a shitty way of showing it? You been to any anti-islamic rallies? Written any anti-islamic sentiments? This is why you are not to be believed. On one hand you claim to rail against Trump and his EO and then on the other claim to basically be anti-islam?

There will come a time, when your side will go to far and I hope they do. They are going to block one too many intersections. Keep one to many people from going home after work who are tired. They are going to riot one to many times, they are going to attack hard working people one too many times. They are going to burn and destroy property one too many times. They are going to step out of line one too many times. You call it #resist. I call it traitorous subversion and believe me when I tell you that when the time comes, you will be outnumbered and outclassed and very probably outgunned. We are already in a soft civil war and you and your kind are pushing for it to get hotter.

You and your kind aren't revolutionary. You aren't a resistance movement. You aren't democratic. You aren't patriotic. You do not love this country. You reject its birthright. You are nothing more than unhinged lunatics bent on chaos being used as pawns and tools for the masters who pull your strings. You are cannon fodder hiding their true intentions to reclaim their seats of power that a guy like Trump has clearly disrupted. If for nothing else, he was elected to do that very thing and I welcome it. You should have been on his side for that very thing alone that you advocate, but you show your true colors here in this forum whenever your fingers touch the keyboard. And when that day comes when you cockroaches push it too far. I and others like me will be there to make you stop. We will end what you think you've started. We will end you. Keep pushing and all you'll ever see is the resolve on our faces to make sure you are finished.

Spread that back to your Occupay Democrat coward brigade because if you think what I said was bullshit, then you aren't paying attention.

ndspinelli said...

A Dennis Miller quality rant!

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...

You reject its birthright.

Where were you and/or your parents born, Muslim Methadras?

Revolutionary? White Warrior Steve Bannon claims he's an outright LENINIST! LOL!!!!

Yep, that guy - whose pulling your strings as well as Puppet Trump's - truly is more revolutionary than me if he's the Leninist that he says he is.

Me, I just want to go by the Constitution. That founding document and creed you mentioned precisely ZERO times in your two-part rant. Looks like you're the one who's not American. Not me. You never mentioned the country or what it's based on one time in that whole long Muslim love-hate song you wrote. But I can see how you had no room to fit it in.

chickelit said...

I'm calling you asshole from now on, Toothless. Any comment you make in any blog post of mine is getting deleted until further notice. You bring nothing but enmity to this blog.

Capische?

chickelit said...

I'm also going to boycott Troop's posts because he is the enabler.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Trooper just likes free speech. Probably because he has more faith in his ability to handle and engage it than you do in yours. I don't blame him for that, but you should blame yourself.

Methie obviously has huge issues. My 8:51 post was as civil as can be and he responded with a two-part blast attack where he reverted back to his foaming-at-the-mouth roid rage full of accusations against me of everything in the book. I could count and tally all the ridiculous insults he buried in his hate-riddled screed. And once again, this comes down to your one-sided blindness and inability/unwillingness to read what people who complain of being attack do in their own attacks.

I can't even remember the last time I commented on one of your posts. They're either about old 80s music, obscure science topics, or an inverted convolution of some simple political story - probably with a pun involved to make as their centerpiece.

But you do seem to be going the way of Meade, with this censorious reaction of yours. I'd ask you to think about what that means. But you never do.

You don't like enmity? Tell that to your national leader. He seems to thrive off of fomenting it.

You won't have blog posts that serve any civic service until you come to terms with or deal with that. But you've always been a good social hermit and I don't blame you for wanting to build a bubble to play in instead.

Wasn't John Travolta in that Boy in the Bubble movie? Maybe living in one isn't so bad.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Seriously, CINO chickie. What was it that pushed you over the line? Calling him a Muslim?

He called me unAmerican. (And that's not all; a heck of a lot more, actually). It says a lot about you that you can't see which one is worse.

Ask yourself how much in-sync you feel that you can be with this country when you feel you have to control people that angrily over a disagreement as lopsided as what I just described to you.

And don't snap someday or go postal. This whole mild-mannered most of the time, angry outburst every now and then song and dance routine of yours is cause for concern.

Remember, they're pushing to deny firearms ownership these days on account of psychological health and well-being. I'm just looking out for you. ;-)

chickelit said...

No asshole, there's a comment in here which violates Lem's only rule which requites deletion. I'm not going to point it out. I'm certain you know which one, due to your early association with Inga.

Trooper, Lem, or Chip can email me for details.

Again, fuck you asshole.

Methadras said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Go back to the Middle East, Ibrahim/Methadras. Clearly you have issues with this country's lack of involvement/interest over there in whatever it is that keeps you up at night, imagining knife-wielding Muslims under your bed.

Go take your tribal wars back to where you came from.

The way you carry on, you can't possibly be a Christian. Maybe a Christian in Name Only. I'm calling you Muslim Methadras from now on. Methadras the Muslim.


And there it is, finally. The unvarnished you.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Well, if there was something in there he/you didn't want me to post, then I could delete it. Or anyone else could. But he just reposted it. So he seems to be ok with it.

How am I supposed to know what he's going to take offense to? He's a one-crank rabid dog attack squad. With a special obsession with the Middle East.

Either way, he's Muslim Methadras to me. He'd have to be, given his fixations and how unhinged he is about them.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

The unvarnished you.

What are you complaining about? You said you're the one who hates Muslims, and that it's what makes you so awesome.

Methadras said...

I quote for context, not for approval.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Chick, if you want me to delete something, just ask.

As for Mu-Meth, if it did offend him, he just reposted it. Like a martyr.

Do 72 virgins come with voluntary self-flagellation, also?

Come on. Meth says he's a Christian. I think it's in name only, but he attacked my character a hundred different ways. If both he and you are going to go apeshit about a single attack that it's not even really clear if it is an attack or not, then be a big boy, ask for the retraction or rephrasing, stop tattle-tailing, and get yourselves back on track.

This administration really seems to be bringing out the immaturity and drama in you guys like nothing else. Wow.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I quote for context, not for approval.

So do you want it deleted, or not?

And if I delete it, will you delete your "context?"

I have a feeling what the offensive part might be. Well, it's all just as offensive as what you posted to me, but I have a feeling of what the offending part might be.

I'm just wondering when the martyrdom appeals are going to end and we can get on with arguing about the things that matter. You know, like which retarded names you can call me and which retarded names I can call you.

The big stuff. The important things.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I deleted it. Can I still call him/you (whichever one of you is reading this) Methadras the Muslim? Muslim Methadras?

Or does he just get to call me anti-American?

I'm kind of new to how these whole "I'm going to call out your nationality/origin/religion" games work.

Thanks for the clarification.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I see there is too much anger to address "the rules" or how to correct/atone for minor deviations of them.

Perhaps it's my pro-Islamofascist nature that makes me ignorant as to when or how the bad blood ends. ;-)

Methadras said...

I'm not asking for the deletion of anything. I've never made myself to be a victim or a martyr. Those are your characterizations. Just like your attacks on my religion, my identity, and my family. You're a lying lowlife scumbag. What more needs to be said on that. I will tell you this much, what you did here today crossed the lines of the bounds of my tolerance, but if you escalate this further, I can assure you in no uncertain terms that I will retaliate disproportionately against you in a way you will never see coming. You've decided to take this beyond the confines of this blog, just like another unhinged lunatic and I won't forget that. You've been warned.