Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
This one’s going viral. Or it should.
Breyer made a brilliant point, the same way Joe Biden beat Sarah Palin in a debate: Didn’t do it. Flashed pearly whites in a grin that telegraphed self-satisfaction, condescension, insouciance and ignorance. Strip away the grin and there’s nothing to it.
Not a shred of logic as far as I can see. This guy’s really sitting on the Supreme Court? I mean, when an Associate Justice offers his thoughts on an issue on which I disagree with him, I expect him to weigh in with some brilliance and give me some “omigaw” moment. Where’s the “omigaw” moment? Breyer certainly acts like he laid one down…has the mannerism down. But there’s nothing.
Kinda reminds me of this.
Anyone got a good argument they can offer against impeachment? An argument that will give me an “omigaw” moment? I’m not talking about impeaching all justices who weigh in on the minority; that would be tyranny of the majority. I’m not saying that — I’m talking about where the Constitution plainly says something, and that particular amendment is sprinkled with extra, special verbiage to make sure nobody misunderstands (which the Second Amendment is, go look it up). That particular amendment is worded in passive voice, when most of the others are worded in active voice, to make it clear that the authors of it don’t give a good goddamn who is doing the “infringing” it is wrong, wrong, wrong. And then, pondering the plain meaning of this language that is not used in the other amendments, SCOTUS says “yep that is what it says.”
And this guy wants to keep living in a fantasy world. Not just participate in the vote on the minority side. But build castles in the air.
It seems to me a plain, unalterable fact that we need people serving on the Supreme Court who won’t go doing that.
Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News and Washington Rebel.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Another Stanford Grad, sigh – and he went to Lowell High School in SF – typical hippie.
- DirtCrashr | 12/12/2010 @ 12:12GotDamn, when I heard that this morning, my jaw dropped. What a fucking total asshat.
Oh Mr Home Invader, would you just hold it for a moment while I run TO FUCKING MARYLAND TO GET MY WEAPON.
And how could I and 100s of millions of Americans know that when the Framers used the phrase, “a well armed militia” that they were referring to us. The people. In the lexicon of the day, it meant the general population. HTF can he dance around to the Framers were afraid states would call up state militias to…wha?…invade other states??? Attack Washington??? Chris tried to get this assclown to answer the damn question about “shall not be infringed on” at least 3 times. I couldn’t take it any more.
Unbelievable. Isn’t he the jerk that “looks” to foreign law to find some bullshit, ANY bullshit to trample on our Constitution. Jesus H Christ.
I think SC Justices should have terms, like one 15 or 20 year term and that’s it. Some of these morons play politics and refuse to leave until they know a President will replace one chucklehead with another-see Sotomayor-God help us-and Kagan-we are going to be paying on her long after I’m dead and gone-I would have raised bloody holy hell if I was in the Senate-her awfulness will never be touched again in my lifetime.
- MM | 12/12/2010 @ 15:43Yer right. Absolute nonsense, spoken with smug confidence. Which is how they get away with it.
Since the scope of the second amendment isn’t specific, does that mean we can re-define it down to butter knives … or toothpicks?
Revisionists ignore the context from which the second amendment arose, and the arguments that were made at the time, and they just want to focus specifically on the wording and try to cast doubt and confusion to make their “solution” sound “reasonable”.
The second amendment, at the VERY least, should clearly cover self-defense. When you read the context of it’s development, it is also clear that offensive weapons would be needed to perform some of the tasks the founders had in mind for defending ourselves from oppresive government. I don’t have a problem with “machine guns” or “assault rifles”.
Nowhere in the second amendment does it even come close to talking about limiting use to sport shooting, — it doesn’t mention sport shooting at all. That doesn’t mean that sport shooting should be banned.
- philmon | 12/13/2010 @ 09:07A more powerful advertisement for the NRA could never be made. And I’ll assume everyone here is a member…right?
- tim | 12/13/2010 @ 10:26Member, here. Have to get a new sticker now that I think on it; lost the old one when the company upgraded my laptop. But I have my rosewood-handle finger-gobbling NRA pocket knife with the way-too-powerful eager-beaver closure spring, right by my beer o’clock blogging throne.
I like your idea about the commercial small-tee. Phil’s point deserves emphasis. Hope the camera zooms way in on the smug crocodile grin, so we can see what the Associate Justice had for lunch and it fills up the entire screen 1984-Big-Brother style..
As a general rule, an idea you need a smug-toothy-grin to sell, is a sucky-ass idea.
- mkfreeberg | 12/13/2010 @ 10:32Life Member at that.
- philmon | 12/13/2010 @ 10:34I have several stickers, Morgan. I could mail ya one. If ya wanted.
I recently broke the tip off of my trusty NRA pocketknife. Well I guess the second amendment doesn’t specify that you can have tips on your pocket knives, or indeed that you can carry a pocket knife at all. So I may not be able to legally restore the tip. 😉
I have an NRA member Christmas ornament on our tree… front and center, where that oh-so progressive family member can see it and cringe. It’s a pretty ornament.
Has anyone here been watching the Bill Whittle video series, “Firewall” out at Declaration Entertainment (or on the Bill Whittle Channel on YouTube)? The “What We Believe” series is excellent to show to your friends, one at a time. They’re short (10 minutes apiece) and cover one topic at a time. 7 parts.
Part 5 would be particularly applicable to this discussion. Based on his most excellent essay which is what got Rachel Lucas to get him in to blogging years ago.
- philmon | 12/13/2010 @ 11:07It frightens me, that people who think like this are part of a tribunal that has the final word on my Constitutional rights.
- cylarz | 12/15/2010 @ 01:17