2
Wexit-Delecto 2 points ago +2 / -0

Texas had standing, if Texas didn't no one did and the requirement that states only change their electoral law through specified means has zero teeth. And if standing was an issue, it would have been appropriate to hear arguments on that issue rather than deciding it incorrectly off the cuff.

I agree, recent rulings are just what we want BUT... nothing has changed since that incorrect ruling that fucked us. Are they still fucking us now? If so, how? If not, why?

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

This was the only one I remember. It was unbelievable.

This court can’t be trusted.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

What?

Texas, not POTUS, brought a constitutional complaint against the states who illegally modified their elections laws contrary to the requirements in the constitution. The case was brought to the lowest court having original jurisdiction to hear such cases, the Supreme Court. Texas eminently had standing.

The Supreme Court shockingly ruled Texas had no standing. They didn’t even entertain arguments on the issue of standing, they just kept their own incorrect counsel and ruled incorrectly.

It was a complete abrogation of the law. And the court has not changed since then. The same court now delivers us this ruling. Which can only mean this ruling has the cabal’s blessing. They are up to something.

-1
Wexit-Delecto -1 points ago +2 / -3

The same supreme court that found texas had no standing overturned roe v. wade.

By that, I mean to say, if "they" didn't want it overturned, it wouldn't have been overturned.

They are up to something. We're not winning.

10
Wexit-Delecto 10 points ago +10 / -0

Meanwhile the throngs of violent third worlders tearing our country up can't be kept in jail for more than a few hours between serious violent crimes.

Fuck this country, so hard.

5
Wexit-Delecto 5 points ago +5 / -0

It’s been a long year and a half.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

They’re helping make the next elections about these sacred cows instead of everything that’s happened. They’re trying to start a civil war while their money printing beast still has fight in it. They’re putting on a show for scared Chinese seeing their economy collapse, letting them know it could be worse. They’re distracting from growing evidence the election was stolen, the economy is dead, Ukraine and Europe are lost, Taiwan and that side of the Pacific are lost, etc.

The left will riot of course. Think the news will call them violent, an insurrection, etc., as images of flaming cities and whites being dragged out of their shops and beat to death in the streets fill our screens once again (summer of love 2020 redux)? All while the J6 farce hearing carries on calling a peaceful protest an insurrection?

The left, of course, won’t see the contradiction. These are the people that fell for covid, and angrily defend big pharma to this day even as it’s plain the vaxxes don’t even work. These are the people who deem us violent, homophobic, misogynistic, etc., and so set about replacing us with sub 60 IQ rejects from the most violent Islamic countries. It’s just going to be more covid style stupidity from everyone, but this time with more violence.

Covid sadists didn’t just all vanish. They’ve been waiting for the next excuse to behave like that. They’re also hoping this time they can be violent against the noncompliant, and if the last few years have done anything, they’ve built up a lot of anger in society. Of course, when the left is violent the police will go all Uvalde. They won’t lift a finger. But if anyone defends against them, the full and terrifying force of the state will come crashing down upon them. It will go on like this for years.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

Have more dooming. The cabal controls this court. Remember “no standing”?

If they wanted Roe v. Wade upheld it would have been.

28
Wexit-Delecto 28 points ago +28 / -0

If it prevents just one monkeypocks death…

2
Wexit-Delecto 2 points ago +2 / -0

Anons, this is the same court that ruled Texas had no standing. That ruling demonstrated the cabal completely controls the Supreme Court.

Are we all thinking the cabal lost one here? No! They could have had all nine judges support Roe v. Wade if they wanted. This is part of their plan…

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

“Logic doesn’t work on you” says the guy who insists the wording is good even as he lives in a world where it isn’t, and who gets upset at anyone who suggests improvement.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sadly, the word "freemason" comes from "frere maçon" ("brother of the light") which is what they called themselves before Friday the 13th, after which they fled to England and Scotland, laid low for a while, and re-appeared with the Peasants' revolt to take revenge upon the Knights Hospitallers who participated in Friday the 13th.

I agree with you about the mud flood and tartaria though.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wasn't implying aliens, I was implying that our planet once orbited Saturn, was ejected from that orbit in a cataclysmic event, descended to our current orbit picking up the moon along the way, and the moon and earth decelerated using a gyroscope-like effect, unloading all the friction of slowing down onto the earth's crust, hence mountains.

How did our ocean come to have the same concentration of dissolved solids as Saturn's rings?

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

Re civil war: I read something about it being a battle between the old southern freemasons based in Atlanta, Georgia, who were the "good" cabal, and another sect but the site I first read about it, amallulla.org, is now gone. I had intended to go back and pick up on the scent at some point, but failed to archive offline. It alleged that this was actually over control of Pike's Peak, which is gigantic solid granite rock inside of which the cabal believes it is possible to ride out the coming cataclysm.

Re Astor. The sinking of the Titanic and foundation of the Fed was a call to war against the anti-Fed faction within the cabal. If that faction was not destroyed, it's only reasonable to expect that it would retaliate in a timely and effective manner. We all know no one can go toe to toe with the beast, it prints money and we don't. So I agree, nothing that happened since the founding of the Fed has been cabal civil war, they've all been the victor in the cabal civil war waging war against US. So the good cabal laid low until the opportune moment to strike arrived? Remember President Trump bowing out of 2012 saying the time wasn't right? He knew what was coming and knew when he needed to make his move. They were driving the bus off a cliff, but Trump became driver at the last second, put his foot on the gas, and used all the fuel up just before the bus careens off the cliff. And now we are noticing some of the passengers had parachutes...

Re Napoleon: why did Napoleon conquer Malta (home of the Knights Hospitallers)? Note the role the Hospitallers played in Friday the 13th. When the Freemasons appeared in England and Scotland in the Peasants' Revolt, they mostly destroyed Hospitallers' properties. The British fleet basically held back until he'd accomplished that task and unloaded in Egypt, then sunk his boats. Napoleon set about releasing smallpox and plague, his troops vandalized various ancient ruins (concealing the message the ancients laid down in stone at their great expense for our benefit), he spent 3 nights in the pyramid (!), he depopulated modern Israel (the better for it to be settled following the 1917 Balfour declaration and later "holocaust"). Then he returned home and murdered mainland patriots for the benefit of the City of London. Lastly, he retired on a remote tropical island resembling his childhood home, where he wiled away his retirement exploring the countryside on horseback.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you don't want people calling you "retard," read more carefully. I'm not supporting pilpul nor am I anti 2A, I'm simply telling you the world doesn't work the way you want it to. You can't write vague, brief statements and expect everyone to arrive at, never mind defend your interpretation. Excruciating detail and clarity is the solution, not made-up principles like "laws should be written so that dumb people can read them."

Why does it stand perverted?

Because it was written with insufficient clarity, such that it could be argued that it means multiple things, including the original meaning and other, perverted, meanings. You seem to think this is impossible, but I have news for you, it has already happened.

Why do we accept the perverted version over the original?

Because it wasn't specified in the Constitution how the words should be interpreted. That left the door open to "living tree" interpretation. You act like this is impossible, but I invite you to look around. It already happened!

Also, who is to blame for this perversion? The original author? The hostile lawyers? The people who accepted the perversion?

Who is to blame when you leave your trash can out and raccoons and black bears upend the can and make a mess on your driveway? Yes, sure, the raccoons and bears are to blame, they did it. But you are not blameless for leaving a free meal out in nature, knowing what would naturally follow.

If you're going to write a document that protects your rights now, and is intended to protect your descendants' rights forever more, you simply HAVE to write it anticipating hostile pilpul attacks. For some reason, this idea upsets you, even though the results of NOT doing so are plain for you to see.

People have perverted the unpervertable from the beginning

Therefore we should not make any attempt to prevent them doing so? I don't follow...

Next you'll tell me the Bible should have clarified its points.

Do you kill? Is our present interpretation, that needlessly killing animals for food, carelessly killing smaller creatures to farm and develop, killing in defence, killing when the state puts you in uniform and tells you to, etc., are okay, a perversion or the original meaning?

Do you steal? Did you never benefit from a service paid for by taxation, like roads or a military? Do you enjoy the use of products made with slave/stolen labour? Is our present interpretation in which these things are permitted in the spirit of the original meaning, or are they perversions?

Do you bear false witness against your neighbour? Did you ever click "accept" on a legal agreement between you and your fellow countrymen without reading it, or knowing you disagreed with its contents?

Do you think the laws God laid down for us are being observed? If not, perhaps the advice did not land. The author may be divine in nature, but its intended recipients are NOT.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

Holy smokes, go back to reddit retard. You can't even read.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is the wrong way to write legal documents intended to remain in effect, unchanged, for centuries. Especially the part about writing it to be simple enough that the simple can comprehend them. It should be written with comprehensive logic covering all circumstances and avenues of legal attack, the whole thing should present practically as an airtight mathematical proof. People can write simple summaries for simple people afterwards.

All laws are supposed to be so simple that the simple can comprehend them,

Can you provide an example of a law that follows this principle you just made up, and that has remained effective through centuries?

The only legal documents that remain in effect, unchanged, for centuries are international treaties and they're NOT written as you propose.

and here you continue to split hairs... from the wrong dog no less

Seriously, I want to know, are you retarded? Do you think I'm arguing against the 2A?

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

You wasted all those words to say "the constitution doesn't specify if it should be interpreted in a literalist fashion, or according to changing contemporary language and understanding, and further leaves much unsaid about the parameters of the right it purports to protect" which was exactly my point from the beginning.

The constitution can't simultaneously be clear enough and omit everything you just said, among many many other omissions. It's a legal document intended to last for centuries or perhaps perpetually, these issues simply HAVE to be addressed, and they were not. It's not impossible to do, and by the time of the founding fathers, others had already successfully drafted legal documents that remained in use for centuries.

If you think my posts are "anti 2A" you're a fucking illiterate retard, go back to reddit. I am posting in support the God given right to bear arms, and the way we support that right down through the centuries is by clearly codifying it into constitutional law, exactly as the founding fathers didn't do.

Go read the Canadian whatever-it-is. THAT'S vaguely written. It reads like Trudeau himself wrote it.

See, I don't think you even understand the issues here. In fact, the Canadian Charter is very clear, it says right at the beginning that it's NOT to be interpreted in a literalist fashion. It's a shit document for protecting rights, for the same reason as the US constitution does a shit job protecting your rights: it didn't specify literalist interpretation.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

Let me see if I understand your position correctly. You insist the founding fathers' wording is sufficiently clear, despite living in a world when their supposedly clear statements have been perverted by hostile lawyers. Further, anyone who points out that this has happened, and points out that, as compared to similar legal documents intended to last for centuries, the 2A is written unclearly, is one of those hostile lawyers.

Is that about right?

If relativism has no place in the constitution, the constitution should have said so, i.e., should have clarified that point. If you can't see why such a clarification is necessary for a law intended to last for centuries or longer, YOU should not be taking part in this discussion.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

Anyone who says it’s sufficiently clear has somehow missed how watered down it has become, and doesn’t understand that laws aren’t attacked by friendly laymen but by hostile lawyers. There are ways to make airtight documents that stand the test of time, venetian merchant law does very well at this, as did English common law until recently (today’s judges make a mockery of the institution, but on purpose).

view more: Next ›