Your Resource for the Tate-LaBianca (TLB) MurdersYesterday :: Today :: Tomorrow :: Where No Sense Makes Sense
Porky Guinn :"Manson was a tall, burly, foaming-at-the-mouth, psychopath who lead a bunch of mindless, sex crazed, zombie-mutant hippies on a killing spree....I forgot my next line. Was it 'because aliens'?"
"He was a rotten little kid."
I told the producer I'd post this but as soon as our readers see Jeff Guinn they will yawn and move on. If anyone actually does watch, feel free to send me a review. I've laughed so much the last few days watching the convention that any more might put me over the edge.
Matt is such a commie. Open your heart and learn to love The Donald, Matt- he'll love you back. He's got a YUGE heart, the best heart, and he LOVES you and he LOVES America!Vote for Daddy! https://youtu.be/i05eXluAQ18?t=77
Agree with Vermouth here (especially the part about Matt being a commie).Michael Moore said on Bill Maher's show on Wednesday night that he thinks Trump is going to win. It's over Matt. To paraphrase LBJ "If we've lost Michael Moore, we've lost the election."
I can't wait for the debates when Drumpf has to go toe to toe with The Hil, soberly debating the actual issues in a sterile environment without throngs of Stepford Husbands and Wives drowning out his opposition. Hillary will eat his lunch, if not Huma Abedin's box.
Milo the Breitbart bitch (eye roll)
Matt said... "Hillary will eat his lunch, if not Huma Abedin's box."Insert Anthony Weiner joke here.
Being Canadian, I will admit that your 2016 National Election is my entertainment. Don't let me down guys!
Zelda, the thing is this is the way I've always seen the Republican Party - reactionary, out of touch, comically paranoid - I could go on forever. The difference now is that they've left their crazy out on the front porch where everyone can see it.
I have no dog in this fight, but I've been appalled at the GOP's level of contempt for the American people in the past decade. But they over-played their hand and now the wolf is at the door in the form of Trump. This election will take place with nary a Republican candidate on the ballot. Trump's message to the disenfranchised middle-class crosses partisan lines; that's a big card in his back pocket. This mess is his to lose now.
I have always been fascinated by idea MANSON could be guilty of MURDER because he TOLD others to do it. Were his WORDS not considered FREE SPEECH. Is "solicitation" NOT protected FREE SPEECH ? I mean: IF somebody TELLS you to KILL the "bad" Muslims in the Middle East, OR the Communists in Asia, is HE guilty of MURDER - if YOU do ?Because I understand that certain Constitutional RIGHTS can actually be Judicially determined to be in conflict with one another, does that NOT mean the framers of our precious Constitution were NOT quite as mentally brilliant as WE Republicans thought THEY were ?OR do LAWS merely hinge or turn on the reflections of a more "privileged few" ?'''
RH: Speech which incites violence is not protected free speech. Your second point is a really good point for reflection. The answer if you substituted Japs and Krauts is we declared war. In your examples neither LBJ (JFK,IKE, Nixon) nor Bush did declare war. Making the war by, really any interpretation of the constitution, legally questionable but for the war powers act.Once you are allowed by the law to legally kill people then you can be ordered to legally kill them. You said: OR do LAWS merely hinge or turn on the reflections of a more "privileged few" ?The privileged few created your country and the constitution 'you Republicans' treat like the holy tablets of Mount Sinai. They were the 1% of their time, having won the most famous tax revolt in history and sought to ensure their place in the sun. Then they discovered that the masses (and a few of their brethren) were having trouble with what their document didn't say so they added a few amendments that they understood at the time. But failed to remember that those living 250 years after them might not know what they were talking about. 200 years later along comes a a whole judicial line of thinking called strict construction, which really is code for 'how to control social policy from the conservative side'. That suddenly said since a group of men living in 1789 didn't mention reproductive rights or a right to marry in the constitution that there are none. Now somehow this same line of thinking managed to write the punctuation out of another amendment to allow rednecks to hunt badgers with AR15s. Don't get me wrong the lefty side of the issue puts judges in positions that create rights that, indeed, are not mentioned in this sheet of paper. You know those rights like 'privacy'. But I ask you, how many of those would YOU like to give back? The usual answer is 'none' followed by some version of 'I just don't want 'those people' to have any new ones. The only difference between your founding fathers and today's privileged few is back then they actually believed they owed the rest something for what they had.
Post a Comment