And On O'Donnell's Flub: After 24 Hours, It Appears It Was No Flub At All. Washington Post Reporter Ben Evans Simply Lied.

I keep getting into this fight with readers.

Readers tell me, "The media lies; don't trust them." My response is usually "Well, they spin, they suppress, they distort, but they usually don't lie per se. A reporter who directly lies would be disciplined. Their own reputations mean too much to them to just flat-out lie."

I, the hyperpartisan crazy conservative blogger, keep taking the media's side on this point, of outright lying.

I keep being proved wrong by the Suckers of Cock I am defending.

In the Coons-O'Donnell debate, of course, there was some sparring over the exact wording of the First Amendment. The crowd of law students at Widener Law School giggled and hooted at Christine O'Donnell's answer, her questioning of whether "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution.

Oh by the way: Don't laugh too hard, Widener Law School students. For one thing, check your enrollment: You're at Widener Fucking Law School. You aren't really law students and you won't really be lawyers.

Sorry. But if we're going to play the credentials game, I have to inform you, you're not credentialed, at least in the eyes of anyone who actually is credentialed from a real law school.

But anyway, back to the debate. I criticized O'Donnell for giving a vague statement -- a question, really -- which left her open to the claim that she didn't know what the First Amendment said.

Here's how the Washington Post "reported" the exchange. Keep your eye on the bolded text.

Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.
The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

As reported, O'Donnell's question makes it seem like she's questioning Coons' assertion that the Establishment Clause appears in the First Amendment, or at least leaves her open to that claim. (I always thought that would be a false claim; my criticism was that she hadn't been clear enough about what she was questioning, letting the Suckers of Cock in the media misrepresent her.)

So, she was quoted as asking:

"You're saying that's in the First Amendment?"

...to Coons' more-or-less accurate recitation of the Establishment Clause.

It's the "That's" I had trouble with, because it's a vague word which could be referring to two different things. And my problem with O'Donnell was with not anticipating which way the media would interpret it. That is, one needs to speak defensively as a conservative, anticipating all the ways the media will twist your words, and making sure one speaks so clearly as to leave them all but untwistable.

But did she say that?

No, she did not.

What she actually asked was:

"The First Amendment does [establish what you claim]? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"

In other words, she makes it perfectly clear what she's questioning. Not that the Establishment Clause says what it says, but whether the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the clause.

And of course, on that point, she's 100% right.

Don't believe me? Well believe the Washington Post, which now reports the exchange as concluding thus:

She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"

Guess which article that appears in?

It appears in the original article, the one making the erroneous, damning misreportage of her question, or at least it does now. The article has been scrubbed and edited to now accurately report what she said and what she questioned.

The same URL I linked to yesterday now links to an edited, accurate version of the article.

There is no notification the article has been corrected, or that it got anything wrong in the first place, despite the fact that the reporter Ben Evans did in fact blow the quote 100% to suggest an entirely different meaning than the accurate meaning.

I suppose it's possible that Ben Evans simply heard what he wanted to hear. A liberal, no doubt, he wanted evidence that Christine O'Donnell didn't even know the First Amendment, and so he heard that. In that case, it wouldn't be a lie per se, but a case of unconscious bias.

But in that case -- if it was accidental -- Ms. O'Donnell is now owed an apology and a correction, isn't she? Isn't she owed an owning-up to the fact that this entire controversy arose not from what she actually said, but from what a mistaken, sloppy reporter misreported her to say?

Or is the Washington Post going to claim there is no significant difference between the quotes?

Does Ben Evans claim that?

If there's no difference -- why was the article rewritten to put the accurate quotes in place?

Oh: As always, I find the term "cocksuckers" too insensitive a term.

That is why I prefer the more humane "Suckers of Cock," which makes it clear that I am not being dismissive or insulting, but am viewing these people as actual human beings, actual human beings who are Suckers of Cock.

My Own Correction: I have a bad connection right now and can't view videos, so I'm taking the WaPo's new reportage as authoritative.

However, my actual memory of the video - -I saw it last night on Maddow -- was that she says "That phrase is in the Constitution?" Again, not "that's in the Constitution?" -- making it clear she is arguing about the specific phrase itself.

That is my actual memory, but I can't check tape now. But, assuming that memory is accurate-- that she says "that phrase" -- that is a key part of the quote that makes it absolutely 100% clear is is not disputing the recitation of the Establishment Clause, but continuing to press on whether or not the exact phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution.

It doesn't. And the snide reportage, distorting her words to make her sound foolish, is in error, and most likely not even in error, but a deliberate distortion.

She is owed a formal correction and apology.

Corrected: I stand by what I wrote. There are two exchanges. A fair quoting of both exchanges makes it clear she is questioning, and continues to question, one thing and one thing only: Whether or not this particular phrase is in the First Amendment.

To truncate the quote, as Ben Evans did, or as local radio WDEL did, or as all the liberals on MSNBC did, is to deliberately make it appear that she is arguing about something she's not arguing about.

That is the what they intended, of course. And they got that. And now, 24 hours later, when that initial false impression has been put into the minds of voters, they stealth-correct and run the whole quote.

Posted by: Ace at 12:20 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Really, what do you expect from a bunch of idiots that didn't even know what happened in 1773?

Posted by: Naqamel at October 20, 2010 12:23 PM (UMwMT)

2
Gasp!

Posted by: Senator Soothsayer (R-AoS) at October 20, 2010 12:23 PM (gM4zK)

3 Also, further into the debate Christine O'Donnell asks Coons to state the five rights that are actually in the First Amendment, and he can't. Of course that was conveniently ignored.

Posted by: Boots at October 20, 2010 12:23 PM (neKzn)

4 The blog is shouting!

Posted by: Boots at October 20, 2010 12:24 PM (neKzn)

5 It's all a bold lie!

Posted by: joncelli at October 20, 2010 12:24 PM (RD7QR)

6 Ace: "Suckers of cock". Ummmmm

Posted by: Gwen Ifill at October 20, 2010 12:25 PM (264X9)

7 Shocked! Shocked, I tell you.
Look! Squirrel!

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 20, 2010 12:25 PM (RkRxq)

8 Boldly spoken, Ace.

Posted by: Grunt2Jag at October 20, 2010 12:25 PM (Yr6lx)

9 I like my coffee like I like my open-tag errors on AoS.
BOLD!

Posted by: reason at October 20, 2010 12:25 PM (XiVKO)

10 Looks like somebody put some extra lube on the memory hole.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 12:26 PM (3wPsb)

11 I was feeling suddenly bold, and then......

Posted by: Jane D'oh at October 20, 2010 12:27 PM (UOM48)

12 "...My response is usually "Well, they spin, they suppress, they distort,
but they usually don't lie per se. A reporter who directly lies would
be disciplined. Their own reputations mean too much to them to just
flat-out lie."

Wow, Ace. You really do live in a fantasy world don't you? Welcome to reality.

Posted by: NunyaBizness at October 20, 2010 12:27 PM (/jWB5)

13 To these political reporters, this is just another day in the trenches. We wonder how low they can sink, they go get beers and do it all over the next day.
No accountability.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 20, 2010 12:27 PM (rplL3)

14 Just wait till you read my expose on how stupid Palin is to think something happened in 1773!

Posted by: Ben Evans at October 20, 2010 12:27 PM (VmtE9)

15 I'm unboldened.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 20, 2010 12:27 PM (RkRxq)

16 We Report, We Decide, You shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Washington Post at October 20, 2010 12:27 PM (264X9)

17 A very bold mea culpa.

Posted by: Andy at October 20, 2010 12:28 PM (5Rurq)

18 Everything looks smaller, and paler..........

Posted by: Boots at October 20, 2010 12:28 PM (neKzn)

19
These stupid students also gasp when Ann Coulter says, "No, people do not have the right to free health care."

They gasp as if she's denying people some civil right. They've been brainwashed quite well, they have.

Posted by: Senator Soothsayer (R-AoS) at October 20, 2010 12:28 PM (gM4zK)

20 Layers and layers of fact-checking, friends!

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at October 20, 2010 12:28 PM (9hSKh)

21 Really, what do you expect from a bunch of idiots that didn't even know what happened in 1773?

Posted by: Naqamel at October 20, 2010 12:23 PM (UMwMT)
The 1776 Tea Partiers? SCREW THEM.

Posted by: Kos at October 20, 2010 12:28 PM (7BU4a)

22 Ace the MFM at the WaPoS found out that no reads the "Corrections" section, so it is just so much easier to pull a vanishing commissar.

Posted by: jimmytheleg at October 20, 2010 12:29 PM (rSwZ+)

23 HA has a link to Daily Caller about tea partiers being turned away from their polling places because they were wearing t-shirts with the Gadsden flag.

So Michelle can electioneer at a polling place in Chi-town, and that's okay.

Alrighty then.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at October 20, 2010 12:29 PM (UOM48)

24 This must be eating at Ace, to be up and posting this early (by Ace standards).

I should get into a historical trivia game with a libtard sometime. Once blocked from their forte of pop culture, they flail and fail. It's rather amusing, for the first half hour anyway.

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at October 20, 2010 12:29 PM (GBXon)

25 Also, further into the debate Christine O'Donnell
asks Coons to state the five rights that are actually in the First
Amendment, and he can't. Of course that was conveniently ignored.

Posted by: Boots at October 20, 2010 12:23 PM (neKzn)
Ok, I got one of these! Uh, the right to look FABULOUS you dirty teabagger.

Posted by: Anderson Cooper at October 20, 2010 12:29 PM (7BU4a)

26 20 Layers and layers of fact-checking, friends!
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at October 20, 2010 12:28 PM (9hSKh)

They have fact checkers in all 57 states.

Posted by: Barry Obama at October 20, 2010 12:30 PM (264X9)

27 She doesn't say it, but you can clearly hear "macaca!" at the end of that last line.

for shame.

Posted by: nine coconuts at October 20, 2010 12:30 PM (DHNp4)

28 Potato - Potatoe, meh

Posted by: MFM at October 20, 2010 12:30 PM (LdYLm)

29 Finally, something we can all agree on: The Washington Post sucks ass.

Posted by: Virginia Bob at October 20, 2010 12:30 PM (xh3gA)

30 HA has a link to Daily Caller about tea partiers being turned away from
their polling places because they were wearing t-shirts with the Gadsden
flag.

Supporting America is partisan.

Posted by: Some Liberal at October 20, 2010 12:31 PM (7BU4a)

31 Ace the MFM at the WaPoS found out that no onereads the "Corrections" section, so it is just so much easier to pull a vanishing commissar.

FIFM

Posted by: jimmytheleg at October 20, 2010 12:31 PM (rSwZ+)

32 I heard an audio clip without the quote above. So, that was also altered. I smells me some SHENANIGANS plus GOING-ONs!!!!

Posted by: Radioactive Satellite Of LOVE at October 20, 2010 12:31 PM (LdYLm)

33 20 Layers and layers of fact-checking, friends!
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at October 20, 2010 12:28 PM (9hSKh)

Fact Checker is a three letter word: F-A-C-T C-H-E-C-K-E-R

Posted by: Sherriff Joe at October 20, 2010 12:31 PM (264X9)

34 Hopefully the O'Donnell campaign will put some of their money into turning this into an ad.
Juxstapose video proof of what she said against an overlay of scrolling text from the original newpaper article.
You're getting handed some good fodder here, O'Donnel Campaign. Use it.

Posted by: reason at October 20, 2010 12:31 PM (XiVKO)

35 OK. can we finally put the "Christine O'Donnell is an idiot" meme to bed?

Posted by: maddogg at October 20, 2010 12:33 PM (OlN4e)

36 I won't write the whole thing, but SOC should be acceptble in the WAPO style manual.

Posted by: ParisParamus at October 20, 2010 12:33 PM (aYS5W)

37 New Hotness: SoC
Old and Busted: MFM

Posted by: t-bird at October 20, 2010 12:33 PM (FcR7P)

38 These stupid students also gasp when Ann Coulter says, "No, people do not have the right to free health care."

The whole notion of a "right" to take something from other people is odd.

Imagine, for example, if everyone went Galt. How does one exercise your right to health care? Holding a gun to a nurse's head?

Posted by: 18-1 at October 20, 2010 12:33 PM (7BU4a)

39 Ace's bold fonts are nothing. Nothing.

Posted by: Mallamutt, owner, 128 pt megafont bomb. at October 20, 2010 12:33 PM (OWjjx)

40 Ace, don't forget to turn the "bold " test off.

Posted by: Dick Cheney at October 20, 2010 12:33 PM (9221z)

41 Thank you, Ace.
I would offer you some whipped cream with your humble pie but a) you've already eaten it and b) that would be condescending.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 12:34 PM (8y9MW)

42 Maccaca

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at October 20, 2010 12:34 PM (Snu7z)

43 Tax credits are tax cuts!
Compulsory health insurance premiums are NOT confiscatory!
The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution--you just have to read it the right way!

Cocksuckery.

Posted by: Vinman at October 20, 2010 12:34 PM (HOYRo)

44 I would love to hear someone ask the State Media why CO'D's teenage antics are such news, but Obama's coke snorting at the same age is not.

Posted by: 18-1 at October 20, 2010 12:34 PM (7BU4a)

45 Its not said, but I hear the word "boy" at the end of those bold fonts.

Posted by: Maureen Dowd at October 20, 2010 12:35 PM (OWjjx)

46 I was far from the only one, but this is what I said yesterday:

Why? Because some idiot AP reporter summarizes what one candidate said and then gives the opposing candidate's exact quote in response? When do you ever see that? I'll tell you when. It's when the reporter is lying.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at October 20, 2010 12:35 PM (X2rdt)

47 I, the hyper...crazy conservative blogger, keep ... lying.
There you have it, in Ace's own words.

Posted by: WaterCow at October 20, 2010 12:35 PM (sWynj)

48 Thanks for the post Ace, if you had not brought this out, I would not have known. The MSM is getting worse, its no longer merely distortion, but outright obfuscation and lies. They keep parroting the line that freedom of the press is essential to keep government honest, but given the obeisance the MSM shows to the democrats these days, there is no press, just PR pricks with degrees in journalism.

The fall of the current media regime would do wonders towards restoring open debate in this society and restoration of a republican form of government.

Posted by: Penfold at October 20, 2010 12:35 PM (1PeEC)

49 Two in a row! If these are the shining examples of liberal intelligence (one even works for PBS and was a presidential debate moderator), I hate to see examples of liberal stupidity!

Posted by: LAI at October 20, 2010 12:35 PM (R4ub4)

50 40
Ace's bold fonts are nothing. Nothing.

Posted by: Mallamutt, owner, 128 pt megafont bomb. at October 20, 2010 12:33 PM (OWjjx)
Is that a M.A.D. threat?

Posted by: Radioactive Satellite Of LOVE at October 20, 2010 12:35 PM (LdYLm)

51 Boortz had a good line, "I'd rather vote for a witch who hadn't read the Constitution than an avowed Marxist." Me, too. Witchy woman, work your black magic on me.

Posted by: WalrusRex at October 20, 2010 12:35 PM (xxgag)

52 "Oh by the way: Don't laugh too hard, Widener Law School students. For one thing, check your enrollment: You're at Widener Fucking Law School."
This site is a national treasure.

Posted by: Ernie McCracken at October 20, 2010 12:36 PM (jmf9+)

53 Use this to get a few more people to a GOTV phone bank in DE.

Posted by: ParisParamus at October 20, 2010 12:36 PM (aYS5W)

54 Posted by: reason at October 20, 2010 12:31 PM (XiVKO) - not really, she's not campaigning against the WaPo - even though they're campaigning against her. She should mention it maybe once or twice and then let it drop.

Posted by: maddogg at October 20, 2010 12:33 PM (OlN4e)
- unfortunately, probably not for another 14 or 15 days...

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 12:36 PM (8y9MW)

55 Of course, this wasn't intentional.

Posted by: Howie Kurtz at October 20, 2010 12:36 PM (MMC8r)

56 We wouldn't want to alter the flow of the narrative by distracting the public with an apology and formal correction.
We'll do that later, after the elections have run their course.

Posted by: NY Poat! at October 20, 2010 12:37 PM (XiVKO)

57 .My response is usually "Well, they spin, they suppress, they distort,
but they usually don't lie per se. A reporter who directly lies would
be disciplined. Their own reputations mean too much to them to just
flat-out lie."

In other news, we have proof that George Bush is a draft dodging crackhead. And I guarantee we did not just print these documents up at a local Kinkos.

Posted by: Dan Rather at October 20, 2010 12:37 PM (7BU4a)

58 It's my nature.

Posted by: the scorpion at October 20, 2010 12:37 PM (S5YRY)

59 I know nothink! Nothink!

Posted by: Sgt. Kook Fringe Media at October 20, 2010 12:37 PM (xxgag)

60 ***Don't laugh too hard, Widener Law School students. For one thing, check your enrollment: You're at Widener Fucking Law School. You aren't really law students and you won't really be lawyers.***

yeah, welcome to third tier hell.

Posted by: joeindc44 at October 20, 2010 12:37 PM (QxSug)

61 C'mon, Ace, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes. You fucked up. You trusted us!

Posted by: Washington "Otter" Post at October 20, 2010 12:39 PM (264X9)

62 Don't forget the Coons could not name the other rights in the first amendment.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at October 20, 2010 12:40 PM (ruu60)

63 3rd tier may be a compliment for Widener. They were constantly bottom 5-8 in the country in the US News rankings back when I looked at those things earlier in the decade. I'd be shocked if that improved much.

Posted by: Doc at October 20, 2010 12:40 PM (MYT77)

64
yeah, welcome to third tier hell.

Uh...try fourth or fifth. LOL.

Posted by: ParisParamus at October 20, 2010 12:40 PM (aYS5W)

65 Thanks, Ace. My rule of thumb on liberal argumentation, aside from projection and ignorance of counterarguments is that they lie. To wit, whenever I hear my lib friends say "oh did you hear what Rush/Palin/W said," I know it's wrong, a lie, a misinterpretation.

Link or Audio or it isn't true.

Remember Charlie Gibson challenging Palin on what she said, re: Lincoln's bless these troops thing? Same thing.

Posted by: joeindc44 at October 20, 2010 12:40 PM (QxSug)

66 Boortz had a good line, "I'd rather vote for a
witch who hadn't read the Constitution than an avowed Marxist." Me,
too. Witchy woman, work your black magic on me.

Posted by: WalrusRex at October 20, 2010 12:35 PM (xxgag)
By the way, does anyone sense the irony, with how hard the Left pushed the witch meme considering the whole reason that Jefferson wrote "the separation of church and state" was to argue that Northeastern elites couldn't deny someone political office just because he, or she, was part of an odd religion?Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
Man his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or
his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions
only, not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of
separation between Church State.

Posted by: 18-1 at October 20, 2010 12:40 PM (7BU4a)

67 she's not campaigning against the WaPo - even though they're campaigning against her. She should mention it maybe once or twice and then let it drop.
Nothing wrong with an ad that only gets runa couple times one night during primetime, in my opinion.

Posted by: NY Poat! at October 20, 2010 12:41 PM (XiVKO)

68 "Oh by the way: Don't laugh too hard, Widener Law School students.
For one thing, check your enrollment: You're at Widener Fucking Law
School."

Meh. Yale has no grades, Harvard elevated an imbecile to the presidency of the law review and every law school has the following features:
(1) No competition from international students. And if you know how wretched the American public school system is, especially about educating the "best and brightest" you would realize how little competition that is.
(2) No dissertation.
(3) No math classes.
(4) Three years and they never really teach you about the law. The bar exam prep courses are more useful than this overblown master's in political science.

Do the Folger's Crystals test with this: Take Harvard Law students and make them do a UMass master's in math and take the native English speakers in UMass math and send them to Harvard Law. Which group do you think will graduate?

Yeah.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 12:41 PM (3wPsb)

69 I, the hyper...crazy conservative blogger, keep ... lying.
There you have it, in Ace's own words.
We chuckle, but this is exactly how it is done. Spin, supression and distortion reallyare lies.
A well-dressed prostitute is still a whore.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at October 20, 2010 12:42 PM (3jxR/)

70 61 ***Don't laugh too hard, Widener Law School students. For one thing, check your enrollment: You're at Widener Fucking Law School. You aren't really law students and you won't really be lawyers.*** Wasn't this formally known asWidener Clown College?

Posted by: P.T. Barnum at October 20, 2010 12:42 PM (264X9)

71 I keep being proved wrong by the Suckers of Cock I am defending.

Posted by: Brawny Fwank at October 20, 2010 12:42 PM (pr+up)

72 I should get into a historical trivia game with a libtard sometime.
Once blocked from their forte of pop culture, they flail and fail. It's
rather amusing, for the first half hour anyway.

Ask them which president won the cold war.

Posted by: Sgt. Kook Fringe Media at October 20, 2010 12:42 PM (xxgag)

73 To wit, whenever I hear my lib friends say "oh did you hear what
Rush/Palin/W said," I know it's wrong, a lie, a misinterpretation.

In the same polling where they found that a majority of Obama voters didn't know who controlled congress before the 2008 election, they also found that the overwhelming majority of Obama voters credited the various stupid things Obama and Biden said on the campaign to Palin - 57 states, etc...

Posted by: 18-1 at October 20, 2010 12:43 PM (7BU4a)

74 Widener Law School Student

Q: Give the actual text of the First Amendment.

A: Ummm...Separation of Church and State.

Grade: Fail

Job: Fry cook

Posted by: Bar Exam at October 20, 2010 12:43 PM (ruu60)

75 63
Don't forget the Coons could not name the other rights in the first amendment.

I went to Yale law school. It means what I say it means!

Posted by: Coonskin Cap at October 20, 2010 12:43 PM (3wPsb)

76 What I said yesterday is that there was nothing substantively wrong with her question. The "blow-up" was either over her delivery, or a highly partisan audience.
I have since heard the tape. There's nothing she said that is in any way questionable. The wall of separation is indeed not in the Constitution or any piece of legislation. The highly-partisanlaw studentshad showed upthere to make her look bad. And they succeeded.
On a related note, the Hare-like Jim McGovern(ment) from MA-3 tells his debate audience that the "Constitution is wrong," and gets a round of applause.
Why can't we have a post about this video? I've only linked it ten times and sent it to you, Ace!
For those who would like to get this Marxist asshole McGovern(ment) out of the government, you can hit the link on my name below to help out Marty Lamb, his opponent and an awesome guy.
Unrelated thought: "applause" looks a lot like "applesauce"

Posted by: AoSHQ's Truman North at October 20, 2010 12:44 PM (G5JPI)

77 HA has a link to Daily Caller about tea partiers being turned away from
their polling places because they were wearing t-shirts with the Gadsden
flag.

I wonder if she would have been turned away for wearing a Mexican flag.

Posted by: SWalrus at October 20, 2010 12:44 PM (xxgag)

78 Widner = Queens (NYC) College School of Law--not even footnote-worthy...

Posted by: ParisParamus at October 20, 2010 12:44 PM (aYS5W)

79 These are the same people who believe Sarah Palin said what Tina Fey said in that one skit.

Posted by: CDR M at October 20, 2010 12:44 PM (5I8G0)

80 It's not important that O'Donnell's quote was mangled. Everyone knows the witch O'Donnell is an idiot. Any reporting must conform to that propaganda. We are the gatekeepers, after all.
/WaPo Style Handbook

Posted by: RickZ at October 20, 2010 12:45 PM (vGy3W)

81 73
I should get into a historical trivia game with a libtard sometime.
Once blocked from their forte of pop culture, they flail and fail. It's
rather amusing, for the first half hour anyway.

Ask them which president won the cold war.

Posted by: Sgt. Kook Fringe Media at October 20, 2010 12:42 PM (xxgag)OOh, OOh, I know - that dude with the funny mark on his head, that looks like a map - Gorbachevie

Posted by: Liberal 1 at October 20, 2010 12:45 PM (LdYLm)

82 oops...
I keep being proved wrong by the Suckers of Cock I am defending.
Rong rive the swuckers ofcock!!11!!
I fweel bwedda now...cowwie on wingers.

Posted by: Brawny Fwank at October 20, 2010 12:45 PM (pr+up)

83 75
WidenerYale Law School StudentQ: Give the actual text of the First Amendment.A: Ummm...Separation of Church and State.Grade: FailPass, with honors

FIFY

Posted by: Coonskin Cap at October 20, 2010 12:45 PM (3wPsb)

84 Ace,

I'm glad to hear you've come around on journalists' outright lying.

"That is why I prefer the more humane "Suckers of Cock," which makes it clear that I am not being dismissive or insulting, but am viewing these people as actual human beings, actual human beings who are Suckers of Cock."

Have you considered that these pieces of shit may not be actual human beings?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at October 20, 2010 12:45 PM (xJVlJ)

85 This is one case where I had no choice but to lie.
You know the reason. The rent is too damn high.

Posted by: Ben Evans at October 20, 2010 12:46 PM (+lsX1)

86 Have you considered that these pieces of shit may not be actual human beings?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at October 20, 2010 12:45 PM (xJVlJ)
Hey don't try and palm that crap off on us, buddy!

Posted by: Non Human Animals at October 20, 2010 12:47 PM (z1N6a)

87 oh, and all you GOP types who are first to throw our candidates to the MSM wolves as being embarassing and then deny you're bitching is helping the other side...

You're welcome.

Posted by: joeindc44 at October 20, 2010 12:47 PM (QxSug)

88 LOL. Comedy Central is having trouble finding enough porta-potties for their "Restoring Insanity" rally in DC. Seems the Marines have already reserved 800 of them for the Marine Corps Marathon.

Hmmm. Marines + filthy hippies and libtards. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at October 20, 2010 12:48 PM (UOM48)

89 73 I should get into a historical trivia game with a libtard sometime. Once blocked from their forte of pop culture, they flail and fail. It's rather amusing, for the first half hour anyway.Ask them which president won the cold war.
Posted by: Sgt. Kook Fringe Media at October 20, 2010 12:42 PM (xxgag)
That's easy. Gorbachev.

Posted by: Feces-for-Brains Liberal at October 20, 2010 12:48 PM (264X9)

90
Have you considered that these pieces of shit may not be actual human beings?Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at October 20, 2010 12:45 PM (xJVlJ)

Not our fault, either

Posted by: Higher Plant Life at October 20, 2010 12:48 PM (z1N6a)

91 "She is owed a formal correction and apology."

So when are you giving it to her?

Posted by: pajama momma at October 20, 2010 12:48 PM (WX7vK)

92 Have you considered that these pieces of shit may not be actual human beings?Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at October 20, 2010 12:45 PM (xJVlJ)

Just keep moving along....

Posted by: Pond Scum at October 20, 2010 12:49 PM (z1N6a)

93 /sock

Posted by: WalrusRex at October 20, 2010 12:49 PM (xxgag)

94 Ask them which president won the cold war.

Posted by: Sgt. Kook Fringe Media at October 20, 2010 12:42 PM (xxgag)

Ask them who ended World War II- that's one of my favorites.

Posted by: Nighthawk at October 20, 2010 12:49 PM (02uN6)

95 Media bias, much like the deficit and the Yeti, is a myth.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at October 20, 2010 12:49 PM (rNJC9)

96 89
LOL. Comedy Central is having trouble finding enough porta-potties for
their "Restoring Insanity" rally in DC. Seems the Marines have already
reserved 800 of them for the Marine Corps Marathon.

Hmmm. Marines + filthy hippies and libtards. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at October 20, 2010 12:48 PM (UOM4

What could possibly go right? Of course, Marines would never attack a citizen but one could dream about massive stompage.

Posted by: Radioactive Satellite Of LOVE at October 20, 2010 12:49 PM (LdYLm)

97 Not our fault, either
Don't even think about it.

Posted by: Minerals at October 20, 2010 12:50 PM (3jxR/)

98 Lay off on the law school reputation bashing. I did me an internet law degree and I passed the California bar exam. I don't need ewoks like you demeaning my accomplishments. You sound like those liberal jackasses at the bricks and mortar institutions that are trying to preserve their dying way of life. By the way,the chief product I see from Harvard law ain't impressive.

Posted by: California Red at October 20, 2010 12:50 PM (7uWb8)

99 >>***Don't laugh too hard, Widener Law School students. For one thing, check your enrollment: You're at Widener Fucking Law School. You aren't really law students and you won't really be lawyers.***

yeah, welcome to third tier hell.

my own personal hobby in life is warning people about the dangers of going to shitty fifth tier law schools. How they'll graduate six figures in debt to get jobs washing cars. But then I realize what pricks most law students are, and I feel that maybe I am wrong in helping them.

Great job, Widenerites!

Posted by: joeindc44 at October 20, 2010 12:50 PM (QxSug)

100 Um, Ace, friend. It takes validation from WaPo to bridge the crux of the argument we, your brethren, outlined yesterday as respects the explict subtext of this matter? In so much that the establishment clause contained in the first amendment does not specifically reference a separation of church and state?
This is almost a slap in the face, per se.

Posted by: journolist at October 20, 2010 12:50 PM (O/NP5)

101
Imagine if she said, "Global warming is a hoax."

The Widener dunces would gasp...and then faint.

Posted by: Senator Soothsayer (R-AoS) at October 20, 2010 12:50 PM (gM4zK)

102 82: To look at the last couple of years, the joke in that post may be on us.

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at October 20, 2010 12:51 PM (GBXon)

103 Yeah, the Marines are honorable and wouldn't attack the hippies and libtards. But one can dream.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at October 20, 2010 12:51 PM (UOM48)

104 Not our fault, either
Don't even think about it.

Posted by: Minerals at October 20, 2010 12:50 PM (3jxR/)

What are you lookin' at?

Posted by: Inert Gases at October 20, 2010 12:51 PM (rNJC9)

105 The Suckers of Cock would also have us believe that there are witches. What?!

Posted by: A Newt at October 20, 2010 12:52 PM (FcR7P)

106
Imagine if she said Muslims killed 3000 of us on 9/11.

The peanut gallery would get up and leave.

Posted by: Senator Soothsayer (R-AoS) at October 20, 2010 12:52 PM (gM4zK)

107 You know I keep reading on right leaning blogs how we shouldn't attack our own and should support the people fighting against the left and help anyone who'll stop Democrats but every time it comes to a social conservative, half of you guys pile on with the legacy media and trash them with the slightest encouragement.

How about following through on what you say about working with the team, even if its one of those terrifying social conservatives, eh?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2010 12:52 PM (61b7k)

108 Every story like this WaPo situation reminds me of a defense attorney I know who claims to have made many a case on the "can't un-ring a rang bell" tactic.

The writer certainly knew what he was doing, as he wouldn't "misquote" the entire foundation of his article by accident.

Posted by: The Hammer at October 20, 2010 12:53 PM (32ubA)

109 You goddamned idiots are seriously trying to tell us that the government's power should be limited by a mythical constitution? I suppose next you'll tell us pork sausage gives you a fat neck and one day a man will fly to the moon. Fucking yokels.

Posted by: Phil Hare at October 20, 2010 12:54 PM (+lsX1)

110 F-U Crazy wingers!!11!! every one knows the truththat the the U.S. constitution is a living, breathing document subject to the whimbs of your betters!11! So get over it already!!!

Posted by: Gwen Ifull of spunk at October 20, 2010 12:54 PM (pr+up)

111 98

Not our fault, either

Don't even think about it.

Posted by: Minerals at October 20, 2010 12:50 PM (3jxR/)
Don't look at me like that.
OMINOUS HUMMMMMMMMMMMM

Posted by: Sgt. Schlock at October 20, 2010 12:54 PM (GBXon)

112 What are you lookin' at?
Posted by: Inert Gases at October 20, 2010 12:51 PM (rNJC9)
Shut your piehole.

Posted by: Dark Matter at October 20, 2010 12:55 PM (4df7R)

113 What are you lookin' at?
Posted by: Inert Gases at October 20, 2010 12:51 PM (rNJC9)
Look, I was on the other side of the universe

Posted by: Dark Matter at October 20, 2010 12:55 PM (FIDMq)

114 come on, what can you expect from people who see "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and say "the right of the states to keep mitilias"?

Posted by: mallfly at October 20, 2010 12:55 PM (bJm7W)

115 First?

Posted by: Really? at October 20, 2010 12:55 PM (tSxym)

116 Our founding fathers never intended a separation from church and state. How do I know? Well, David Barton talks about the first bible printed in the United States in a youtube video entitled "U.S. Capitol Tour with David Barton".

In the video, David explains that Congress had the first bible printed in the United States for the sole purpose of being used in the classroom.

Again, for those who are literally challenged: the U.S. Congress had the first bible printed for the intention of being used in the classroom...an instructional aid.

Spin that differently if you can, naysayers and non-believers.

Posted by: elspeth at October 20, 2010 12:55 PM (0AkWH)

117 I just watched the tape again and Coons actually quoted the clause as "government shall make no establishment of religion". That ain't what it says.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at October 20, 2010 12:56 PM (X2rdt)

118 Nice Ace, very nice.

From my own point of view I saw this play out and it was clear from the start that they were manufacturing a gaffe. The very first thing out was the AP report which not only garbled her quote but paraphrased Coons statement to that of the exact wording of the clause. Next up was Politco and CBS which did better with Coons statement but still used ellipses to eliminate Coons inaccuracies. I knew then that this was total BS. If you are a reporter don't paraphrase and don't use ellipses if the point you are trying to make depends heavily on detail. If you see that then a red flag should instantly go up.

Posted by: Rocks at October 20, 2010 12:56 PM (Q1lie)

119 Comments go boom?

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at October 20, 2010 12:56 PM (GBXon)

120 Don't laugh too hard, Widener Law School students. For one thing, check your enrollment: You're at Widener Fucking Law School. You aren't really law students and you won't really be lawyers

I will have you know that this institution has some of the finest, most esteemed instructors in academia. One of these was none other than Sen. Joe Biden. .......(Dear God, what I'm I saying?)

Never mind

Posted by: Blue Hen at October 20, 2010 12:56 PM (R2fpr)

121 when this first erupted, it was all over yahoo news, how she flubbed. Anyone want to bet we see no corrections there either ?

Posted by: Cu'Chulainn at October 20, 2010 12:56 PM (oW269)

122 OMG what happened?? Did Pixy put me in the corner?? where did the blog go?

Posted by: dananjcon at October 20, 2010 12:57 PM (pr+up)

123 Not our fault, either
Don't even think about it.
Posted by: Minerals at October 20, 2010 12:50 PM (3jxR/)

What are you lookin' at?
Posted by: Inert Gases at October 20, 2010 12:51 PM (rNJC9)
Hey, you guys look familiar. Are we related?

Posted by: The stench emenating from fresh hyena vomit at October 20, 2010 12:57 PM (264X9)

124 Apropis of nothing, Intrade has The Republicans to control the House of Representatives after 2010 Congressional Elections @ 84.1.

Posted by: in before the inbefore commentor that's in before the inbefore troll at October 20, 2010 12:58 PM (S5YRY)

125 The sad thing we keep coming back to is why are the Media so focused on this race?

If she were really the rube they'd have us believe, they'd just post occasional statements from her without making a big deal of it.

Initially, I thought it was to try to paint the rest of Republicans with the same broad brush, but I really don't get why they think that would work. I can't believe that, if Coons is really up by double digits two weeks out, they can be that concerned...

So I'm left with the idea they're trying to smear all the American people: "If you believe religious things that are inconvenient, or believe in that silly Constitution, or have ever done anything dumb in your past- you are not worthy of your Democratic masters and should cower in fear and shame."

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 12:58 PM (8y9MW)

126 Newly-revised WaPo article excerpt:

He said the separation of church and state was one of a number of
"settled pieces of constitutional law" worked out through years of legal
development including Supreme Court decisions. He said a woman's right
to abortion was another.

And I couldn't find the clause in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to a partial-birth abortion, either. Perhaps it's somewhere in that Commerce clause thingy.

The point is, the Bearded Marxist has made his decisions concerning which "rights" are "settled", and which rights are not. Anyone disputing Mr. Coons' constitutional positions is an ignorant, bitter clinger and is quite possibly ... a witch!

Posted by: mrp at October 20, 2010 01:00 PM (HjPtV)

127 Who needs people who pick things apart when our gasps were heard around the world? Nuff said. We've got the power!

Posted by: Legal Scholars and Law Students at October 20, 2010 01:00 PM (gbCNS)

128 And my problem with O'Donnell was with not anticipating which way the media would interpret it. That is, one needs to speak defensively as a conservative, anticipating all the ways the media will twist your words, and making sure one speaks so clearly as to leave them all but untwistable.
The running idea with the Suckers-of-Cock in the MFM for 8 years implied Pres. George W. Bush was an idiot by his pensive manner of speaking,mostly in his cold answering of MFM questions. THIS is what he had on his mind during those 8 years, most especially after the "Mission Accomplished" kerfuffle. 'How can I successfully answer this question without these Suckers-of-Cock presenting it completely opposite of what I actually said/mean." It is also why Teleprompter Satan will very rarely go off script, and has refused to have open and candid pressers with the Suckers-of-Cock. Some of his worst gaffes have cum while off TOTUS.

Posted by: Drillanwr at October 20, 2010 01:00 PM (5M0+f)

129 huh?

Posted by: mallfly at October 20, 2010 01:01 PM (bJm7W)

130 The print version was edited? that's one count of lying. But didn't Beck play the sound bite of her saying that exact phrase, as edited, on his show yesterday? That means that the sound has been edited, also. I swear it was on Rush, too.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at October 20, 2010 01:01 PM (UEEex)

131 Yeah, that'll happen...

Posted by: model_1066 at October 20, 2010 01:03 PM (VnECg)

132 Pointless argument, but here it is: If the establishment clause of the first amendment, combined with the incorporation doctrine from the fourteenth, does not prohibit state and local governments from teaching religious doctrine in school - then how is it that the second amendment is incorporated to the states as in McDonald?

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:05 PM (n+cpx)

133 To answer Ace's earlier question, Why is the media making such a big deal out of this when O'Donnell is losing...
The same reason Obama is. Same political reason. As the Post itself reports:
Obama's Del. trip is chance to keep O'Donnell on radar
http://wapo.st/9FldHv
Coons, of course, appears to be running well ahead of Republican nominee Christine O'Donnell, even in the White House's own assessment. Delaware still leans Democratic, and since the primary defeat of moderate Republican candidate Michael Castle, Democrats have been favored to win.
But that is beside the point.
Campaigning for Coons - and, more important, against O'Donnell - gives Obama a chance to remind voters nationwide about the Republican nominee, whom Democrats have gleefully embraced as an example of an extreme conservative. In political parlance, this is known as "elevating" your opponent, something Obama has also done with House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Posted by: CJ at October 20, 2010 01:05 PM (9KqcB)

134 If the establishment clause of the first amendment,
combined with the incorporation doctrine from the fourteenth, does not
prohibit state and local governments from teaching religious doctrine in
school - then how is it that the second amendment is incorporated to
the states as in McDonald?

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:05 PM (n+cpx)
The first amendment places a specific restriction on Congressional action.The second amendment talks about "the right of the people".

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 01:11 PM (G/MYk)

135 Ace, there are no more journalists. Everyone in media is a propagandist, including certainly all of the hacks involved in this episode, and including also Howie Kurtz, whom you periodically take to task for betraying journalistic standards.

Posted by: les grossman at October 20, 2010 01:13 PM (K/USr)

136 Next time go listen to the audiotape - all of it - and stop relying on what others say, especially those out of the MFM.
It's clear when you watch the debate that she was right and Coons was just being the lying Marxist bastard that he is.
And I would add, yes you were right that she could have given a little more explanation on the origins of "Separation of Church and State" to clarify her position and "persuade" the audience - but right now she is in a bare-knuckle fight with her Commiecrat opponent. With that in mind, the national media exposure she has garnered from the MFM witchhunt is priceless compared to the one student in the audience that she might have persuaded simply because they haven't handed over their brainstem to these Statist asswipes yet.
I hate to say it but wenever defeatedthe Evil Empire, we are still at war with it; it simply pulled up stakes, moved here and set up shop in our own backyard.
Every one of these Marxist bastards needs to be slapped down hard every time they open their pieholes and Christine O'Donnell did just that the other night.
BTW - I lovewitches!!

Posted by: 57 States at October 20, 2010 01:14 PM (kbH+o)

137 You didn't answer the question. Your answer ignores the 14th amendment entirely. Care to try again?

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:14 PM (n+cpx)

138 In political parlance, this is known as "elevating" your opponent,

I do believe "someguy" would call it something else.

Posted by: Waterhouse at October 20, 2010 01:14 PM (KF/Jh)

139 Next time go listen to the audiotape - all of it - and stop relying on what others say, especially those out of the MFM.
It's clear when you watch the debate that she was right and Coons was just being the lying Marxist bastard that he is.
And I would add, yes you were right that she could have given a little more explanation on the origins of "Separation of Church and State" to clarify her position and "persuade" the audience - but right now she is in a bare-knuckle fight with her Commiecrat opponent. With that in mind, the national media exposure she has garnered from the MFM witchhunt is priceless compared to the one student in the audience that she might have persuaded simply because they haven't handed over their brainstem to these Statist asswipes yet.
I hate to say it but wenever defeatedthe Evil Empire, we are still at war with it; it simply pulled up stakes, moved here and set up shop in our own backyard.
Every one of these Marxist bastards needs to be slapped down hard every time they open their pieholes and Christine O'Donnell did just that the other night.
BTW - I lovewitches!!
Whatthey justsaid.

Posted by: EZB at October 20, 2010 01:16 PM (Ty06w)

140 combined with the incorporation doctrine from the fourteenth

I call bullshit. There is no such thing. It was made up by idiot judges to get the outcome they wanted. I do not accept it.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 01:17 PM (3wPsb)

141 Liars, liars, liars.

Makes me want to donate money to Repub candidates or something!

Posted by: pj at October 20, 2010 01:18 PM (GK2JE)

142 Since people are asking about what she said and if tapes have been doctored, I'm going to dump my transcript in this thread, too:

O'Donnell: Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?

{crowd gasps and laughs}

Coons: It's in the First Amendment... no an excellent ques...

{interrupted by moderator to silence the laughing crowd}

Tape jumps...

Coons: The
First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal
government shall not establish a religion, and decisional law by the
Supreme Court over many many decades...

O'Donnell: The First Amendment does?

Coons: ...clarifies and enshrines that there is a separation of church and state that our courts and our laws must respect...

O'Donnell:
So you're telling me that the separation of church and state... the
phrase "the separation of church and state" is in the First Amendment?

Tape jumps again...

O'Donnell: Let me just clarify... you're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?

Coons: Government shall make no establishment of religion...
O'Donnell: That's... in the First Amendment......(?)

Posted by: The Mega Independent at October 20, 2010 01:19 PM (X2rdt)

143 I have a different theory on Obama/Coons.

He wants to be associated with a winner. And since he's still popular-ish in Delaware, he can't do much damage.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 01:19 PM (3wPsb)

144 You didn't answer the question. Your answer ignores the 14th amendment entirely. Care to try again?

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:14 PM (n+cpx)
I did answer your question. A Congressional restriction is not addressed in the 14th amendment. Only "the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States" is addressed (in your question). The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is one such "privelege[] or immunity[] of citizens of the United States". Congressional legislative constraints are not.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 01:21 PM (G/MYk)

145 So, AmishDude, it's your position that McDonald should be overturned? And what part of the following is "made up"?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

The motherfucking Congress can't impose their religion on me, and the motherfucking states can't either. And neither can dumb motherfuckers who can't read the constitution.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:24 PM (n+cpx)

146 heh, that's what I get for posting after researching something. Can't get YouTube at work, so I can't see the whole thing.

Carry on! disregard my last comment!

Posted by: Jay in Ames at October 20, 2010 01:24 PM (UEEex)

147
Suckers of Barbed Cock

FIFY. You're welcome.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at October 20, 2010 01:24 PM (1hM1d)

148 Double, double toil and trouble; fire burn and caldron bubble.

Posted by: Macbeth at October 20, 2010 01:25 PM (kbH+o)

149 Ace, there are no more journalists. Everyone in
media is a propagandist, including certainly all of the hacks involved
in this episode, and including also Howie Kurtz, whom you periodically
take to task for betraying journalistic standards.

Posted by: les grossman at October 20, 2010 01:13 PM (K/USr)
Its not that they are gone. There never WERE "journalists" in the sense we mean them today - high minded truth tellers annointed by god.
In the old days, the Rep Paper and the Dem Paper would tear at each other the way Right and Left blogs do now. And if a reporter embarrassed his boss by screwing up, he got fired. No free market in papers led to no truth as darkness follows sunset.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 20, 2010 01:25 PM (z1N6a)

150 You didn't answer the question. Your answer ignores the 14th amendment entirely. Care to try again?

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:14 PM (n+cpx)

Besides. The second amendment applies to "the people" without the 14th. The prohibition from "infringe[ment]" is general.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 01:25 PM (G/MYk)

151 THIS

O'Donnell: So you're telling me that the separation of church and state... the phrase "the separation of church and state" is in the First Amendment?

"the phrase"

"the phrase"

Clear as day in the video. She knows precisely what she's talking about and precisely the point she is trying to make. You can disagree with her "strict constructionist" approach, but there is no doubt whatsoever that she knows the distinction between the actual text of the amendment and "the phrase" separation of church and state.

I still think she's a dunce though.

Posted by: Guvnah at October 20, 2010 01:25 PM (Rg8DN)

152 You're a big man, Ace. You have integrity, that is, I mean to say.

Posted by: gary gulrud at October 20, 2010 01:26 PM (/g2vP)

153 This is why I said it was a pointless argument. Folks who want to teach creation in public school are too fucking stupid to be reasoned with. I give up.

Just a note, though, you fucktards: if and when you get your way, don't be so sure that it's your religious beliefs that will be taught. If you live in the Southwest, your kids might just end up being taught Catholicism. If you live in Michigan, you might find your kids being taught sharia. Not that any of you have the native wit to understand that risk, but oh well.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:27 PM (n+cpx)

154 O'Donnell weighs as much as a duck!

Oh, and racism!

Posted by: resident troll at October 20, 2010 01:27 PM (FUozQ)

155 Here at around the 3:47 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYUvDjLPcwY

Posted by: Guvnah at October 20, 2010 01:27 PM (Rg8DN)

156 OT but I can't help it....

New England's Most Independent Congressman Jim Himes is calling in a last minute Hail Mary visit from, you guessed it, Barack Obama. This isn't about fund raising as there is no money in Bridgeport. You go to Stamford for that. Obama is coming on Oct. 30th to rally the base, ie. Blacks, in Bridgeport and get them out and voting for Himes. Without large margins in Connecticut's largest city the Democrat is a sure loser as they always lose the rest of the District. It won't help.

Hime is running against Dan Debicella, a great guy, really. This district has been listed as a Safe Dem forever and moved to Likely Dem. It's BS. Himes is going to lose.

How bad is it this year for Dems? Where will their firewall be? Inner cities, that's it. The only truly safe place for a Dem this year is the inner city. Everything outside the border of a city is in play.

TSUNAMI!!!

Posted by: Rocks at October 20, 2010 01:31 PM (Q1lie)

157 Whatevs slackers!

The news never makes shit up.

Trust me, I'm Greg Packer

Posted by: Greg Packer at October 20, 2010 01:32 PM (rMhm7)

158 146
So, AmishDude, it's your position that McDonald should be overturned? And what part of the following is "made up"?

It's a lie. It's a convenient lie, but a lie nonetheless.

Look, I'd love it if the "more perfect union" clause would lead to the summary execution of lawyers, but it doesn't, even though a reasonable reading would lead one to that conclusion.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

The First amendment does not give a privilege or immunity. It is a restriction upon Congress specifically. "Congress shall make no law" and all that. To read it as granting a right, privilege or immunity is to misread it both literally and in its intention. The second, however, is a statement of individual rights.

A reducto ad absurdum argument would lead one to conclude that all state tax rates should be the same.

Also, incorporation was invoked quite a bit later after the 14th was passed.

The motherfucking Congress can't impose their religion on
me,

Sure it can and it does all the time:
Anthropogenic global warming
Social justice
Etc.

Just because there isn't a diety doesn't mean it isn't a religion. In fact, the greatest faith is placed in what is usually not called a religion.

and the motherfucking states can't either. And neither can dumb
motherfuckers who can't read the constitution.

I read it. The problem is that I understand it.

I realize you want the lie to be true, but it isn't. It's a lie.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 01:36 PM (3wPsb)

159 If you live in Michigan, you might find your kids
being taught sharia.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:27 PM (n+cpx)
Actually, they're already being taught that islam is the only cool religion and that Christianity is the root of all evil, all over the nation, now. I don't see how a they can get any worse than they already are.If you force locals to fund a school, then you have to allow them to have major voices in how that school is run and what is taught there. It's not your choice to tell them that they have to spend their money on your ideas. If you don't like that, give them vouchers for their school funding and let them free.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 01:36 PM (G/MYk)

160
The worms are getting cocky:

A top Senate Republican suggested Monday night that the party's
prevailing strategies to curtail the new healthcare law might not be
good ideas.
Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the
Senate Budget Committee, said that repealing the new healthcare reform
law � or looking to defund it � were not good options.
"I don't think starving or repealing is probably the best approach here," ...You basically go in and restructure it."

Posted by: Rino Alert at October 20, 2010 01:38 PM (rMMMP)

161 Make that from Likely to Leans Dem. Now it's a Tossup on RCP.

Posted by: Rocks at October 20, 2010 01:39 PM (Q1lie)

162 In the reporters defense, Widener is a Historically Asthmatic University, which could certainly explain all the gasping.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at October 20, 2010 01:40 PM (+lsX1)

163 Look, I'd love it if the "more perfect union" clause would lead to the summary execution of lawyers, but it doesn't, even though a reasonable reading would lead one to that conclusion.

I'm stealing that! Excellent.

The First amendment does not give a privilege or immunity. It is a restriction upon Congress specifically. "Congress shall make no law" and all that. To read it as granting a right, privilege or immunity is to misread it both literally and in its intention.

I would just add that there are actually two rights of citizens discussed in the first amendment, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So, they would come along with the 14th.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 01:40 PM (G/MYk)

164

That is the what they intended, of course. And they got that. And now,
24 hours later, when that initial false impression has been put into
the minds of voters, they stealth-correct and run the whole quote.
And you believed them.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 20, 2010 01:41 PM (IuKAf)

165 And I would note one of the interesting aspects of the First Amendment and how carefully they chose that wording; it is very specific in placing restrictions on "Congress" but addressing the right of the people to petition "the Government" for redress.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 01:44 PM (G/MYk)

166 I would just add that there are actually two rights of citizens
discussed in the first amendment, "the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So, they would come along with the 14th.

Well, first rights are granted by God. You don't have to believe in God, it's just a legal concept inasmuch as these are things that governments cannot grant. They simply are beyond the reach of governments.

I would also contend that "privilege and immunity" was (surprisingly for the 14th) carefully chosen. They didn't say "rights". Essentially what it means is that Alabamans have to treat all Alabamans the same as each other by virtue of being citizens.

But if they decide that freedom of speech doesn't cover burning a flag, they can do that, but it cannot be selectively enforced, either de jure or de facto.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 01:49 PM (3wPsb)

167 Suckers of Barbed Cock
A Lora Leigh fan!

Posted by: EZB at October 20, 2010 01:50 PM (Ty06w)

168 So, AmishDude, please elucidate the privileges and immunities that are guaranteed in the constitution. Since free speech, free press, aren't; since peaceable assembly isn't; since the right to worship isn't; and the right to peaceably assemble isn't, I'm really curious what you deign to consider privilege or an immunity. I suspect that the list is short. Then, once you have, please explain how they are privileges and immunities when nothing in the first amendment is. Your argument entails that the individual states have the authority to shutter any news outlet they see fit, that they can dictate what speech is acceptable, that they can break up peaceful gatherings, and on and on. It's frankly stupid. I am learning why so many lefties despise us on the right, because that statement is not only fucking stupid beyond belief, it's morally detestable.

iknowtheleft, nothing at all is preventing you from providing your religious instruction to your children. Nothing. Go right ahead. Just leave mine out of it. Like the constitution guarantees, regardless of what authoritarian douchebags like AmishDude think.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:51 PM (n+cpx)

169 That is the what they intended, of course. And they got that. And now, 24 hours later, when that initial false impression has been put into the minds of voters, they stealth-correct and run the whole quote.
We're fighting a battle with an enemy that makes Apocalypse now look like dinner at Granny's. What is driving me nuts is those who keep thinking they're ever playing fair or honest.Ever.

Posted by: EZB at October 20, 2010 01:54 PM (Ty06w)

170 If you live in Michigan, you might find your kids
being taught sharia.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:27 PM (n+cpx)

Or, using one of the major pillars of Federalism (to whit: mobility) you could move to Texas where they're sensible about these things.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 01:56 PM (8y9MW)

171 Sorry, when you claim that the clause "Congress shall make no law" somehow removes anything that follows from the incorporation clause, you exempt the entire first amendment. Even if somebody is fool enough to accept your weaselling on certain things being called rights, and not others (which ignores the 10th amendment anyway, and make you an authoritarian anyway), you explicitly exclude free press and free speech because they aren't labeled "rights" either.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:57 PM (n+cpx)

172 I'm really curious what you deign to consider privilege or an immunity. I suspect that the list is short.

It is indeed. Read the First and then read the Second. The latter is in the passive voice. "...shall not be infringed." By whom? Presumably, by anybody.

But the first has a subject, Congress.

Your argument entails that the individual states have the authority to
shutter any news outlet they see fit, that they can dictate what speech
is acceptable, that they can break up peaceful gatherings, and on and
on.

Not if it's in their state constitution. But again you focus on outcomes. If you don't like the outcome, change it in the legislature. Amend your state constitution. I'm all for it. And I'm all for cutting and pasting the first amendment with "the state legislature" in place of "Congress" and you'll have my vote to do so.

But you don't want that. You want even worse than the hypothetical shuttering of news outlets. You want the courts to simply declare something to be the law because they want it that way and it's "morally detestable" for it to be otherwise. You want them to be our overlords, our gods, our black-robed ubermensches.

You are the authoritarian. You. The judge-sniffer.

That is not their place. It is mine. It's my government dammit and I refuse to be dictated to by lawyers in robes.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 01:58 PM (3wPsb)

173 The turning point for the Media, as far as I can see, was Watergate. Here a couple of reporters brought down a president that they just so happened to loathe. Imagine the power they suddenly knew they had, that they could use to further their own agenda. It's no coincidence that every political scandal since then has had "-gate" appended to it.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at October 20, 2010 01:59 PM (bvfVF)

174 Well, first rights are granted by God. You don't have to believe in
God, it's just a legal concept inasmuch as these are things that
governments cannot grant. They simply are beyond the reach of
governments.

I was just pointing out that they are "discussed" as 'rights' in the First Amendment, which I have no doubt would put them in as a "privelege [or] immunity of a US citizen".

I would also contend that "privilege and immunity" was (surprisingly for
the 14th) carefully chosen. They didn't say "rights". Essentially
what it means is that Alabamans have to treat all Alabamans the same as
each other by virtue of being citizens.

I would disagree with this. I understand your point about the phrase "priveleges and immunities" but I think that it just means that all addressing of the individual in the Constitution percolates through to the state level. Your last point is covered in the rest of the 14th.

That's how I view this, at least.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 02:01 PM (G/MYk)

175 I live in Texas, AllenG. It's why I'm so goddam insistent that nobody fucks with any of my rights, whether authoritarians like AmishDude like it or not. I was born to fight any and all intrusions on my rights.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:02 PM (n+cpx)

176 174 The turning point for the Media, as far as I can see, was Watergate. Here a couple of reporters brought down a president that they just so happened to loathe. Imagine the power they suddenly knew they had, that they could use to further their own agenda. It's no coincidence that every political scandal since then has had "-gate" appended to it.
And all we've done since then is either feed the beast or offer them blood sacrifices. This is just pitiful. Why bother if we're giving them that damn much power?

Posted by: EZB at October 20, 2010 02:02 PM (Ty06w)

177 Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:51 PM (n+cpx)

What is so hard to understand about the difference between "Congress shall make no law" and "The Right of the People?"

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances"

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

"... the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial..."

"...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

"The enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people" (no bold- I'd have had to bold the entire amendment)

So that handles the "Rights" The "immunities" are similarly easy to track down, you should try it some time.

Would it hurt your feelings to know that only the Federal Congress (by the US Constitution, anyway) is prohibited from limiting Freedom of Speech, the Press, and Religion? Most (I'm betting all) State Constitutions also enshrine the same limitation- but they didn't have to.

Why is it so hard to understand that the Constitution actually says what it means?

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 02:06 PM (8y9MW)

178 Is it really a false impression created?

The difficulty is she is telegraphing that she believes it is SIGNIFICANT that this phrase is not written into the constitution; as if absence of the phrase makes separation of church and state a fiction, not that she is busting on (the very hideous) Coon's memorization and recall.

Separation of church and state is "in" the constitution; that's what establishment clause guards. If you believe Madison �this was not only an ideal, but that the establishment clause n guarded separation of church and state. (He said that in context of precedents set in its interpretation, as a proof that it was such a guard.)

I won't get into things Jefferson said, but I will if I were near her I would ask - what do you propose by making that distinction? That there is no phrase "separation of church and state", or that there IS NO separation of church and state. I suspect her remarks are not limited to phrasing but to establishment clause meaning.

Also, does she mean to honor the DE constitution? Does she reject the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom?

I tend to think the little sophistry she employed struck her as a clever argument for the permissibility of government entanglement or preferment of religious observance or instruction.

I think she's a parrot and that this is a point she has read somewhere or heard sometime as being significant.

A reasonable person might decide wrong interpretation of what �separation of church and state� is, has led to overzealous or mistaken acts by government - perhaps interfering with free exercise of religion. That is one thing. That she believes there is no separation of church and state guarded by the establishment clause, because that phrase is absent (it was �merely� used to describe the protections of the constitution by the men who put it together) is quite another

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2010 02:06 PM (Z4T49)

179 It's almost as if hyper "credentialed" NE lawyers are extremely gullible and naive...

Posted by: Angel Martin at October 20, 2010 02:06 PM (L57nu)

180 Guess Fortune 500 companies won't be lining up to hire Widener Law School Graduates and it just goes to show we should probably always check the diploma on the wall of the lawyers we hire ... and I, for one, willrun from their office if it says Widener.

Posted by: D. at October 20, 2010 02:07 PM (plSrP)

181 Fortune 500 cos. are outsourcing their work to India. $500/hour for a second year associate days are over and they're never coming back.

Posted by: Angel Martin at October 20, 2010 02:09 PM (L57nu)

182 I would disagree with this. I understand your point about the phrase
"priveleges and immunities" but I think that it just means that all
addressing of the individual in the Constitution percolates through to
the state level.
The problem with that view is that "incorporation" took more than a generation to be enacted.

If you view the Bill of Rights as primarily restrictions on government, then the declaration of incorporation

If you view rights as being granted by the Constitution (and hence can be revoked by same), then we are slaves to men and take whatever they deign to give us.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 02:10 PM (3wPsb)

183 You want the courts to simply declare something to be the law because
they want it that way and it's "morally detestable" for it to be
otherwise.

This is a breathtakingly stupid thing to say. The fourteenth extends all privileges and immunities to the citizens of the various states. Not the judges.

You state that rights come from God on the one hand, but that the states can abridge them at their whim. That is the viewpoint that is detestable.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:12 PM (n+cpx)

184 It's why I'm so goddam insistent that nobody fucks with any of my rights, whether authoritarians like AmishDude like it or not. I was born to fight any and all intrusions on my rights.

Bull. You want to be a slave to the black-robed tyrants, taking whatever morsels they give to you.

And when they say that "incorporation" or whatever other nonsense theory justifies the forced purchasing of health insurance, you will just roll over on your back and purr.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 02:14 PM (3wPsb)

185 Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:02 PM (n+cpx)

Oh really? So you'd rather have a Judge handing down decrees from on-high?

The judges distorted the Constitution. They've done it for a long time in a lot of ways, but they've been particularly egregious on the First Amendment (protecting some speech, but not all, I can have pictures of witches in schools around Halloween, but not the Nativity at Christmas, etc.)

Now, rather than be able to govern ourselves by way of our State Legislatures, some unaccountable Judges used the 14th amendment to do something it was never intended (two somethings, really) and force the States to become little more than provinces while granting citizenship to anyone whose parents happened to be able to sneak across the border (something NO other country does, btw) so we have to deal with this metric butt-load of law and regulation that Congress has no authority to pass- all because you don't want your precious snowflake to have to hear about God on a regular basis?

How about we go all the way back to where there was no such thing as a public school? Then you wouldn't have to worry about religion in school- except that the only free school to which you could send your children would be the one RUN BY THE CHURCH.

And why, by-the-by, can parents who want their children to learn about Intelligent Design (or even true Creationism) can "teach their kids at home" but you're too important to teach your own children at home about whatever your beliefs are? Hmmm?

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 02:16 PM (8y9MW)

186 Fuck you. I repeat: only a goddam fool could state that rights come from God but can be abridged by the states. A goddam authoritarian fool, at that.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:19 PM (n+cpx)

187 Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:12 PM (n+cpx)

Read it again, sand-for-brains. He said "first rights" come from God. Those would be "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (really, property, but I digress).

God didn't promise you the freedom to say whatever you want. God didn't promise you that you could carry a gun (or sword, or stick-with-nail-in). God didn't promise you that no one would move into your house without your say-so.

God promised you that, from the moment you first drew breath, you could do everything in your power (however much or little that might be) to preserve said life. God promised you that you could make your own decisions- and rise or fall by the consequences thereof. God promised you that what you had received, you could defend.

The Constitution doesn't even get into the idea of Natural (or "First") Rights. The Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, are a self-limiting document giving specific powers that the people were (the Constitution) and were not (the Bill of Rights) rendering to the Federal Government.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 02:23 PM (8y9MW)

188 So many pejorative adjectives, so little substance.

This is a breathtakingly stupid thing to say. The fourteenth extends
all privileges and immunities to the citizens of the various states.
Not the judges.

If you read the 14th again, there are no "citizens of the various states". They are "citizens of the United States". This is an important distinction because you can, of course, get the hell out if you wish without a passport.

But remember that judges invented "incorporation". The word, of course, doesn't appear in the text of the 14th.

You state that rights come from God on the one
hand, but that the states can abridge them at their whim. That is the
viewpoint that is detestable.

Again, you think like a lawyer. All good things are enshrined in law, all bad things are forbidden by law.

Rights come from God and even if a tyrannical government abridges them, the rights are still there, immutable. Various Constitutions help to enshrine what governments can and cannot do vis-a-vis these rights. They are not perfect. One cannot have a First Amendment that outlines every possible circumstance under which one may or may not touch speech. The EU tried it. It doesn't work and it doesn't condense to a pocket version.

The broad principles are set down, the lines are drawn between Federal and State, between judicial and legislative and we (not our judicial masters) decide how it acts in our lives.

The Constitution is not a Koran that tells you which hand to use.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 02:25 PM (3wPsb)

189 Fuck you. I repeat: only a goddam fool could state that rights come
from God but can be abridged by the states. A goddam authoritarian
fool, at that.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:19 PM (n+cpx)

Get out of my state, you Yankee, carpet-bagging pile of filth.
And learn how to reason and spell on your way out.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 02:26 PM (8y9MW)

190 Oh by the way: Don't laugh too hard, Widener Law School students. For one thing, check your enrollment: You're at Widener Fucking Law School. You aren't really law students and you won't really be lawyers.
Heh. It's like the parade scene at the end of D.C. Cab. Yeah, you think you're big heroes and your doing a sit down shimmy. Good on you. But, you know, you still work as a cabby in fucking Washington, D.C.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at October 20, 2010 02:26 PM (P33XN)

191 If you view rights as being granted by the
Constitution (and hence can be revoked by same), then we are slaves to
men and take whatever they deign to give us.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 02:10 PM (3wPsb)
That's twice that you have claimed that I said that. I did not. I said "discussed" and "addressed", which are not close to "granted". But "priveleges and immunities" extends well beyond "rights" to all restrictions or powers in the federal Constitution which are directed at the individual. i.e. a US citizen can be assured to enjoy the basic, Constitutional individual freedoms and priveleges in all the states. It didn't transfer anything oriented around a specific arm of the federal government, since it could not be assured that an analogous arm even exists at the state level (as we see with the unicameral Nebraska legislature).

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 02:26 PM (G/MYk)

192 I want that vote to repeal Ocare, but we aren't getting it.

There's enough smoke there to worry about OD and hand wave of basic limits on Government that ensure our freedoms because people got in the habit of using "SOCAS" as the founders did, to describe protections of the stablishment clause.

Look, I want her vote to repeal Ocare, but as we are not getting it, what is the point of submitting to the discredit she brings a political movement that needs to WIN.

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2010 02:29 PM (Z4T49)

193 That's twice that you have claimed that I said that. I did not.

I didn't say you did. I should have used the third-person "one" rather than the colloquial second-person "you". It's a bad habit. And I used "if" and did so intentionally. I didn't mean it to imply you thought that way, but to clarify my position further.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 02:30 PM (3wPsb)

194 I have a feeling this is going to end badly for Phil Smith.

He'll either:

A) die in a hail of gunfire and New Testaments fired from belt-fed Bible launchers into his compound where goddammit! he was minding his own business, but goddammit! he was born to defend his motherfuckin' rights!

B) die from lack of attention, because nobody gives a fuck.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 20, 2010 02:30 PM (xgfcV)

195 I repeat: only a goddam fool could state that rights
come from God but can be abridged by the states.

Your problem is that you don't know what constitutes a "right".
Proscriptions on Congress are not an individual "right". You'd have to
be really dumb to think so.

A goddam
authoritarian fool, at that.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:19 PM (n+cpx)
Actually, it would be "a goddam federalist fool". Federalists are never authoritarians, since they believe in more than enough state autonomy (as described in the Constitution) to always allow someone the escape of many other states to go to. That is the opposite of authoritarian. It's the liberals who want the federal government to be a national government that dictates everything to everyone who are the truly dangerous authoritarians. The fact that they're retarded lunatics only adds to the threat.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 02:34 PM (G/MYk)

196 9th and 10th Amendments, dumbasses. Read them, and when you comprehend them, come back.

The long and the short of it is that you clowns want the government to have the authority you want it to have. Unfortunately, you aren't intelligent enough to figure out that once you hand that authority over to the government, it can be taken over by lefty douchebags. You don't want to get rid of an intrusive government - you want it to only intrude YOUR bullshit preferences instead of the other pack of fucktards' preferences.

You're no different than the Kos kids. You're just the mirror image is all. Statist at heart. Supremely confident that your way is the right way. Too fucking stupid to see that you are exactly like the other side that you detest.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:35 PM (n+cpx)

197 The Supreme Court can and has misinterpreted the Constitution. Take a look at the 14th Amendment, read what it says, then look at how it's screwed up to mean that any pregnant illegalcan come over here and squeeze out a UScitizen without going through the process of becoming an Americn citizen herself. Talk about afucked-up decision dreamed up by some wild-eyed, senile old judge...
That's why it's vitally important that we seek out and elect only those who understand the Constitution and who don't fantasize rights for foreigners that don't exist and were never intended to exist.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at October 20, 2010 02:37 PM (3jxR/)

198 Phil, I'd look into suing the Dale Carnegie Institute if I were you.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 20, 2010 02:40 PM (xgfcV)

199 The long and the short of it is that you clowns want
the government to have the authority you want it to have.
Unfortunately, you aren't intelligent enough to figure out that once you
hand that authority over to the government, it can be taken over by
lefty douchebags. You don't want to get rid of an intrusive government -
you want it to only intrude YOUR bullshit preferences instead of the
other pack of fucktards' preferences.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:35 PM (n+cpx)
We're having a discussion about the essence of federalism and you respond with "the government". Which government? What part of which government? The People? Who has what power? That's the point, you dipshit. And you drone on with "the government" ...

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 02:42 PM (G/MYk)

200 Depending on how you interpret the whole thing, she comes off as either an ignoramus, or a petulant loser in a game of rummy claiming, "Aha! You took your finger off it! I saw you!"

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at October 20, 2010 02:44 PM (PmZ9N)

201 homework for morons: submit your 'story' idea to Widener Law:http://tinyurl.com/22w7kwq
My submission:
Dear Dean Wormer:
Please regale us with the admission requirements for Widener students and the hiring standards for Widener professors, along with each groups' relative ability to (i) read the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (you know, the place where Widener is located), and (ii) comprehend said First Amendment. Should make for entertaining and enlightening fare.
Yours,
the Butcher
867-5309

Posted by: the Butcher at October 20, 2010 02:44 PM (8g9qq)

202
Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 02:30 PM (3wPsb)

No problem. AllenG is expressing my view better than I have.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 02:45 PM (G/MYk)

203 In other words, iknowtheleft, you think that it's perfectly okay for your fellow Americans to be ruled by a state religion. Or to have their free speech, voting rights, what have you curtailed because they live in, say, Illinois or NY.

Again: you are just a statist, and too big of a fool to recognize that when you give the authority to the state that you desire, it can be taken over by people that you don't want to have that authority. It's unbelievably shortsighted especially when you look at the pack of yahoos that are in DC right now. It's not shortsighted, it's fucking blind.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:45 PM (n+cpx)

204 but they usually don't lie per se
In order to even attempt to force this loopy assertion into your head you are going to have to claim that you have never once listened to NPR.

Posted by: John Galt at October 20, 2010 02:49 PM (F/4zf)

205 Sigh.

Rights come from God. No one can remove them or abridge them. They are inalienable.

However, the state can, with sufficient cause, at times restrict the free exercise of rights when they are deemed by the people to cause significant damage to society and other people's rights.

I have the right to liberty. Nothing on earth can remove or limit that right, ever. Even in Jail I have the right to liberty. My free exercise of that right is all that's been limited, not the right its self.

This is an important distinction which too many people do not seem to comprehend.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2010 02:50 PM (61b7k)

206 Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:35 PM (n+cpx)

Are you SERIOUSLY saying that those of us advocating strict Federalism (that is, the Federal Government has no place in a whole host of issues) are the Authoritarian Statists?

What color is the sky where you live?

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 02:51 PM (8y9MW)

207 Supremely confident that your way is the right way.

Well, it worked pretty much until about the time of FDR. We went a different "way" after that, and that "way" ain't working so good these days.

What is certain, is the current amorphous/squishy constitution "way" ain't cutting it.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 20, 2010 02:51 PM (1Cuk/)

208 197
9th and 10th Amendments, dumbasses. Read them, and when you comprehend them, come back.

Wow. You're arguing against Federalism by citing the 9th and 10th. Really?

The
long and the short of it is that you clowns want the government to have
the authority you want it to have.

Just the opposite. But I fear the judges more than hypothetical encroachments on freedom that you cite. I think you're engaging in projection here.

Here is a real application of this hypothetical discussion: Because of the doctrine of "Separation of Church and State" if a state offers vouchers to children to go to the school of their choice, they are permitted to use it at the Fingerpaint Happy Fun Time Recess School, but cannot use it at the nondenominational St. Newton's prep because of a (no matter how slight) religious component.

If discussing philosophy is too difficult for you, Phil, then let's stick with the concrete.

With the doctrine of incorporation, that's the end of the story, rotten schools for everyone and no freedom at all. Without it, a state can decide that that is silly and if the vouchers are awarded without preference for one religion over another, then it's permitted.

That means sharia schools (no big deal, because Saudi money makes this happen anyway) and anti-religious schools too.

Then you have 50 laboratories deciding what the best policy is.

Unfortunately, you aren't
intelligent enough to figure out that once you hand that authority over
to the government,

Remember, judges are "the government" and they are the most arrogant, least accountable and most often wrong branch of it.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 02:53 PM (3wPsb)

209 Remember, judges are "the government" and they are the most arrogant, least accountable and most often wrong branch of it.

Ain't that a sad fact that so many seem to miss. Especially lawyers.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2010 02:54 PM (61b7k)

210 Fuck the Dale Carnegie Institute. I ain't interested in friends. I want friends, I'll buy a dog.

IKTL, you just keep thinking that your mythical 'federalism' will somehow save you. I'll cop to using "the government" as a catch all term. It doesn't change the quite obvious fact that you and the other statist, AmishDude, are keenly intent to hand over power to some government, whether it is state, local, or federal. You can play semantic games all you want. You're still ignoring that all governments gain power inexorably, they never willingly give any up, and our system is particularly susceptible to being taken over by competing interests with all that power intact.

Giving "the government" - whether state, local, or federal - any power over our lives is stupid. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but it should always be done grudgingly.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:55 PM (n+cpx)

211 204
In other words, iknowtheleft, you think that it's perfectly okay for your fellow Americans to be ruled by a state religion.

You keep thinking "unconstitutional" is a synonym for "bad idea".

There are bad ideas which are constitutional and unconstitutional ideas which are good.

When did you graduate Widener, Phil?

Posted by: AmishDude at October 20, 2010 02:55 PM (3wPsb)

212 Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:45 PM (n+cpx)

You're either being deliberately mule-headed, or you're the stupidest piece of trash troll we've had in a while. I'm not sure which.

The fact is that, under Federalism, if you don't like how your state does it, you can move. If you don't want to live in Mecca West (that'd be Dearborn, MI for those keeping count), then move out of MI. If you don't want to live in Christian Theocratic Texas, then move.

Federalism is like capitalist competition for the States- the ones with the best combination of law, policy, living environment, and economy will have the largest populations, and therefore the biggest say in the Federal Government.

If you want the People to have the power to govern themselves, you should support true Federalism- even if that means that sometimes you'll lose arguments. That means that powers the Federal Government isn't supposed to have (wait for it...) it shouldn't have.

You, however, do not support Federalism. In fact, you are supporting an unaccountable politically appointed oligarchy- one of the prime pillars of the very statism you claim to oppose.

I will leave out of this (for the moment) the cognitive dissonance caused by the same person who was talking about the merits of the mythical "incorporation clause" of the 14th amendment suddenly to be holding up the 9th and 10th as points in his own argument.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 02:57 PM (8y9MW)

213 Giving "the government" - whether state, local,
or federal - any power over our lives is stupid. Sometimes it's
unavoidable, but it should always be done grudgingly.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:55 PM (n+cpx)

So, rather than give the least power possible to the Federal Government (where we can't oversee it very effectively) and the most to the State and Local governments (where we can), you think giving all of that power to the Federal Government is the way to promote liberty? Does nothing in that strike you as odd?

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 03:00 PM (8y9MW)

214 158 Whatevs slackers!The news never makes shit up.Trust me, I'm Greg Packer
Posted by: Greg Packer at October 20, 2010 01:32 PM (rMhm7)
Word

Posted by: Heywood Jabloamie at October 20, 2010 03:03 PM (264X9)

215 Well, you say judges did it, I say the fourteenth amendment did it. You claim that only enumerated "rights" are incorporated; that means free speech, free press, double jeopardy, the takings clause, self-incrimination, excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment - none of those are "rights" that are enjoyed by all American citizens, by virtue of being American citizens. You want to argue concrete cases - there they are.

But hey, those judges have fucked up a lot of things. Baby - meet bathwater.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:06 PM (n+cpx)

216 We gotta scrutinize these candidates . . . I set an unprecedented statndard for holding this Senate seat.

Posted by: Joe Biden at October 20, 2010 03:06 PM (BP6Z1)

217 In other words, iknowtheleft, you think that it's
perfectly okay for your fellow Americans to be ruled by a state
religion.

A State can have a state religion, but the proscription against "religious tests" for government is an individual immunity in the federal Constitution which is incorporated at the State level. Other than that, Utah can make its State holidays based on Mormon holidays, or whatever they want. Liberal San Francisco can teach moral relativism, global warming, and anything else they want to teach (no matter how wrong or insane it is), if California decides to allow local control of the curriculum (though even at the state level the left has infested the entire educational machinery, so this is a moot point in Cali). Don't like it? Move to another county or state.

Or to have their free speech,

Freedom of speech is incorporated. Specific constructions with respect to speech are addressed in State Constitutions, tailored to the structures of their governments.

voting rights, what have you
curtailed because they live in, say, Illinois or NY.

Voting rights are literally part of the 14th, itself. In fact, the only talk of voting in the Constitution before that was for 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal govenrment - the House of Representatives.
Again: you
are just a statist, and too big of a fool to recognize that when you
give the authority to the state that you desire, it can be taken over by
people that you don't want to have that authority. It's unbelievably
shortsighted especially when you look at the pack of yahoos that are in
DC right now. It's not shortsighted, it's fucking blind.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:45 PM (n+cpx)
Calling a federalist a "statist". LOL. Each state has the right to carve its own future, and must live with the consequences of its actions. There are a very few, fundamental individual rights cited in the federal Constitution, along with other priveleges, which filter down to the states.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 03:12 PM (G/MYk)

218 213 I can see the argument: yes, federalism is a much better method of dealing with MOST problems. However, it may not work so well with some of the problems we have today (because some of the problems we have now I don't believe were taken into consideration).
You cannot say: oh well, if you don't like how state X handles freedom of religion vis a vis this separation of church and state issue, just move to another state -- because we have a situation now where some particular religions will not stay in just one state...today Michigan, tomorrow Texas, next week Alaska...and then what? We only have 50 states; sooner or later you run out of places to go.
Yes, the Constitution declares you have inalienable rights granted to you by God (again, I don't think they realized what sort of issues we'd be having now, but bear with me; the Founders were very wise): it lays forth the premise however, that these inalienable rights constitute: life, liberty, and the pursuit of prosperity/happiness. Those are the only really concrete statements as to inalienable rights from God, and then it really does come down to interpretation and nuance -- subject to different interpretation and argument at the community, state, and federal level as long as the core, concrete tenets were not infringed upon -- it's the basis for the Bill of Rights. You could make the interpretation that there is no separation of church and state in the 1st, but then again, you could make the case that there is most definitely separation -- especially if the separation grants upholding of those inalienable rights (smart guys, those Founders).

Posted by: unknown jane's horse, getting fed up being told he looks like SJP at October 20, 2010 03:13 PM (5/yRG)

219 As for Ms. O'Donnell's comments: I believe she was correct in knowledge,but perhaps botched the delivery so as to sound wrong about the spirit of the amendment.

Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 03:15 PM (5/yRG)

220 No, AllenG, I want to give as little power as possible to any government at all. There are some illiterates here who think that, somehow, the phrase "privileges and immunities" only encompasses those itemized behaviors listed explicitly in the constitution as "rights". That is stupid.

This has nothing to do with judges. It's just about what it means when we amend the constitution.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:15 PM (n+cpx)

221 Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:06 PM (n+cpx)

I'm going with "deliberately mule-headed" for now...

Look, you sub-moronic oaf, if you can point out ONE case of a State NOT having already provided those freedoms then I can at least put your position in the "defensible" category. As it is, you're acting as though the Evil State of Texas wants to force you to convert to being a Southern Baptist or something and that the only thing holding them back is the 14th Amendment.

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but the State of Texas (and the Christians within the State) have bigger fish to fry than whether your children understand the difference between Baptism for Repentance and Baptism for Remission- that's up to you. What we do want is for the same basic rights given to, say, the Pagans during Samhain (Sp?) (what the Catholics took over as Halloween) we could have at Christmas (though my vote is for Easter- we at least know exactly what day that would have been).

The 14th Amendment was to do one thing- stop the states from f'ing with the former Slaves, and give them all the "privileges and protections" of being United States Citizens. That's it

Judges came by later and, at least partly so they'd "be remembered," decided to creatively re-interpret the amendment to do something it was never intended to do and, by-the-by, de facto repeal the 9th and 10th amendments.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 03:16 PM (8y9MW)

222 @219 - Correct- to a point. However, the unstated corollary to "then move" is "but if you lived here first, defend your current rights."

It is the very "incorporation" nonsense that is letting the very Mohammedism (I love that term) you (obliquely) reference its free reign: if the States still had their correct powers, then the people in a State could enact a law that said (oh, for instance) "No Prayer or Call To Worship shall be performed except within the appropriate religious facility to the extent necessary for religious exercises to be performed." (or something similar) which would prevent (purely hypothetically here, yes?) Dearborn, MI from playing the Muslim Call To Prayer every morning at Sunrise on loudspeakers placed throughout the town.

Part of the point of Federalism is that it brings the government closer to you, so you can defend your own social norms and customs from institutionalized encroachment. The corollary to that is this: Federalism is hard. It requires you to be engaged with your government, treating politicians like the spoiled children they are.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 03:25 PM (8y9MW)

223 222 I'm going to take up the arguement: I don't believe the pressing issue is whether or not Baptists in Texas today are the problem so much as certain other religions might be the problem in the future. That, to me at least, is the crux of the matter (to which nobody can ever say "it would never happen", not without making a very fatal mistake in their thinking).

Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 03:25 PM (5/yRG)

224 Freedom of speech is incorporated.

Not according to AmishDude. And a "federalist" is a statist if he thinks that it's okay to abnegate his rights in favor of any government is a good idea. Again, the following are items listed in the Bill of Rights that aren't explicitly called rights, and are therefore, according to AmishDude and you, are not rights, and are therefore not privileges or immunities. But hey, Federalism!

free speech, free press, double jeopardy, the takings clause,
self-incrimination, excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:27 PM (n+cpx)

225 Jane, it's not the "spirit" - it's the actual meaning. It's point, it's purpose.

That the phrase itself was used as a kind of shorthand for the establishment clause, does not mean the establishment clause didn't separate the federal government from the church. It did.

They said it did. Madison expressed satisfaction when talking about the constitutional guard of separation of church and state - that phrase -as could be judged by recent precedents.

Overreach about what "separation" means, doesn't mean there is no separation of church and state through any constitutional guard. There is, it's in there.

I find it troubling that ODonnell would begin hectoring Coons about whether the phrase itself is there, as it implies she believes that protection is a fiction.

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2010 03:27 PM (Z4T49)

226 223 You can always be out voted if you are in the minority; there's that to consider. As I stated: this is the problem with pure federalism; ordinarily it works quite well, but there are those other times when the fabric of the republic as a whole (and individuals' rights in particular) cannot be protected by federalism and federalism alone.

Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 03:28 PM (5/yRG)

227 Jane - as if it is her idea of a "gotcha". It was puerile at best and she seemed unconscious of how self-defeating the point was.

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2010 03:29 PM (Z4T49)

228 176 I live in Texas, AllenG. It's why I'm so goddam insistent that nobody fucks with any of my rights, whether authoritarians like AmishDude like it or not. I was born to fight any and all intrusions on my rights.
Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 02:02 PM (n+cpx)
And you should be so insistent that Texas is the place that your liberty is greatly respected. In other states it is not so. The Federal government nor the US Constitutionis not the final say in how Texas arranges its affairs. Thank goodness for that, or the Federal government will pursue the equality of outcomes so it is just another California, Illinois, or New York. As a South Carolinian I could care less about what kind of collectivist crap the people in Vermont come up with - let them stew in their own filth. But the US Constitution should not be viewed as the leveler for the States beyond what it says.Just leave us alone to mind our own affairs. And if we want to teach creationism in our schools in SC, is that any skin off your nose in Texas?

Posted by: Minuteman at October 20, 2010 03:31 PM (264X9)

229 Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:15 PM (n+cpx)

This is either blatantly false, or you don't understand what you, yourself have written.

The Constitution means what it says- no more, no less. In exactly the same way a contract- re-reviewed years later- must be held to the letter of what it says- interpreted only for actual changes in the language, so the Constitution must be "interpreted" (wrong word, but I can't think of a better one) to have the narrowest meaning possible.

Whatever else good you think you get out of revisionist interpretations of the Constitution, what you actually get is a document that only means whatever a panel of Judges decides it means today.

Look, for example, at the DADT ruling recently. Whether you agree with DADT or not, a judge simply saying "do away with it" will cause (and is causing) chaos in military recruitment (at least). This because of "equal protection."

And, since your whole case hinges on what a Judge said nearly a century-and-a-half (IIRC) after the 14th amendment was written, it is absolutely based on Judges and Judicial restraint. You must either believe that the Constitution has a single, definable meaning which is not subject to some changing interpretation, or you must believe that unelected Judges are the ones who should get to determine all of our laws, even though they may not (and probably do not) know the societies (yes, each state has is own society, more or less) which will be affected.

Further, if you want to give the least power possible to all levels of government, you should be doubly against a wide interpretation of the Constitution, as that gives more power than necessary to the Federal Government- where it is hardest for the citizenry to control.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 03:34 PM (8y9MW)

230 BUGGER! I mangled a Madison quote rather severely I think, as he was expressing disatisfaction with encroachments on SOCAS.

Meadison: Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2010 03:34 PM (Z4T49)

231 Don't worry, guys! Christine O'Donnell will win! And when she does, we'll finally be able to turn this country around because she really knows what she's doing!

You'll see!

Posted by: Butters at October 20, 2010 03:35 PM (vUdSP)

232 226 Hey, I'm to a large extent on your side here -- although I do think she actually got the knowledge of the wording correct, I think she botched (either willingly or unknowingly) the actual meaning (or disasterously failed to illustrate the meaning). So, in her favor, she is not stupid or ignorant (and it very much sounds as though her opponents should go back and reread the Constitution, because they really mucked up)...but perhaps she was a bit "unwise" (that can bea serious a fault too imho).

Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 03:35 PM (5/yRG)

233 @224 - I'll burn that bridge when we come to it. How's that? Until then, leave me my Federalism.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:27 PM (n+cpx)

Once again- point out one State which does not already provide for these things. Indeed, I think most states simply have some clause in their constitutions that translates to "yeah, what they said" regarding the Bill of Rights.

Until you point that out, you're arguing some mythical "maybe" versus the reality of Judicial/Federal overreach.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 03:38 PM (8y9MW)

234 Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 03:28 PM (5/yRG)

And I'd rather deal with those times as they come up than grant huge powers to the Federal Government (or, worse, Federal Judges) "for my own good."

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 03:40 PM (8y9MW)

235 Again, the following are items listed in the Bill of
Rights that aren't explicitly called rights, and are therefore,
according to AmishDude and you, are not rights, and are therefore not
privileges or immunities.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:27 PM (n+cpx)
That's a flat out lie. Go read what we wrote. You don't understand the difference between the 14th amendment referring to "priveleges and immunities of citizens of
the United States". That is very specific reference to ONLY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, not to governmental arms. You don't understand this simple argument, so you whine on about some delusional "statism". Learn to read.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 03:42 PM (G/MYk)

236 AllenG, I can't figure out what part you think is false. I agree with the following statement, from you: "You must either believe that the Constitution has a single, definable
meaning which is not subject to some changing interpretation." I agree. The 14th Amendment states that all -EVERY MOTHERFUCKING LAST ONE - of the privileges and immunities listed in the constitution are protected at the state level as well as the Federal level. To quote - AGAIN - "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."

The "single, definable meaning" of that phrase is that if the Federal government cannot, for example, pass a law "regarding the establishment of religion", then neither can the states. The sophists are on the other side of this debate. Not me.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:50 PM (n+cpx)

237 Why does she keep getting so much ink wasted on her? She's going to lose by 20 and was always going to lose, the margin doesn't matter. Conservatives are being too stubborn here and not abandoning a lost cause for some unknown reason. Sorry team, people don't like her, she's ran a poor campaign, and she's not even remotely qualified to be President of a PTO let alone a member of the Senate, and there aren't enough conservatives in the area to vote her in anyway. Let's stop wasting energy here and move on. It would be like us talking about Alvin Green all the time.

Posted by: The Arbitor at October 20, 2010 03:50 PM (dejrp)

238 I disagree with the hardcore "nullification" version of federalism; the US Constitution overarches all state rules and laws. If the US Constitution bans state religion, its banned in individual states too.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2010 03:51 PM (61b7k)

239 The "single, definable meaning" of that phrase
is that if the Federal government cannot, for example, pass a law
"regarding the establishment of religion", then neither can the states.
The sophists are on the other side of this debate. Not me.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:50 PM (n+cpx)
The idea that each state must be a mini-federal government is wrong. Amazingly so. All the PI of the 14th does is say that the minimal INDIVIDUAL issues addressed in the federal Constitution filter down to the states. It does not transfer governmental structure from the federal to the state level. It does not instruct State governments to open post offices or engage in foreign relations. The 14th PI clause addresses nothing but THE INDIVIDUAL's fundamental set of rights and priveleges described in the federal Constitution.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 03:55 PM (G/MYk)

240 235 Where did I say "grant the Federal government greater powers over the states"? I was pointing out that there are some things at some times where federalism will not protect individuals' rights. That you may not live to see those days does not mean your grandchildren won't (in which case you are being horridly short sided, if not selfish -- it's ok for others to suffer, as long as I get what I want). That is one of the concepts behind our system: a balance of power between local and federal; a balance of interest between the individual and the republic. Unbalanced, it leads to loss of those inalienable rights...and the loss of our country. That is exactly what is wrong right now.

Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 03:55 PM (5/yRG)

241 195 I have a feeling this is going to end badly for Phil Smith. He'll either: A) die in a hail of gunfire and New Testaments fired from belt-fed Bible launchers into his compound where goddammit! he was minding his own business, but goddammit! he was born to defend his motherfuckin' rights! B) die from lack of attention, because nobody gives a fuck.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff
or C) Struck down by a lightening bolt out of a clear blue sky.

Posted by: 57 States at October 20, 2010 03:56 PM (kbH+o)

242 Read it again, IKTL. Tell me what the fuck "No state shall make or enforce a law" means, if it doesn't refer to governmental arms.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:58 PM (n+cpx)

243 Great minds think alike. i am guest blogging at patterico's pontifications and i caught them with their revisions. i mean, i have screen shots and everything, frankly by luck (long story).

I made the post my url so i think clicking on my name will take you to it.

Posted by: Aaron Worthing at October 20, 2010 03:58 PM (343LO)

244 Empire of Jeff, you're funny. I like you.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 04:01 PM (n+cpx)

245 Tell me what the fuck "No state shall make or enforce a law" means, if it doesn't refer to governmental arms.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:58 PM (n+cpx)
Oy. It refers to ... da da da daaah:"the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States;"Only the PI of INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS. You are taking legislative proscriptions in the federal Constitution and saying that they just move right onto a state government (even though the actual structure of that state government could be vastly different from the structure of the federal government). You are arguing that restrictions on arms of the federal government constitutes individual rights to be protected at the state level. You are mixing everything up, three ways from Sunday.The PI clause says that State governments cannot make laws infringing on INDIVIDUAL rights and priveleges described in the federal Constitution. That's all. It doesn't say that prescriptions to arms of the federal government all translate, somehow, to equivalent restrictions at the state level. I pointed out the absurdity of that by taking a few other elements of the Constitutional structure of the federal government that would clearly not be entertained for equivalence at the State level.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 04:06 PM (G/MYk)

246 239 I disagree with the hardcore "nullification" version of federalism; the US Constitution overarches all state rules and laws. If the US Constitution bans state religion, its banned in individual states too.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2010 03:51 PM (61b7k)

History, logic and a measured reading of the Constitution would be contrary to your arguement. Historically some the original thirteen states had official religions. Logically, the Federal government is a creation of the states, not the other way around. The states hold sovereignty, the Federal government is a common agentacting on behalf of the statesthough the contract known as the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment sayspowers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the States and their People.The states could dissolve the federal government just like they did the Articles of Confederacy.And there is nothing in the Constitution that says states can't leave the union on there own volition, Lincoln's illegal war against the states not-withstanding.

Posted by: Minuteman at October 20, 2010 04:06 PM (264X9)

247 I'm not smart like most other fellers, so Phil Smith's arguments ain't makin' a lick o' sense.

Posted by: Count de Monet at October 20, 2010 04:09 PM (2g2ex)

248 Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:50 PM (n+cpx)

The part you're not getting is that a restriction on what Congress may do is not, inherently, a "privilege or immunity" of a citizen of the United States. The constitution has many places where it is silent, and still others where- instead of remaining silent, it instructs Congress what it may or may not do, but says nothing to the states.

Let's take it this way: if I own a business: We'll call it Megacorp. Megacorp owns other smaller corporations. When Megacorp issues amends its by-laws, it can affect a) all employees of all subsidiaries, b) only Megacorp direct employees, c) future policies made by Megacorp. If Megacorp had a policy stating it would take no position on the hiring of applicants without Bachelors degrees, and then it added a by-law that said "All Megacorp subsidiaries must provide all Megacorp privileges and immunities to their employees" then Megacorp- by explicitly NOT HAVING A POLICY regarding hiring or firing of appliants without Bachelors degrees does not affect any subsidiary's policy referencing same.

The same is true of the 14th Amendment. Certain privileges and immunities had been given by both the Constitution and Federal Statute to the People, in other areas, the Constitution simply forbade the Federal Government from (using our example above) having a policy one way or the other.

The Constitution says "Congress Shall Make no law..." in the 1st amendment. For those first several items, that's all it means: Federal Congress doesn't get to have a position. It then says "the Right of the People peaceably to assemble..." From that point forward, it is talking about two rights the People have: peaceful assembly, and lobbying.

So, to continue, if Congress didn't get to have a position ("Shall make no law," remember) then the 14th Amendment cannot push that same "no position" onto the States without Judicial acrobatics.

So, I'm sorry, but the States are not required (by the text of the Constitution) to provide you with Freedom of Speech, the Press, or Religion. Indeed, as has been pointed out numerously, it wasn't until long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified that the States quit having "official" State Religions.

Now, before you explode, consider this: the same people (in many cases) who wrote the Federal Constitution were also instrumental in writing their respective States' Constitutions. Do you think that, at the State Level, they would not provide those same basic protections?

You may call it sophistry, but I call it principle. Either the Federal Government has absolute power over the States (in which case is a "Central" not a "Federal" government) or the States keep the powers which had already been handed to them in the 10th Amendment which include whether or not they'll allow the same liberties as are enshrined in the US Constitution.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 04:11 PM (8y9MW)

249 Unknown Jane - Very clumsy, at the least, and very disagreeable as well. She borrowed this trouble by breaking into Coon's remarks in HOPES of making some kind of point; Coon's had only spoken in general terms.

Her eyes lit up - and she dug in - not to get at whether Coons was citing general protections of the first amendment vs. exact language of the 1st amendment - but because she herself believes the absence of that phrase is significant.

I know she thought it was oh so clever, no doubt she relies on it as a defense to justify state sponsored religious instruction.

I think she heard it somewhere sometime employed as a defense of some state entanglement with religion, has parroted it - and thinks it is a very clever and unassailable argument.

She hasn't the sense to check herself - A sensible person would acknowledge all that Coon's got right, and outline the ways courts have overreached, with danger of interference in free excercise of religion. A person of sense would have concentrated on FREEDOM. But she didn't , and it's likely that part of the reason is she doesn't believe there is ANY guard of separation of church and state in the constitution.

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2010 04:15 PM (Z4T49)

250 And so, in summary...
Phil Smith: Getcher codsarned religion outta my soup!
AmishDude: You have a piss-poor understanding of constitutional language.
Phil Smith: Y'all go to hell, ya Bible-thumpin' goose-steppers! Public religions is unconstitutional! Some judge fekkin' said so!
AllenG: Seriously, Phil, the robe-and-wig set can't just rule Federalism away.
Phil Smith: This thread is my Alamo! I aint-a-lettin'them daggum believing folk win!
iknowtheleft: Whatever, troll.
Phil Smith: I druther die with my boots on than listen to some backards prayer in schools! TEXAAAAAAS!

Posted by: Lurk Ness Monster at October 20, 2010 04:16 PM (dUunI)

251 I agree with Phil Smith. He is clearly a right-thinking legal scholar.
You're all banned. Click my ads.

Posted by: Charles Johnson at October 20, 2010 04:18 PM (dUunI)

252 Freedom of speech is incorporated.

Not
according to AmishDude.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 03:27 PM (n+cpx)
-----------------------------I'll stand corrected and defer to AmishDude and AllenG in this. The First Amendment only talks about the "freedom of speech" as an object, not an individual right of citizens. My mistake.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 04:19 PM (G/MYk)

253 I wouldn't object to her if people wouldn't keep sticking up for her when she doesn't deserve it, all the while making herself and a political movement that needs to prosper, ridiculous.

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2010 04:19 PM (Z4T49)

254 Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 03:55 PM (5/yRG)

Okay, so taking only what you said (instead of extrapolating what you meant from it) you have done only what we call "Defining the Problem." Next, you are supposed to "Propose a Solution."

Or you're being extremely pedantic (a tactic I use myself, actually).

The fact is there are only three choices: The Federal Government has the power. The States have the Power. The People have the power.

If the People have the power, then Government shouldn't get involved at all, and anything that might come close to those protected territories should be forbidden. Of course, that would mean getting rid of Departments of Education (Fed and State) State run Hospitals (a mostly Christian invention) and any number of other "necessary services."

If the States have the power, sometimes we'll get outvoted, but we'll have more proportional power (there are far fewer people here in Texas than the whole of the US, so my voice is proportionately louder) and can react to things much more quickly (normally).

If the Federal Government has the power, you get one-size-fits-all solutions that aim to placate all and please none- which is why the Federal Government was given such a small list of powers in the first place.

----
In fairness, I must say, there is, indeed one additional option:

"By the Power of Grayskull- I have the Power!!!"

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 04:20 PM (8y9MW)

255 Posted by: Lurk Ness Monster at October 20, 2010 04:16 PM (dUunI)

You forgot the part where I called him a Yankee carpet-bagging piece of filth and told him to get out of my state.

Otherwise, concise summary.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 04:21 PM (8y9MW)

256 Either the Federal Government has absolute power over the States (in
which case is a "Central" not a "Federal" government) or the States keep
the powers which had already been handed to them in the 10th Amendment
which include whether or not they'll allow the same liberties as are
enshrined in the US Constitution.

Thank you, AllenG, for proving my point that one can be both a Federalist and an authoritarian at the same time. You don't even realize what a statist you are. I'll stand by my position that the simple reading of the 14th is that all the nifty things protected by the constitution are protected at the state level as well, and that the only sophistry required is that needed to separate them out based on some sort of clever interpretation. You assholes all sound just like the gungrabbers latching on to the phrase "well-regulated militia" as an excuse to argue that the plain meaning of the second isn't it's real meaning.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 04:26 PM (n+cpx)

257 I wouldn't object to her if people wouldn't keep
sticking up for her when she doesn't deserve it,

She did deserve some defense. She was wrongly attacked, and in force. She wasn't carrying the argument well, but she was correct. Correct enough that the media felt it necessary to contort and distort what actually happened. I don't remember anyone making this much fuss when Joe BiteMe proved that he didn't know the basics of the Constitution and didn't even know the Vice-President's Constitutional role (even as he was making that an issue!). In that, BiteMe was actually incorrect, while he fumbled around.

all the while making
herself and a political movement that needs to prosper, ridiculous.

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2010 04:19 PM (Z4T49)
She makes nothing look ridiculous. Don't be so sensitive.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 04:26 PM (G/MYk)

258 Come and take it, AllenG. And first, you will blow me.

The real shorter thread is:

All you statists: "The 14th means what I want it to mean, and incorporates those rights with which I agree. Not some black-robed judge!"

Me: "No, it means what it says in its simplest reading: all those protections that the constitution affords all American citizens against the Federal government are also protections afforded against state governments."

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 04:33 PM (n+cpx)

259 You may call it sophistry, but I call it principle. Either the Federal Government has absolute power over the States (in which case is a "Central" not a "Federal" government) or the States keep the powers which had already been handed to them in the 10th Amendment which include whether or not they'll allow the same liberties as are enshrined in the US Constitution.
Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 04:11 PM (8y9MW)
Excellent points throughout Mr. G, but the Tenth Amendment doesn't grant powers to the states (from the federal government) it reminds the Federal government that is it has no powers outside of what the states and the people grant it in the Constitution. The States were sovereign before the constitution, and the powers granted (loaned)tothe Federal Government is an act of their soveriegnty so that the creative act of that granting, the formation of the Federal Government, brought forth the agent that represented the States in the aggregate, the Federal government.

Posted by: Minuteman at October 20, 2010 04:37 PM (264X9)

260 Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 04:26 PM (n+cpx)

I'm sorry, did that go too fast for you?

See, we have this thing. It's called "Government." We have it so we won't have anarchy. We set it up with certain powers- which means giving up certain liberties- so that we can live peaceably. The less government there is, the greater liberty.

The States- as direct manifestations of the Will of the People (at least, at the time their Constitutions were written) had all the Powers of the People. Unlike a Federal Government which is only given its power by the States, the State Governments are "Central Governments" with a great deal of power over day to day life (see- Texas being able, constitutionally, to outlaw smoking in private establishments (aka restaurants)). So, indeed, whereas the Constitution provided the Federal Government with specific powers, State Constitutions were written (albeit in very similar language) giving specific powers back to the People from the States.

Yes, States have great Constitution authority to do all kinds of things we don't like. The simple statement of that fact makes me no more statist that you are an able debater. The fact is that the people of each State must constantly guard against infringements of liberties- but that is much easier to do at the State level than at the Federal.

As I said (I believe to jane's whatever she calls herself (sorry, to lazy to scroll back up)) Federalism is hard: it requires constant engagement by the citizenry in their local and State governments to prevent abuses of the Power those states do, indeed, rightly have.

I'm sorry if that makes you cry, but when Texas wrote its Constitution (the first time, the rules were different during Reconstruction) it did not have to give Freedom of the Press. We did. We value liberty here (probably more than any other state). We did not have to.

The problem is your inability to realize that most people believe in those same liberties you're so sure the States want to take away, so you don't believe the People themselves will defend them: you think only that if the Federal Government doesn't, no one will.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 04:38 PM (8y9MW)

261 Me: "No, it means what it says in its simplest
reading: all those protections that the constitution affords all
American citizens against the Federal government are also protections
afforded against state governments."

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 04:33 PM (n+cpx)
Now you are saying "protections"? It says "privileges", which would include stuff like creating a state post office, by your reading. Why doesn't it? That's a privilege to the US citizen provided by the federal government in the Constitution? Your claim would be that states are now forced to provide this same privilege to citizens. FORCED!!

Posted by: iknowtheleft at October 20, 2010 04:40 PM (G/MYk)

262 Posted by: Minuteman at October 20, 2010 04:37 PM (264X9)

Quite so. Though, in reality, I place that in "distinction without a difference." YMMV.

The State Governments, in Ratifying the Constitution, were submitting to the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights, then, did "remind" the Federal Government that its authority was not absolute.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 04:41 PM (8y9MW)

263 Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 04:38 PM (8y9MW)
Excellent.

Posted by: Minuteman at October 20, 2010 04:45 PM (264X9)

264 AllenG, you're still missing the point. What I think of various state's constitutions is utterly irrelevant. What powers the states had prior to the civil war are also irrelevant. The 14th says that all the rights I have against the Federal government, all the protection guaranteed me against their power, are also guaranteed against each and every state government. It's not complicated. Again - it doesn't require jurisprudence to figure that out. It requires jurisprudence to try to figure out ways to limit it.

When somebody says that they can teach religion in public schools because the 14th doesn't guarantee that not only will the Feds make no law regarding the free practice of religion but that States won't either, I'm not conjuring a phantasm. I'm pointing out their inherent authoritarian tendencies. When some asshole tries to claim that the various states could, if they wanted to, pass laws regarding the free exercise of religion, I'm going to call them out for being statist assholes.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 04:56 PM (n+cpx)

265 Yeah, the Marines are honorable and wouldn't attack the hippies and libtards.

Are we sure it's dishonorable to attack hippies and libtards?

Posted by: Ian S. at October 20, 2010 05:04 PM (p05LM)

266 250 Then you and I are in agreement -- although I'm trying valiantly to throw her a bone.

255 The solution is: to allow the federal government some powers to separate church and state (or mosque and state, because that really is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room), when state legislature has no way of safeguarding those inalienable rights granted to individual citizens asset forthin the Constitution (because a majority within the state have elected legislature and judiciary which are serving their needs/wants only at the expense of other groups' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness/profit). I believe that is how the whole thing was set up to work, wasn't it? Granted, it isn't a fool proof system, but so far it is the only one that has worked halfway decently.

Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 05:05 PM (5/yRG)

267 263 Posted by: Minuteman at October 20, 2010 04:37 PM (264X9)Quite so. Though, in reality, I place that in "distinction without a difference." YMMV. The State Governments, in Ratifying the Constitution, were submitting to the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights, then, did "remind" the Federal Government that its authority was not absolute.
Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 04:41 PM (8y9MW)
It's a distinction without a difference in form, but not a difference in action. I believe this is one of the sources of our problems in that people are conditioned to view the solution of problems from the Top Down because the Federal Government is seen as being the absolute authority, and this perception creates the situation we have in Arizona, where that State is castigated for having the audacity of actually meeting its first responsibility of protecting its citizens. The Federal government failed in its end of the contract and now claims the authority toprevent the fulfillment of the contract between Arizona and its citizens. The proliferation of regulations is another area that the states have forgotten who actually calls the shots, of course much of this is due to the states as a legal entity lacking representation in the federal government. Without the 17th amendment things might have been different now.
A few years back George Will refered to the 10th Amendment as a "dead letter". Is it dead because it unenforceable now or because it has not been exercised, and once it is, would be alive in its application? Or does the judiciary determine what law is dead or alive according to their proclivities? Come up with the decision then formulate its justification using penumbras, dead letters, foreign law, novel interpretation, tortured application of law out of its context, sophisticated arguments, stare decisis, or current cultural mores.

Posted by: Minuteman at October 20, 2010 05:07 PM (264X9)

268 The media likes to truncate quotes when it suits them. Remember the Sarah Palin flap when she supposedly said of the war in Iraq that "we're on God's side" when the full quote was "let's pray we're on God's side," which as it turns out was a reference to Lincoln's prayer during the Civil War.
But the truncated version sounded both arrogant and presumptuous, so that's the one they went with. I remember Charlie Gibson looking down his nose at her and asking how she could make such a claim. She said "I don't think those were my exact words, Charlie." He said, "Exact words."

Posted by: Average Jen at October 20, 2010 05:07 PM (mnNty)

269 Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 04:56 PM (n+cpx)

And you'll be wrong. But that's okay, we've figured that out.

If "Congress" shall (or shall not) do something, that has no (direct) affect on the Rights (or "privileges and immunities") of the People. You cannot give to the People the "privilege or immunity" that Congress shall make no law... 'cause they already have it. Congress is (specifically) the US Congress (as the Constitution cannot make the assumption of a Congress in any of the several States).

Using your logic, we have the "privilege" of a bicameral legislature: so what does that do to the State which only has one house? (Nebraska, I think?). Do they now have to institute some Federal mandated second legislative house?

Anything that talks about What Congress shall or shall not do applies only to Congress. Anything that talks about what the People have has been passed down to the states.

Unless you're making the argument that the 14th Amendment is designed to remove the States' protections under the 10th Amendment, there is a very clear distinction between strictures on the Government, and Rights of the People- and they are not the same thing.

If you are arguing that the 14th Amendment nulls the 10th, then the US Government is no longer federal, it is Central- with all the bad things that go with that (Health Care suddenly becomes constitutional, for instance, as would Cap and Trade).

Think very carefully, because that's your choice: either the possible tyranny of the State (where it's relatively easily combated), or the sure tyranny of the Nation. However much you may wish otherwise, there is no other practical alternative.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 05:08 PM (8y9MW)

270 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

How is that so difficult to understand? Look. I have an "immunity" against the federal government from passing a law that concerns the establishment or free exercise of religion. The 14th Amendment says that I have that same immunity against each and every state. It's not difficult.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 05:08 PM (n+cpx)

271 Posted by: Minuteman at October 20, 2010 05:07 PM (264X9)

That's WAY bigger than a bread-box... I may have to try to tackle it tomorrow...

Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 05:05 PM (5/yRG)

So, a majority of residents of a State don't know how best to govern themselves? Really?

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 05:10 PM (8y9MW)

272

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 01:51 PM (n+cpx)Are you socially retarded, or just incredibly annoying? Or both? I suspect that in a face-to-face discussion that you make your points by being a LOUD TALKER.

Posted by: Museisluse at October 20, 2010 05:15 PM (DTfXb)

273 Just wanted to pat Ace on the back for some excellent work!
My brother was actually chortling about this on Facebook, and I was able to expose it as the Leftist propaganda, and misdirection, that it was.

Posted by: Optimizer at October 20, 2010 05:16 PM (2lTU+)

274 I should have also added in my comments of 267: you also have to allow the federal government to step in when any of the states enact legislation that could be constituted as a danger to the rights of citizens in other states -- yeah, once again looking at the 800 lb. peaceful gorilla in the room as a primary example.

Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 05:17 PM (5/yRG)

275 Logically, the Federal government is a creation of the states, not the other way around. The states hold sovereignty, the Federal government is a common agent acting on behalf of the states though the contract known as the U.S. Constitution.

That's all true but it doesn't in any way mean that states are somehow not under the power and legal control of the US Constitution. I never claimed states have to do what the federal government says, quite the opposite. I said that they have to do what the Constitution says. Nullification pretends that's not true.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 20, 2010 05:23 PM (61b7k)

276 272 Would you say that if the majority of citizens in a particular state (like yours perhaps) voted to make something very corrosive to your own lifestyle the official state stance? Not everyone is an apple pie, Baptist fish fry loving, easy going, small business and freedome loving person after all Allen -- sometimes there are even enough of them to get into power, and then where are you?
Federalism is meant to protect citizens from an overreaching central government; the central government is meant to protect citizens from rule of the mob -- this works on all levels, from county to country. You give too much power to one, or try to do away with one alltogether, and the whole system collapses.

Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 05:26 PM (5/yRG)

277 AllenG: I am arguing that no state can abridge my rights in any way that the Federal government cannot. I believe that the plainest, clearest meaning of the phrase "privileges and immunities" refers to all the things that we commonly refer to as "rights", even though the first amendment doesn't explicitly say "you have a right to freedom of religion" or "everyone has a right to free speech". I'm arguing that it's not judicial sophistry to read the 14th that way, but that on the contrary, it requires judicial sophistry to (or plain idiocy, which are often the same) to say that somehow various state governments can pick and choose which of those "rights" are really REALLY rights and which aren't.

Nothing I've said implies in any way that every state has to have a post office, that's simply idiotic. Nothing I've said has any bearing at all on what laws the feds can or cannot pass. I have only claimed that the states can't pass laws that restrict our rights in any way that is forbidden the feds.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 05:30 PM (n+cpx)

278 Would you say that if the majority of citizens in a particular state
(like yours perhaps) voted to make something very corrosive to your own
lifestyle the official state stance?

I already experience that, as a smoker. It's my choice to stop patronizing places that would support the smoking ban or to move to a place that sanely appreciates property rights over the idiocy of political correctness that is running totally amok. That's how it works.

And with smoking, it's only a minority who are perverting our laws and infringing on my life. But, the choice to stay or go is mine.

Posted by: uh oh at October 20, 2010 05:30 PM (G/MYk)

279 279 Let's say it's something a little bit more intrusive than smoking laws...like a state religion...an intolerant religion at that (and don't say "it could never happen" because that's a fatal error of judgement, and one that's gotten us to where we are today).

Posted by: unknown jane's at October 20, 2010 06:45 PM (5/yRG)

280 If you read the 14th again, there are no "citizens of the various states". They are "citizens of the United States".
You need to re-read it your damn self: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside There absolutely are citizens of the various states. And if The next bit:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;really meant that states are forbidden from doing things previously forbidden only to the national government, then this next bit: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of lawwould be completely redudndant, since it's already covered in the 5th Amendment. Apparently the people who wrote the 14th didn't think that the 5th was a "privilege" or "immunity" of a citizen of the United States.

Frankly, I find the doctrine of "incorporation" to be a Ptolemaic epicycle. Courts made one mistake by reading "Congress shall make no law" into Amendments 2-8, and saying that they didn't apply to the states, then had to make up "incorporation" in the 14th to fix it. It is far simpler to take the Constitution at its face, and when it says that a right shall not be infringed (without specifying Congress or state legislators), it means that no one gets to infringe.

But when one tries to say something like that, and is drowned out by the audible gasps and shrieks of law students, the subtleties tend not to be conveyed.

Posted by: The Monster at October 20, 2010 07:48 PM (ZWRiE)

281 Apparently the preview function of this blog is less than stellar.

Posted by: The Monster at October 20, 2010 07:49 PM (ZWRiE)

282 In the last exchange (toward the end of the tape), after Coons paraphrases the establishment clause, her exact words are. "That's in the first amendment?"

When he answers "Yes", she raises her eyebrows and looks skeptical. She doesn't attempt to say anything further. Watch the video. It's right in front of you.

Posted by: Rush Fan Numero Uno at October 20, 2010 07:51 PM (zNxf/)

283 Widener is commonly referred to as "Lawmart" in these parts . . .

Posted by: Alec Leamas at October 20, 2010 07:58 PM (hVc5X)

284 Phil- Last post, then I have to take care of my kids and get some supper.

Let's try this another way: If I don't have a gun, you don't have "an immunity" to my bullets- I have no bullets with which to shoot you in the first place.

Privileges and Immunities are primarily bestowed by statute, not by the Constitution with a few notable exceptions (Unreasonable Search and Seizure, double jeopardy, peaceable assembly, and a few others). The "Right to Free Speech" can't really be stopped by Congress anyway- I can say whatever I want to say- the only question is if the government can punish me in any way for what I say.

It is a "privilege" to vote, or to own land, or two bestow citizenship on your children, or a number of other things.

In the case of Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech or the Press, and a host of others, the Congress has "no gun." So telling the States- "Hey, they're immune from you, too!" doesn't really do anything- there was no "immunity" or "privilege" in the first place.

I say again, the 14th Amendment was primarily about voting rights for the freed slaves. All the stuff later about the US Constitution suddenly superseding the States' own Constitutions came later, and was mostly used as a way to bludgeon the States into compliance with Statues the states wanted to nullify: something they'll do again if OvomitCare somehow passes the "test" of the courts.

Posted by: AllenG at October 20, 2010 08:08 PM (AWX5Z)

285 As my mother once told me, "The establishment clause is for fags."

She's never been pc.

Posted by: Kevin at October 20, 2010 08:26 PM (1sB4u)

286 "A reporter who directly lies would be disciplined."
There's Ace bringing the funny.

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at October 20, 2010 08:58 PM (92ZR0)

287 "I keep being proved wrong by the Suckers of Cock I am defending"

Hey now! As a cock sucker, I resent being compared to the MSM.

Posted by: COcKSucKeR at October 20, 2010 09:02 PM (2+X4m)

288 The only discipline that should be applied by government to "lying" reporters is none. The answer is to treat reporting for what it is - a filter for information that provided incomplete information, and which may have been distorted. Search for reporters who distort the least, and kill them by reputation if they fail you.

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2010 09:05 PM (Z4T49)

289 258. Iknowtheleft No she doesn't, see post 250. Picking that fight over the literal text when it was only being paraphrased in the first place, is pointless unless she happens to think there is an absence of separation of church and state because of the absence of that phrase. That is false, and she was wrong to challenge that unless he DECLARED that text was in there; she thought clearing that up might be a hella good "gotcha" for some reason.

It isn't, because she wasn't challenging him on his literacy or recall, but to discount the point and purpose of the establishment clause with a (lame) sophists argument.

If she had sense she would have redirected to "guarantees of freedom, and in the case of SOCAS, challenged only overreach interfering unreasonably with free excercise of religion. Not the farging principle. Which apparently she dislikes and is keen to diminish.

The other part of your reply is just denial, really.

She is an embarrassment. Even when she is right she is offten wrong in a larger sense or right for the wrong reasons, and that's because her ideas are not well-gournded, but parroted ideas that she's glommed onto like that guy in the razor's edge, only more shallow.

Posted by: SarahW at October 20, 2010 09:19 PM (Z4T49)

290 Arguendo, let's accept your rather tortured explication. As I've asked the others, what is the theoretical distinction between these various enumerated rights? Specifically, how is it that there's "no gun" in the instance of free speech and yet free assembly somehow meets your definition of an immunity? Yes, you can say what you want right up until they haul you away. You can also peacably assemble right up until they haul you away. How is one a privilege and the other not?

And by the way, if the fourteenth amendment was intended to guarantee voting rights to the freed slaves, I can only infer that it failed. Otherwise they wouldn't have passed the fifteenth only three years later. You know, the one that explicitly guarantees the right to vote to all citizens regardless of race color or previous condition of servitude.

I don't disagree with your concerns about using the incorporation clause to impose illicit federal laws. However, I stand behind my statement that all the rights guarantees in the constitution are incorporated. I also reiterate that these bizarrely convoluted distinctions of what is and is not incorporated are the truly "Ptolemaic" explanations.

Posted by: Phil Smith at October 20, 2010 09:24 PM (3gzw5)

291 AllenG,

Thank you.

"What color is the sky where you live?"

That was a thing of beauty.

btw: I think Phil Smith is related to Phil Green. I'm just sayin' ...

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at October 20, 2010 10:06 PM (92ZR0)

292 the video is on youtube...

she unfortunately does not say the word "phrase" as far as my ears can tell.

there is an 8 minute period where the topic comes up a number of times, and they're bickering.

Posted by: ert at October 20, 2010 10:56 PM (MYtXl)

293 hard to find louis vuitton wallet wallets here have beautiful louis vuitton luggage to global travel buy brands louis vuitton handbags save 65% off here as a luxury luxury handbags consumable good quality lv bags online remains one of louis vuitton bags the worldCentury London, louis vuitton handbags and affinity louis vuitton bags A special tattoo modelsHot Goods: louis vuitton buy limited Louis Vuitton louis vuitton shoes fashion shoesluxury louis vuitton bags for sale louis vuitton bags louis vuitton luxuryhave large numbers of louis vuitton shoes discount louis vuitton bag louis vuitton handbag for discount discount louis vuitton louis vuitton discountour LV area's top brands to provide lv handbags detailed Louis Vuitton

Posted by: lv at October 20, 2010 11:12 PM (F4PZM)

294 Widener Law School students proved to be equal to a Yale Law School grad in this debate. Meanwhile, a lay person [who had obviously taken time to read the Constitution for herself] makes them, and their media allies, look like ignorant jackasses. Just like the the simple folk of the Tea Party are doing to elitist Team Obama all across the country.

Posted by: 1773inBoston at October 21, 2010 12:00 AM (9UJjC)

295 Look everyone, I am ultraconservative, and I want a good conservative candidate to run and win everywhere. BUUUUUT it doesn't appear that O'Donnell is all that smart or able to do the sort of mental work that needs to be done in congress if she were elected. Also, the idea of any woman holding that kind of office with all of the fickle, ticky-tack stupid things that girls think about and fuss over just scares the hell out of me. Alright. Sorry.

Posted by: JJ at October 21, 2010 12:27 AM (pb6Yi)

296 Digital photo frames are common in 7 inch (17.8 cm) to 20 inch (50.8 cm) sizes.Digital Photo Frame
Some digital photo frames can only display JPEG pictures. Most digital
photo frames display the photos as a slideshow and usually with an
adjustable time interval.Hiphone
They may also be able send photos to a printer. Digital photo frames
typically display the pictures directly from a camera's memory card,laptop umpc
though certain frames also provide internal memory storage. Some allow
users to upload pictures to the frame's memory via a USB connection,USB Flash Disk wirelessly via bluetooth technology. Few are able to send photos with cellular connectivity.car monitor Some frames allow photos to be shared from a frame to another.
Hello Kitty Products myfancybox
Laptop Bag myfancybox
car dvd player myfancybox
Folding Bike myfancybox sleeping bag myfancybox electronic iron myfancybox
Vintage Bangle myfancybox
Vintage earrings myfancybox
Vintage Ring myfancybox
Vintage Necklace myfancybox
Lomo Camera myfancybox
Digital Camera

Posted by: vintage jewelry at October 21, 2010 05:48 AM (4eTs4)

297 The designer's Spring collection walked each sides with the feminine/masculine divide.Cheap Wedding Dresses
Around the sweeter facet: draped, body-loving sheaths in stunning lush
florals, and hand-ruched tulle dresses in shades of poppy,Wholesale Wedding Dresses citrine, and blush pink suspended from corseted underpinnings.2010 Wedding Dresses The asymmetrical quilted vests worn over pinstripe jumpsuits had an appealing roguish quality,Strapless Wedding Dresses as did an ivory organdy kimono blouse tucked into what have been essentially glorified 2010 Prom Dresses gym shorts. Tea Length Wedding Dresses axmas 2010 Evening Dresses axmas cheap Evening Dresses axmas Cheap Prom Dresses axmas Simple Wedding Dresses axmas Formal Bridesmaid Dresses axmas Flower Girl Dresses axmas Wedding Petticoat axmas Wedding Jacket

Posted by: vintage jewelry at October 21, 2010 05:49 AM (4eTs4)

298 "Well, they spin, they suppress, they distort, but they usually don't lie per se. A reporter who directly lies would be disciplined. Their own reputations mean too much to them to just flat-out lie."
How dare you say we lie distort.

Posted by: Paul Krugman at October 21, 2010 06:44 AM (ZGdhe)

299 As a card-carrying member of the MSM, I'm not surprised at the distortions and lies about O'Donnell. But you need to place blame where it's due. The story wasn't written by a WaPo reporter, but by the Associated Press.

Of course WaPo has its own bias, but AP bias and errors are arguably worse, since AP is nearly universally used. So one biased/inaccurate story can be propagated across the world before truth has time to get its boots on.

If you want to read biased stories on illegal immigration, try AP reporter Garance Burke, who at UC Berkeley wrote about illegal immigrants using all sorts of descriptors, "migrants," "indigenous," except the salient one -- "illegal."

Posted by: Bradley J. Fikes at October 21, 2010 10:33 AM (A6TZ/)

300 No accident--never an accident.
Accidents would go both ways. These guys always err in teh same direction.
They just think that everyone who reads them or watches them or listens to them is stupid.
Of course, after all the evidence, they may be right about their remaining audience.

Posted by: Marty at October 21, 2010 01:24 PM (b0AML)

301 But it isn't really a distortion, not on the larger points. Not at all.

Posted by: SarahW at October 21, 2010 02:03 PM (Z4T49)

302 The flub, by the way, is an ERROR, a serious one. Do you know what it is? It's not the absence or presence of a string of words in the constitution. It's about what the words mean, and what she proposed they mean.

If she believes separation of church and state is a constitutional fiction invented by latter day court rulings, she's a fool.
If she does not adhere to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, she has inadequate value for guards against government entanglement or preference for any religion.
She dislikes that part, and wants to diminish it.

That's what's wrong with her. That is her big flub.

Posted by: SarahW at October 21, 2010 02:08 PM (Z4T49)

303 Sarah you keep clinging to this despite having to eat your words a few days ago. Why is that?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 21, 2010 07:59 PM (61b7k)

304 Moncler jackets Let's go visit them.

Congratulations. Jerseys Take my word for it. Let's go visit them. He is on his way. you d like. Moncler outlet As soon as possible! Here is a copy of itinerary we have worked out for you and your friends. Would you please have a look at it Wang Mei puts her hand into her pocket, I'm flattered. Jerseys You are kidding. What a shame! I will play it by ear. Thank you all the same. Jerseys Thanks for your cooperation. The technique used is to employ a newly developed and versatile xx algorithms. What did you say There will be many changes in our hometown. laptop battery Section 1 defines the notion of robustness, and argues for its importance. The advent of ... systems for has had a significant impact on the An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.Jerseys
laptop batteries
laptop battery
laptop battery store
new laptop battery
2010 Moncler
Moncler outlet
Moncler jackets

Posted by: new laptop battery at October 21, 2010 11:23 PM (5TTVW)

305 CHris Taylor, Not sure what words you are referring to. I certainly have never retracted my opinion that her understanding is weak, that she isn't right, even if she's "right", because the absence of those words do not remove the first amendment guards of separation of church and state.

Does she adhere to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom?
NO.

Posted by: SarahW at October 23, 2010 08:09 AM (Z4T49)

306 And moreover, she brought this on herself. He was describing the protection of the first amendment, she perked up to deploy the stupidest "gotcha" ever.

Posted by: SarahW at October 23, 2010 08:12 AM (Z4T49)

307 ��

Posted by: �� at October 24, 2010 03:35 PM (WBEki)

308 nike shox

nike shox rivalry

nike shox nz

shox sale online

nike air presto

Posted by: nike shox at October 26, 2010 03:04 AM (Mf7HX)

309

Normal
0

7.8 ��
0
2

false
false
false

EN-US
ZH-CN
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:��ͨ��;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;}

The ff14
gold phrase 1/10 describes cars or trucks which are a 1/10th
size model of the full size rock crawler. These are the bigger kinds ffxiv
power leveling of rock crawlers you can purchase. There's also a
1/16th ff14
gil size you are able
to run should you choose.

Despite the fact that the actual vehicles
tend to be smaller, they pack ffxiv gil a large amount of
technology from servos, electric powered motors and circuits to specific
springs, adaptable suspension, genuine tires as well ffxiv gold as shocks.

Like all sports activity or pastime, there
are numerous levels of ability and ffxiv
power leveling equipment. And therefore, you
should begin using novice equipment and work your way up to a more competition ffxiv
gold level rock crawler. Several basic levels to intermediate
level crawlers range from the Axial AX10 RTC plus the Tamiya ff14
power leveling CR-01.

One ff14
gold of the main things to understand when you begin is the body
of the vehicle is easily the most pricey component to upgrade therefore purchase
the body that you prefer the most the wheels and drive train you can ff14
gil upgraded over time.

Posted by: admin at October 26, 2010 03:36 AM (o1fiz)

310 Thus, nike air max is the large population of the people who may be described as married yet looking. The Nike Free 5.0 also features a picture of skateboarding superstar Paul Rodriguez on the tongue.Nike shop shop http://www.nikedirect.net/

Posted by: air yeezy at October 26, 2010 09:26 PM (B9UjD)

311
Several girls would fake watches
really like to own a true Italian leather-based purse, but several
can't afford the luxurious, thinking about the existing state of the
economy. An Italian leather purse can go for hundreds to thousands of
dollars in a omega watches
retail store, and that's an extra expense numerous women aren't willing
to pay at the moment.But what if you just can��t wait any longer to get louis vuitton handbags
your hands on your individual Italian leather-based purse? You'll find
techniques to discover one for a great price, if you're prepared to
bargain hunt.If you will be nonetheless searching for an Italian leather
purse to call your personal, you will fake watch
discover methods which you can get 1 for half the cost. Initial, it
would be best to appear at assets on the net. There are numerous
distinct outlets that will be able to bring you a genuine Italian
leather-based purse for a fraction of your price in a retail store.
These on the internet shops can give you a very good discount, but panerai
if that you are searching for bargain basement prices on that leather
backpack purse you may have had your eye on, it would be best to dig
deeper into the net.

Posted by: ZJL at October 29, 2010 08:30 PM (KPCi2)

312 The replica watches handbags is difficult to calculate the atom and an rolex watches expert eye to accept. Try to do a good search about some seller��s replica watches acceptable dosage table and their replica watches, as well as the prices.When people are interested in coach handbags
purchasing the imitation of a luxurious watch, there are some important
things that they should keep in mind. The first is the case dimension
so that it suits tag watches perfectly for the persons wrist. The second thing needs to be the bracelet width that's rolex
the thickness of the case. People who purchase the replica watches from
the suppliers must take care that the replica watches should come for a
durable time.Women seem to be the main consumer group on the market.
Women always like being fashionable and prada handbags
stylish. They love luxurious items. Watch is one of the luxurious
products�� the luxurious watches. But just a few of them can afford to
buy the luxurious watches. At this time, be the replica watches can be
your perfect choice. In comparison with men's watches, the ladies
watches are often added tag heuer
to by belts. For all the women to see not only an allowance is
inclusive of their looks, but an complete self-expression.If the people
want to just have stylish appearance, they would like to choose for
replica Rolex presidential watches and if they want to have a watch that
cartier is
causal and sporty they've to pick replica Rolex submariner watches.
These replica watches are very versatile and might be worn any occasion
as people now demands the high class replicas.

Posted by: syh at November 04, 2010 08:24 PM (3bxqi)

313 <a href=http://www.sale-uggmbt.com/>ugg shoes</a> are very popular among both men and women nowadays. These boots come in a variety of shades and styles and can be worn with any type of casual dressing. Ugg boots help to keep your feet warm. in cold climate, They are a necessary fashion accessory nowadays, both trendy and comfy.

Posted by: UGG women boots at November 11, 2010 02:01 AM (AfziP)

314 According to the natural leather, main points nike shox sale pig cow leather, leather, leather, and sheep, and ass leather leather, otherwise a kangaroo fish of leather, reptiles, Insanity program and amphibians leather, leather, ostrich leather, etc. One Replica Wallets cow leather and leather, buffalo leather, scalpers PianNiu leather and leather yak, fake burberry bags The sheep leather into sheep leather discount mbt shoesand leather, goat. Therefore, the optimal cattle and sheep leather as general as high-grade products, golf cart bags, its price is higher in the bulk of leather. In many varieties of leather, full grain leather should top, because it is discount designer bags by the first-class raw skin less disability,ghd straighteners leather and work on the natural state, replica gucci handbags intact thin coating, can show the beauty of nike shoxnatural animal skins pattern. It not only rosetta install wear-resisting, and has good ventilation.

Posted by: cheap mbt shoes at November 11, 2010 02:49 AM (WZPr4)

315

Normal
0

7.8 ��
0
2

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:��ͨ��;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Composta da esperti da 66 dei mini phone dual
sim offerte cellulari 167 candidati sono stati valutati orologi da polso prezzi orologi
giuria orologio, insieme con il ds Nintendo micro sd
pubblico voto orologio
Cartier Le Cirque Animalier ha vinto il titolo 2009 migliore giubbotti moncler moncler kids femmina tabella:

La creativit�� unica, la signora pas chers
ugg ugg chocolat orologi Cartier, il
temperamento affascinante

Posted by: replica orologi at November 11, 2010 03:42 AM (+EKtC)

316 actron cp9190
actron cp9190
actron cp9190
actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190actron cp9190

Posted by: actron cp9190 at November 25, 2010 03:47 PM (JB27/)

317 zehra ise g�t�n� bana dayam�� vurduruyor ahh ohh yeahh diye inliyordu serpil porno izle meltem ve yelize hadi sakso �ekmi�lerdi bende �srar edince tamam ama yava� olucak ve sadece arkadan yap�caks�n dedi bnse tamm dedim ve bunlar t�rk sex soyundu zehray� b�rak�p melteme ge�tim bu ara asl� i�ini biliyor kameraya porno video ufac�k kal�alr�n� tutup yarag�m� g�tune yava��a soktum bende yava��a soktum yarag� k�kune kadar soktum meltem sex video nolur �ok ac�yo diyordu bense art�k �ileden ��km��t�m ve ba�lad�m k�k�ne kadar sokup ��kar�yordum meltem kendini ileri at�yor sex k�z�m diyerek g�t�n� sikiyordum ve meltem ac�dan aglamaya ba�lay�nca ge�tim yelizin g�t�ne sokar sokmaz yeliz inim inm sex izle yelizin �zerne aban�p memelerni avu�luyor g�t�ne sokaraak bebegm diyrdum ve yelz yere y�g�l�p kald� s�ra k�zl�klar�n� siki� k�vr�l�p ac� i�nde yatm��t� zehra kafas� guzel oldu i�in bacan� siki� izle zehran�n �zerine ��k�p yarag�m� am�n�n uzerne getrdim netsiki� zehra nolurr yapma b�rak dedi ama elini bile kald�ram�yordu zehra bnm diyerek am�na soktum seksizlesene ilk giri�te k�zl�g� patlad� porno izle 3 unude sabaha kadar ewire �evre becerdim grup sex inim inim inleyerek sonunda beni bo�altt�lar sabah giyiip gttler porno asl� gunluk 200 tl kazan�yordu porno pakize ba�ka erkek arkada�lar ednyr sen ba�ka porno k�z sikiyrsunda ben nye ba�ka erkeklere vermm dyrdu bnde maadem �yle sana o k�pk�rm�z� am� g�z�m�n �n�ndeydi seks izle ben �ok azd�m birden i�eri girdim ablam nap�osun dedi bende �ok azd�rd�n seks izle beni dedim gel ozaman dedi bende banyoya girdim ba�lad�k �p��meye porno izle memelerinin ucu dimdik olmusdu ben sonra o k�ll� porno izle am�na parmak atmaya baslam�sd�m oda zevke geld� benm�mk�n� ald� el�ne porno yalamaya baslad� sonra hadi sok t�rk�e sex bana porno ilk domalt d�m sonra basldm g�t�ne sokmaya 5 dk git gel yapd�m sonra bacaklar�n� porno koydum omuzuma ba�lad�m am�na sokmaya travesti ben hemen bo�ald�m ben bo�ald�m oda benden 5 dk sonra titreyerek bo�ald� sonra ikimizde porno banyodan ��kd�m yata�a gittik

Posted by: sessiz at November 27, 2010 05:11 PM (UIXfD)

318 Rosetta stone language has a climax in the national scope, Rosetta Stone Language Library has been the U.S. state department approval, used for training diplomats. Rosetta stone language using dynamic immersed method. Using Rosetta stone language software, Not only can learning vocabulary and syntax, still can form their own language learning method, in language learning any circumstances and any time greatly. This software has also been most people recognised wyxxlbgwdqtymml

Posted by: rosettastonesoft at November 29, 2010 01:11 AM (y2MdJ)

319 World Jerseys Factory is a professional company wholesale many name brand products,like <a href="http://www.world-jerseys.com/">wholesale nfl jersey</a>,<a href="http://www.world-jerseys.com/">wholesale mlb jersey</a>,<a href="http://www.world-jerseys.com/">nhl jersey</a>。All <a href="http://www.world-jerseys.com/">nfl jersey</a>、<a href="http://www.world-jerseys.com/">mlb jersey</a>、<a href="http://www.world-jerseys.com/">nhl jersey </a>are packaged with original box,and come with the tissue paper, tag, handtags etc. And style code number is 100% correct.Thanks for your attention to "World Jerseys Factory",sincerely hope our products can satisfy you very well.by jtzscxsj

Posted by: world-jeserys at November 29, 2010 03:55 AM (y2MdJ)

320 michael jordan shoes
air jordan flight 45
Authentic Jordans Sneakers For Sale
Jordan Space Jams
discount jordan shoes
jordan brand

Posted by: new jordans at December 01, 2010 10:31 PM (gadUd)

321 [url=http://www.pandorafreeshop.com]Pandora Charms[/url]
[url=http://www.pandorafreeshop.com]pandora beads[/url]
[url=http://www.pandorafreeshop.com]Pandora Bracelets[/url]
[url=http://www.pandorafreeshop.com]Pandora[/url]

Posted by: pandora beads at December 02, 2010 09:37 PM (NRPYx)

322 Pandora Charms
pandora beads
Pandora Bracelets
Pandora

Posted by: pandora beads at December 02, 2010 09:41 PM (NRPYx)

323 Pandora Charms
pandora beads
Pandora Bracelets
Pandora

Posted by: pandora beads at December 02, 2010 09:42 PM (NRPYx)

324 wildfox couture sale

Posted by: wildfox couture sale at December 11, 2010 01:28 PM (7fapR)

325 If she had sense she would have redirected to "guarantees of freedom,
<a href="http://www.anetporter.com/tiffany-jewelry">tiffany jewelry</a>. and in the case of SOCAS, challenged only overreach interfering
unreasonably with free excercise of religion. Not the farging
principle.<a href="http://www.anetporter.com/louis-vuitton">louis vuitton</a>. Which apparently she dislikes and is keen to diminish.
<a href="http://www.anetporter.com/chanel">chanel</a>

Posted by: louis at December 15, 2010 08:02 AM (XQtk0)

326 If she had sense she would have redirected to "guarantees of freedom, tiffany and co. and in the case of SOCAS, challenged only overreach
interfering
unreasonably with free excercise of religion. Not the farging
principle.louis vuitton. Which apparently she dislikes and is keen to
diminish.
chanel

Posted by: louis at December 15, 2010 08:05 AM (XQtk0)

327 This was actually a fascinating subject, I�m very lucky to have the ability to come to your blog and I�ll bookmark this page so that I might come back another time

Posted by: www.itunes.com at January 10, 2011 03:50 AM (4hknE)

328 المنتدى العام lالمنتدى الاسلامي lالجريمه lسياحه وسفر lمجتمع كول lمسابقات lتصوير الاعضاء lمواهب الاعضاء lبحث وملخصات lكتب lصرقعه lصور lانمي lحيوانات lايمو lصور ايمو lالمنتدى الاسيوي lمنتدى الرجل lرياضه lحواء lازياء lمكياج lاكسسوارات lفساتين lزفات lازياء سمينات lملابس اطفال lازياء محجبات lازياء حوامل lملابس حوامل lحوامل lملابس حوامل جديده lمطبخ lديكور lشعور وخواطر lقصص وروايات lفنانيين ومشاهير lستار اكاديمي lافلام lالراب الاجنبي lالراب العربي lفوتوشوب lسويتش ماكس lصور تصميم lتصميم الاعضاء lملحقات الفوتوشوب lماسنجر lصور ماسنجر lتوبيكات ماسنجر lرموز ماسنجر lبرامج lبرامج جوال lالعاب فلاش lبلاك بيري وايفون lيوتيوب lتوبيكات lتوبيكات حزينه - توبك حزين lتوبيكات رومنسيه - توبك رومنسي lتوبيكات منوعه - توبك منوع lتوبيكات اسلاميه - توبك اسلامي lتوبيكات اسماء - توبك اسم lتوبيكات شعريه - توبك شعر lتوبيكات مضحكه - توبك مضحك lتوبيكات رياضيه - توبك رياضي lتوبيكات اجنبيه - توبك انجليزي lتوبيكات العيد - توبك عيد lتوبيكات رمضانيه - توبك رمضان lتوبيكات بعد - توبك فراق lتوبيكات الحب - توبك حب lتوبيكات ساخره - توبك ساخر lتوبيكات سريعه - توبك سريع lتوبيكات خيانه - توبك خيانه lتوبيكات اغاني - توبك اغنيه l العاب بنات lالعاب المشاهير lالعاب قص شعر بنات lالعاب باربي lالعاب ازياء lالعاب تلبيس بنات lالعاب زوجي وزوجتي lالعاب اطفال lالعاب تلوين lالعاب ترتيب lالعاب طبخ lالعاب الالغاز lيوتيوب lدليل مواقع lمركز تحميل lمنتديات lمنتدى lكول lاذكار lالعاب lاخبار lبرامج جديده lقروب lقروب لحظه lالحب lمكياج سلوى الجودر
ازياء نوال الزغبيفساتين المشاهير 2011مكياج جديد 2011
مكياج هندي 2011
قصات يابانية 2011
مكياج غادة عبد الرازق 2011
ازياء ناعمه 2011
ميك اب 2011
ازياء المحجباتازياء الاطفال
ازياء حوامل
ازياء مواليد
ازياء السمينات
فساتين للسمينات
فضايح المدرسين
مقاطع اطفال مضحكبرامج ايفون
خلفيات جوال بلاك بيري جديدهثيمات بلاك بيري
صور قلوبايقونات صور بكسل
رموز ماسنجر 2011
ابتسامات ماسنجر
سمايلات للماسنجر
صور حب للماسنجر
سمايلات يابانية 2011اختصارات للمسن
رموز سبونج بوب للماسنجررموز ماسنجر ملونة
رمزيات كول للشبابصور رمزيو جديدة
صور بنات روعه للماسنجر رمزيات - خلفيات - صور للمنتدى
صور رمزية للبنات خققصور رمزية للبنات
خلفيات ماسنجر 2011صور ماسنجر حلوين
خلفيات ماسجرصور ملونة للماسنجرصور ماسنجر للبنات2010صور منوعه للماسنجر 2011رمزيـات شوجي
صور رمزية جونانصور رمزية 2011
توبيكات 2010
توبيكات + خلفيات ماسنجراستوكات + خامات 2011
توبيكات للماسنجرسكربت التوبيكات
زخرفة نكاتتحميل برنامج الماسنجر
برنامج كشف الي معطيك بلوكشرح طريقه اضافه النص السريعه لماسنجر
طريقة استرجاع حساب الهوتميلاشكال صوتيه
سكربت زخرفة التوبيكاتبرنامج ابتسامات الماسنجر
زخرفة الحروف الانجليزيةطريفة صنع توبيكات
فواصل رومانسيه 2011
صور كركتيراتصور مضحكة
انواع الأيمو
صور الايمو المصري
صور إيموقصات الايمو
تسريحه ايمولعبة تلبيس ايمو بنت
عبارات ايموصور ايمو كولخلفيات بلاك بيري
صــور, مشاهد ماسنجر 2011
سكرابزصور شباب للتصميم 2011

اغتصابسكس
sex
جرائم
مواضيع
اقسام كول
المنتدى العام lالمنتدى الاسلامي lالترحيب lصور lترفيه وتسليه lماسنجر lصور ماسنجر lتوبيكات ماسنجر lاشكال ماسنجر lفوتوشوب lسويتش ماكس lصور تصميم lمعرض تصاميم lخامات - فلاتر - فرش - سكرابز - خطوط - تكسترات - قصاصات - ايطارات - باترن - استايلات - اكشن - جلتر lدروس فوتوشوب lقضايا lالسياحه والتراث lالتربيه والتعليم lرياضه lرياضه عالميه lسيارات, دراجات lقصص, روايات lشعر, خواطر lمنتدى الاسره والمجتمع lحواء - العنايه - ازياء - مكياج - اكسسوارات - فساتين - موضه بنات - زفات عروسه lمطبخ حواء - مقادير طبخ - اكلات منوعه - معجنات - حلويات - عصيرات lديكور - اثاث - غرف نوم - مطابخ - مفروشات - مسابح - حدائق lالطب و الصحه - استشارات طبيه - طب الاعشاب - تغذيه - رجيم و رشاقه lكافيه حواء - دكه بنات جرحك - اسرار بنات - نقاش بنات - قسم خاص للنساء lمنتدى التصميم والجرافيكس - برامج جديدة للتصميم - شروحات lتصميم, ابداع lبرامج تصميم lمنتديات الكمبيوتر والإنترنت lمشاكل الانترنت, مشاكل الكمبيوتر lبرامج lالعاب كمبيوتر lتطوير المواقع - تطوير المنتديات lبرامج جوال, العاب جوال, اخبار الجوال lمسجات جوال, وسائط lبلاك بيري, ايفون lSONY ERICSSON - Pocket Pc lبيت جواء lالتحليه lالغالي lالقمه lمنتدى جرحك lشات جرحك lشات lدردشه lشات صوتي l
منتديات جرحك l2010 l2011 lالحب l صور lتحميل lلعبه l ثيم lخلفيات lنغمه lالعالم lجديد l video lمباشر lتوبيكات lدليل مواقع lجرحك lيوتيوب l

Posted by: كول at January 25, 2011 11:56 PM (FOooK)

329 Earphones not only serve for essential tools to listen to music, but
also to show your unique taste. That is why so many young people would
like to seek Sony and buy them with quite a high price. Now in
headphoneshop.uk.com, we haveSony Headphonesat factory prices, so you just need to invest a little money to take Sony Earphoneshome. when you choosingActive Style HeadphonesYou
know what is most important factor in choosing ? Of course, the quality
of sounds should be quite essential. active style headphones with
perfect technology and workmanship will display the music to the most
original level and thus bring you a live feeling��Stereo HeadphonesStereo EarphonesStudio Monitor��These
quality active style headphones will reduce the damage to the ear to
the least, so love you start from choosing our earphones.

Listening to music has become a very popular way for most people to
kill time. To enjoy better music, you need better headphones. cheap headphones,cheap earphones,Headphonesale.co.uk is a good place for you to shop online for headphones UK and earphones UK.headphone sale,earphones sale.SennheiserandSennheiser Headphonesat headphoneshop.uk.com have revolutionized the concept of listening to music as a favorite past timeBose Headphones,Bose Earphonesand so on.

Headphoneshop.uk.com creations of stunning ATH Headphoneselegance and captivating Sennheiser Earphonesoriginality. Designs that bring glamour to your life and will be cherished alwaysAKG earphones.Monclerjacketslife creations of stunningIn Ear Headphoneselegance and captivating originality. Designs that bring glamour to your life and will be cherished alwaysOn Ear Headphones

Your music is important and HeadRoom will help you get it right between
your ears. You've come to the right place to shop for headphones,Portable HeadphoneHigh-Performance EarphonesPortable StereophoneHigh Resolution Headphonesand DJ Headphones. We measure and review thousands of Earphones from manufacturers like: Audio-Technica Headphones,Headset for iPhone,so
that we can help you select the perfect headphones for your music. We
have active style headphones made from renowned manufacturer such asAKG, AKG Headphones��

Posted by: Studio Monitor at January 30, 2011 01:25 AM (F+HO6)

330 Wholesale BeadsJewelry BeadsJewelry SuppliesJewelry FindingsWholesale Jewelry BeadsWholesale Jewelry SuppliesJewelry FindingsTibetan Style BeadsAcrylic BeadsJewelry CharmsPandora Style BeadsLampwork BeadsMetal BeadsGemstone BeadsWood Nut Beads

Posted by: kukky at February 14, 2011 09:56 PM (rc6V8)

331 Very useful stuff,i've learn more here.

Posted by: dora games online at February 15, 2011 08:48 PM (KE37a)

332 avondjurken
cocktailjurken
trouwjurken
galajurken
bruidsjurken
goedkope trouwjurken
galajurken online
goedkope bruidsjurken
avondjurken online
goedkope avondjurken
cocktailjurken online
goedkope cocktailjurken

Posted by: gogogu at February 23, 2011 01:01 AM (9xDMd)

333 sac louis vuitton,
louis vuitton paris,
sacs louis vuitton,
louis vuitton pas cher,
sac burberry,
echarpe burberry,
burberry pas cher,
sac burberry pas cher,
sunglasses canada,
sunglasses hut canada,
cheap sunglass hut canada,
sunglass hut canada online,
Lunette de soleil,
Lunettes soleil,
lunette de soleil homme,
lunettes de soleil femme,
lunette de soleil pas cher,
Louis vuitton tassen,
tassen online,
louis vuitton handtassen,
louis vuitton nederland

Posted by: sac louis vuitton at February 24, 2011 10:56 PM (NCpTv)

334
the information of this post is very relevant
for what i am looking for, thank you so much for sharing this one

Posted by: ferragamo shoes at March 01, 2011 04:47 PM (5RimF)

335 Best wishes for you!<a href="http://www.hairmvp.com"title="cheaper ghds">cheaper ghds</a>

Posted by: cheaper ghds at March 01, 2011 10:18 PM (f8qnV)

336 Some people are taking it seriously.

Posted by: designer replica bags at March 03, 2011 05:26 AM (FsvAg)

337 I like these products feel very good!<a href=http://www.hairmvp.com>cheap ghd,cheap ghds</a>

Posted by: cheap ghd,cheap ghds at March 04, 2011 11:00 PM (GRCCe)

338 I like your blog. I look forward to seeing it once. Keep up the good job.

Posted by: cheap women shoes at March 07, 2011 02:44 AM (sJOqk)

339

http://www.breitlingwatchesuks.co.uk
http://www.ukrolexreplica.org.uk

[url=http://www.ukrolexreplica.org.uk]rolex replica[/url] rolex replica
[url=http://www.breitlingwatchesuks.co.uk]breitling replica[/url] breitling replica

Posted by: ups7777777 at March 07, 2011 09:06 PM (ZdU52)

340 Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.

Posted by: cooking games at March 26, 2011 03:57 AM (lzGn5)

341 nice post thanks to share it. Get complete information about travel agency now. Chutti.Pk is the first Pakistan Travel and Tour Portal. Travel and Tour Guide, Honeymoon packages, Vacation Packages, Umrah package, Travle Agency, Online cheap Airlines Tickets, Cheap Hotels Booking, Famous Shopping Malls, Discount Deals with comprehensive information of Top Best Travel Destinations in the World.

Posted by: tour package at March 31, 2011 03:38 AM (1Oytd)

342 Cold, dark, dark side of the male dormitory building, silkroad gold,dofus kamas,ffxiv gil,aion kinah, only the corridor turn still lit, pale light glowing. Outside the window, wow gold,ffxiv gil,wow gold,wow gold,is the dead one avenue, the avenue is through the windows dim the lights shone on her face, dark gray, wow power leveling,wow power leveling,buy wow gold,wow money, it is my heart suppressed, boring. (6)Girls choose not to bite, just what is clearly sound, who whispered in the ear Whisper, wow power leveling,2moons dil,arche age gold,archlord gold,a strange spell, but when she opened her eyes and ears but it is still one, even the sisters sleep in the upper breathing can be heard, almost like lying in the above is not a living, but a rotting corpse! aika gold,aion kinah,aion kinah,apb gold,Her eyes closed drowsily, and then heard a voice outside the door, hum is heard boggling array, that is a deep singing as if from hell, alldos gold,atlantica gold,asda story gold,boi gold,girls covered in startled. (12)she saw something hanging from the upper down, it was like a waterfall-like is capped with black hair girls hair, blade soul gold,c9 gold,cabal alz,cabal alz,she secretly sigh, maybe she slept too heavy, and will Not a sound relaxed mood in girls when suddenly dim lights through the window, divine souls gold,dofus kamas,dragon oath gold,ddo plat,saw the girl tangled hair had dried under what else, what it is Bana, is the kind of in the Buddhist scriptures are called "maha mantras Luo Hua Sha Chinese Mansfield, dfo gold,eve isk,everquest plat,eq2 plat (1

"the beautiful flowers, one after another as the wind turned the umbrella, fiesta gold,ffxi il,ffxiv gil,flyff penya, decorated in that long hair hanging down, the trace of strange, and the smell of death teenage aghast eyes wide open, gaia online gold,grand fantasia gold,guild wars gold,guild wars 2 gold,staring at the wearer That Peng hair, she saw the hand of a pair of Slim as a shelf-like stretched over bones, iris gold,jade dynasty gold,kal geons,kitsu saga gold,ghost hand hung a pair of scissors on the girl scared half to death. (24)her doom in the eyes closed, she felt something on her face sweep, knight gold,loco gold,last chaos gold,last chaos gold,inflatable general, then the ear came the voice of ... ... Kacha Kacha, legend of edda gold,lineage 2 adena,lotro gold,lotr gold, Watching the computer ghost stories. Xu, sipping hot coffee back suddenly felt cold in the Philippines. maplestory mesos,maple story mesos,buy mesos,martial empires gold, She swallowed hard, good in the hands of just red all of a sudden the coffee even if there is no heat in general. Xu Fei Yi Chan's hand gently. (30)the glass ramp a little hot liquid splashed on the back of her She only recovered, metin2 yang,mabinogi gold,mytheon gold,neo online gold, rubbed the back of the hand is too hot red, breathed the thought: Bana, the kind of legend in the longer summer, perfect world gold,perfect world coins,Pristontale 2 Eons,rappelz rupees,but in the fall bloom, because of the spring equinox season alternately known as the 'other side'. So named Bana. rappelz gold, ragnarok zeny,runescape gold,rom gold(36)Generally considered to be grown in three-way river escorts flower. rohan crone,requiem lant,rf online gold,seven souls gold,Where a large number of these large number of open flowers, far looks like a carpet paved the blood is the only landscape lives on the road . shaiya gold,silkroad gold,soul master gold,Star Wars Galaxies Credits, and the color can evoke memories of the deceased her eyes closed slightly, it seems In her eyes there is a similar bloom sexy black and red Hua San, tera gold,12sky2 gold,Vindictus gold,Warhammer gold, a huge, spread into a startling red eyes, fire, such as blood, such as tea ... ... in her restless when suddenly the right shoulder was people suddenly a beat. Scared her face pale. (42)"Bana, opening a millennium. Down a thousand years, Mosaic and never see each other. Warhammer online gold,wonderking zed,war of angels gold,zentia gold, Love is not cause and effect, the margin of life and death ... doomed ..." wow money,Cheapest WoW Gold,wow powerleveling,WoW Power leveling,Yaotouhuangnao as an endorsement like, Mao Xiaoqing face like zoom in Xu Fei eyes. "You stare at me doing it! aika gold,aion kinah,allods gold,atlantica gold, It is written in the above sutra it! (4

All, but shit, in my opinion, boi gold,cabal alz,dofus kamas,dfo gold,Bana is very beautiful, but you see the ghost stories written too Gouxue what fright night!? eve isk,everquest plat,eq2 plat,ffxi gil,is the middle of the night without sleep, and hear the human voice, and then looked up and, ffxiv gil,flyff penya,knight gold,grand fantasia gold,wow - unidentified people hanging spread to hair. hair still open strange flowers. (54)and then appear strange pair of slender hands, holding the scissors, last chaos gold,lineage 2 adena,lotro gold,maplestory mesos, Kacha Kacha to cut it all "Mao Xiaoqing did not mind the waved. mabinogi gold,metin2 yang,rappelz rupees,runes of magic gold, A small taste of his face filled with contempt. 'Puchi' soon, Xu Fei suddenly could not help laughing, silkroad gold,swg Credits,vindictus gold,warhammer gold,Gucci Handbags,in fact, she was not really afraid. After all, things are seen more scary, and nerve has long been tempered very sturdy, flattering! Just do not know why, of course accelerate, head cold sweat Louis Vuitton Handbags,Prada Handbags,Hermes Handbags, rift gold, rift goldRift Gold (60)

Posted by: ffxiv gil at April 09, 2011 05:18 AM (vrYPR)

343 Christian Louboutin spikes
surely are the best shoes you can ever imagine, or you may interested in the cheap Christian louboutin pumps

Posted by: Shop christian at April 14, 2011 04:18 AM (vxJgX)

344 It sounds really <a href="http://www.cheapmass.com/">amazing</a>!I suppose if you like <a href="http://www.cheapmass.com/">sports</a>?I think choose<a href="http://www.cheapmass.com/"> right sporting clothes is very important</a>!

Posted by: cheap clothes online at April 25, 2011 11:29 PM (eB2Vr)

345 It is quite unique,I really can't image how that could be!Do you like sports?I think jordan shoes are really wonderful!

Posted by: retro jordans at April 25, 2011 11:31 PM (eB2Vr)

346 cheap mbt shoes,mbt shoes,discount mbt,cheap mbt shoes,discount mbt shoes,mbt shoes sale,mbt sale,Herve Leger,Herve Leger sale,Herve Leger Dresses,Herve Leger,Herve Leger sale,herve leger dress,Herve Leger Strapless,p90x program,p90x workout program,p90x for sale,p90x fitness guide,px90 workout schedule

Posted by: discount mbt at April 27, 2011 03:18 AM (rW7Mo)

347 We offer high quality Swiss-made Watch Cases and Quartz Movement from Japan. includes:replica rolex uk,rolex replicas uk,rolex replicas, fake rolex watches,replica breitling and other replica watches. free shipping all of world

Posted by: joson at May 16, 2011 05:30 AM (+aIz5)

348 Replica Chanel Bags
Chanel Shopping Bags

Chanel Handbags
Chanel Coco Bags
Chanel Sunglasses
Chanel Watches

Cheap Chanel Wholesale Chanel Cambon bags

Posted by: gucci sungalsses at May 23, 2011 04:51 AM (7aXKs)

349 So informative things are provided here,I really happy to read this post,I was just imagine about it and you provided me the correct information I really bookmark it,for further reading,So thanks for sharing the information. This post is different from what I read on most blog. And it have so many valuable things to learn.

Posted by: cheap Diesel boots at May 24, 2011 01:37 AM (6eZKe)

350 nintendo ds
acekard
dstt
supercard
ez flash
r4
r4 ultra
ps3 hard
drive
wedding
gifts
gift idea
ps3 hacks
tiffany
silk scarves
r4 rts
r4 sdhc
r4 ds
r4i
r4 gold
r4i ultra
acekard 2i
m3 card
micro sd
nintendo 3ds

Posted by: x360key at May 26, 2011 09:17 PM (lpP9b)

351 Miami Internet Marketing
Miami SEO

Posted by: Miami Internet Marketing at June 11, 2011 03:17 AM (QyenN)

352 The Cruise SS 2011 name of the Spring Summer 2011 stock market is Fall Winter 2010 going to say Prefall 2010 揚rada.?Look Spring Summer 2010 closely at the Monogram Empreinte source and the Antheia spacing of the New Collection letters. If Monogram Canvas the space looks Monogram Idylle weird, or Monogram Macassar Canvas if one of Monogram Multicolore the cards has Monogram Vernis a completely Monogram Miroir different source, Monogram Mini Lin so that the Monogram Denim logo should Cosmic Blossom check to see Damier Ebene Canvas if it is Damier Graphite Canvas spelled correctly, Damier Azur Canvas this indicates Damier Geant Canvas a counterfeiter. Sofia Coppola Locate authenticity Bvlgari card inside the Christian Louboutin bag. Contain Lanvin a real Prada Suhali Leather authenticity card Mahina in an envelope EPI Leather small black. Surya The card will Taiga Leather contain a Utah Leather serial number Nomade Leather along with the Sobe style bag. Wallets But remember, Louis Vuitton Wallets if you抮e buying Louis Vuitton Luggages a used Louis Vuitton Accessories bag, this may Louis Vuitton classic series not be available Louis Vuitton Handbags Outlet to you. You Gucci Handbags no longer have Chanel Handbags to wait for Hermes Handbags the sale of Prada Handbags designer shops Mulberry Handbags to buy your Burberry Handbags favorite designs Fendi Handbags from the previous Miu Miu Handbags season. With Balenciaga Handbags the advancement Alexander Wang Handbags of technology Marc Jacobs Handbags and rapid economic Valentino Handbags growth, the Dior Handbags living standard 3.1 Phillip Lim Handbags of people has Jimmy Choo Handbags greatly improved, Tod抯 Handbags in this case, Lanvin Handbags shopping is about Loewe handbags to become the Bally Handbags largest woman Givenchy Handbags loving. Brand-name Celine Handbags bags, are a Samantha Thavasa Handbags woman抯 symbol Bottega Veneta Handbags of identity Yves Saint Laurent Handbags and taste. Cartier Handbags Thanks.

Posted by: Maryapple at June 13, 2011 11:04 PM (aVujO)

353 thank you gret

Posted by: mobil55 at June 14, 2011 06:44 PM (cBJzG)

354 This website let me look for a long time, had found finally, good happy!

Posted by: dora games at June 18, 2011 08:32 PM (lzGn5)

355 As the number of female stars <a href="http://www.weddingdress.com.ph/">wedding gown</a>of the dress has been questioned users, making the "cottage dress" hot term, a shop, but to seize this opportunity, through online ordering <a href="http://www.weddingdress.com.ph/">wedding dresses</a>"cottage dress" open the way of getting money.Overwhelming competitive <a href="http://www.weddingdress.com.ph/">bridesmaid dresses</a>online clothing store, clothing store, but avoid a hot war, with its own characteristics to seize a stable customer base.

Posted by: vince at June 21, 2011 09:05 PM (3gTbI)

356 think it was more that the community or some ambitious DA overreacting. Two news outlets, "Boston Herald" and "Irish Central", have both been vicious in their attacks on the alleged bullies. Their constant onslaughts are beyond the pale in yellow rag journalism. Their practice of censoring those such as myself in trying to present an opposing opinion has been absolutely disgusting.

Posted by: Pandora Sale Charms at June 23, 2011 03:07 AM (6tpbA)

357 Summer is coming. More and more people choose to hold beach weddings. http://www.bestdressmall.com/ Cheap Wedding Dresses For those summer brides, they have to choose proper wedding dresses for themselves. Cheap Bridesmaid Dresses You know that the bride pays much attention http://www.cheapweddingdressesshop.com/ Cheap Wedding Dresses Shop on the wedding ceremony as well as the look herself, usa dresses so the perfect choice of the wedding dress is of great importance. No matter who you are, Plus Size Gowns as long as you want to be the perfect bride on the beach,cheap wedding gown under 1000 the beach wedding dress is definitely the best choice for you.Cheap Wedding Gowns Beach weddings have so many advantadges, wedding dress it is easier to see why a little more to go this route insteadCheap Bridal Dress of a traditional wedding. Bridesmaid Gowns Many brides struggle to look perfect beach wedding dress for her, Plus Wedding Dress to see if she was perfect for the beach.http://www.weddingdress-bridaldresses.com/ Wedding Dress If you are married on the beach,bridesmaiddresses 2010 I am assuming you are getting married somewhere sunny and warm, the last thing http://www.cocktaildresseshome.com/ Cheap Cocktail Dresses store I want to do is overheated and sweat all over your makeup on the http://www.bridesmaiddressshow.com/ Bridesmaid Dresses day of the wedding.beach wedding dresses bridesmaid dressesgownsare still predominantly white or ivory but there are some beautifulCheap Wedding Dress pastel coloured wedding dresses available which may be more suitable, if you want to be different. http://www.bridal01.com/ Wholesale wedding dresses Traditionally wedding dresses designed for beach weddings are nice wedding dresses made of lighter cooler fabrics such as chiffon,Wholesale duchess satin (lighter than normal satin),bridesmaid dresses crepe,cotton,organza and voile or bridal a combination of these fabrics. Cheap Plus size Bridesmaid Dress A fabric that travels well and doesn��t crease easily can be important.Plus Size Dresses The beach can often be windy so a full skirt or a cathedral style veil may get blown around and a http://www.jackbridal.com/ Wholesale Wedding Dressesfull length train dragging along the sand will look a mess in no time. Wholesale Evening GownsOn the plus side, dresses with spaghetti Wedding Dress Patterns straps or strapless wedding dresses are ideal way to http://www.plussize-weddingdresses.com/ Plus Size Wedding Dresses show off that lovely tan you will have. Wholesale Bridesmaid Dresses Beach wedding dresses can range from a http://www.shopforbridesmaid.com/ Bridesmaid Dresses casual summer dress to a more stylish longer dress. http://www.prettyweddinggown.com/ wedding gown For a more casual wedding a short dress may be appropriate although moreWholesale Bridesmaid Dresses popular is a tea length dress. bridal gownsFor an even more casual look, Cocktail Dresseswedding sarongs are becoming more popular. Perhaps http://www.eveninggownsshop.com/ Evening Gowns a white bikini top, maybe with some detailing teamed with wedding gowns a luxurious sarong may be just the thing for you. http://www.cocktaildressshow.com/ Cocktail dresses For anyone determined to wear a long dress, Bridal Dresses it may be worth considering wearing it just for the wedding gowns ceremony and the photos and having another more practical dress to change into. Discount cocktail DressesChoose to keep the fabrics like cotton, chiffon or silk,Discount Evening Gowns these fabrics are also fresh, light and thin for wedding Cheap Evening Gownsdresses made of these materials occur easily Bridesmaid Dressestransportable.In recent years, Discount Bridal Dresses there are more and more colors flood into the wedding market. And many of liquidation wedding dresses
the brides start to try some other colors wedding dress, such as blue
color, yellow color, and pink colorand so on. But in my view, Bridesmaid Dresses I think that the white hue is the most fantastic one.Wedding Dresses factory Just as the Big S in her casual beach wedding dresses, the white color will make you look fancy in your big day.formal wedding dress plus size wedding dresses And in order to make the whole wedding not that white,Flower Girl Dresses you can ask the bridesmaids to dress in colorful colors.http://www.bridal-weddinggown.com/ Bridal Gown Besides, another aspect you should pay attention is the style of your bridal dresses. Wholesale Cocktail DressesSomeone think that mermaid wedding gowns arehttp://www.cheapbridesmaiddressesshop.com/ Bridesmaid Dresses the most beautiful ones while others deem that simple wedding dresses are the best. But in my opinion,china wholesale it should depend on the preference of the bride and the impression she wants to leave to you.Prom Dresses The most important is that the dress ought to fit for your body shape.Wedding Gown And among all of them, short wedding dresses gain the most popularity.Iwedding dresses f you prefer to hold a beach wedding, you can come to www.eastbridal.com Cocktail Dress to pick the freshly launched wedding dresses 2011.Wedding Dresses Suppliers Hope you like it.Choose a a long wedding dress you can feel free to move and not so heavy and hot Wedding Gown Patterns .Depending on your style and your personal preference , Wholesale Cocktail Dresses maybe a shorter wedding dresswhite wedding dress suppliers on the beach is better for you to choose, in the event you have great legs and want to show off them .cocktail dresses for juniorsIf not , you can choose a ankle length wedding dress which can help you China wholesale Evening Dresses to make a stunning look . Wedding dress which made from thin, light breathable material should be your choice .Cheap Bridal Gown But sometimes a beach wedding is always held somewhere sunny and hot, Cheap Bridesmaid Dressesyou will never want to have all your make up off on your wedding day .party dresses So it��s wise for you to choose fabric like cotton, chiffon cheap plus size cocktail dressesor silk to keep you cool.http://www.wholesaleweddingbridaldresses.com/ Wholesale Wedding Dresses These fabrics are also light and thin, which can make you easy to move white wedding dress size .Are you looking for the ideal beach wedding dresses? If you are, then a slightly simpler style may be just what you need. Wholesale Bridesmaid DressesIt
is important your dress is beautiful, elegant and timeless but you may
need something a little more casual as you walk barefoot along the
beach.

Posted by: wholesale wedding dresses at June 24, 2011 02:04 AM (u5lO6)

358
This will be to the Discount Gucci Bags reason which they in no way go away from design at the same time to the female within your existence Cheap Gucci Bags can use them period of your time shortly after period of your time and yr shortly after year. Cared for properly, they will last for a lot of years and nonetheless be trendy and nonetheless Gucci Bags Outlet Store go with something in her collection. Genuine Gucci Bags, genuine Prada Handbags, Replica Louis-Vuitton Purse If price tag may nicely be considered a considerable concern for you, you can Gucci Handbags Outlet visual appeal to the internet for some relief on that front. You will uncover that there are numerous exceptional Discount Gucci Handbags internet webpages that will provide utilized or deeply lower costs on Gucci Handbags For Sale.

Posted by: Gucci bags at June 24, 2011 10:30 PM (T77sS)

359 ��

��

��

��
��

��

��

��

��

��
��
��
xp
��
��
��

��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

SEO

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

4shared

��

��

��

youtube
google
4shared
��
��
��
��
��

Posted by: �� at June 25, 2011 02:05 PM (zWx7q)

360 The brand is synonymous with the world of sport, quality clothing but above all their eyewear collection. <a href="http://www.oakley-glass.com/">Oakley Sunglasses</a> are without doubt the hottest, most innovative and renowned eyewear on the planet. Instantly recognisable <a href="http://www.oakley-glass.com/">Oakley Outlet</a> for their logo, <a href="http://www.oakley-glass.com/">Cheap Oakleys</a> have produced an amazing array of frames and lenses <a href="http://www.oakley-glass.com/">Oakley Sunglasses On Sale</a> to suit a magnitude of activities, sports and street wear, which is why they have segmented <a href="http://www.oakley-glass.com/">Oakley Glasses</a> into seven core collections.

Posted by: Cheap Oakleys at June 26, 2011 08:32 PM (b61jy)

361 <a href="http://www.discountsunglassesshops.com/oakley-sunglasses.html">cheap oakley sunglasses</a>
<a href="http://www.discountsunglassesshops.com/oakley-sunglasses.html">discount oakley sunglasses</a>

I am certainly thankful to you for providing us with this invaluable info. My spouse and I are truthfully grateful, precisely the computer data we needed.

Posted by: cheap oakley sunglasses at July 06, 2011 12:47 AM (Fo+i3)

362 The crowd of law students at Widener Law School giggled and hooted at Christine O'Donnell's answer, her questioning of whether "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution.

Posted by: costa mesa chiropractic at July 07, 2011 04:12 PM (Z5AOf)

363 pearl jewelry

Posted by: koko at July 08, 2011 04:27 AM (1Lf6w)

364 Thanks For Sharing Comment.

Posted by: hajj packages at July 11, 2011 05:41 AM (PNfMd)

365 Thanks for posting this informative article Hey this is a great post. I amm going to email this to my buddies. The post is written in very a good manner and it contains much useful information for me. You have a very impressive writing style. I will be sure to come back. thanks for sharing.

Posted by: hajj packages at July 11, 2011 05:43 AM (PNfMd)

Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.1357 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0779 seconds, 374 records returned.
Page size 290 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.