Conservative Hypocrisy

[raphjd]

@jaroonn

I posted a screenshot of a Reuters tweet. You instantly claimed it was a lie.

You post a clearly edited article Reuters article that doesn't tell us what they edited or how many times it was edited. You claim that it's always been the truth because we don't know what they said prior to the various stealth edits.

Tell me again how you need "proof" when liberals outlets say something.

Let's not forget that your side believed the CT theories spread by your "true journalism".

[jaroonn]

@raphjd I am still waiting for your evidence. The original articles from Salon, and the original tweet from Reuters. Still waiting.

I mean I get it. You guys have to be so frustrated. For years now, you've had to spin and lie to cover up the shit show that Trump and Jordan and Comer and MTG and all the other clowns who have taken over the GOP have been parading. But see, it doesn't work on intelligent people. This is why intelligent people do not watch Fox or Breitbart. And this is why the Right loves to attack academics and experts...because they hate intelligent people because we see through the BS.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is. You can decide for yourself who you want to be with.

Good luck.

[raphjd]

@jaroonn

I'm not gonna dig up stuff for you, because you can do that yourself.

We saw that your beloved "true journalism" made at least 1 stealth edit. They could have made many, many more to that article but won't tell us that.

Say what you will but you people have a proven track record.

YOU PEOPLE won't even watch a Tucker video where he shows the video of the "51 intel experts" go on TV and lie and then he compares it to their now declassified testimony in Shitty Schft's secret hearings in the bunker, which were constantly leaked. YOU PEOPLE refused to do this because it would prove that you were lied to.

YOU PEOPLE won't watch the Steven Crowder video where he takes the public voter rolls around Wayne County MI, showing that registered voters were claiming they lived at self storage units, abandoned parking lots and countless other places that are not RESIDENCES. Again, you people refused to look at it because your "true media" already sold you the bullshit narrative and you didn't want to learn the truth.

There are countless examples of YOU PEOPLE being spoon fed the truth, only for you clowns to refuse to see the truth.

[jaroonn]

@raphjd said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

There are countless examples of YOU PEOPLE being spoon fed the truth, only for you clowns to refuse to see the truth.

Countless...millions...because you say so (but can only come up with a couple rather pointless examples).

In the meantime...you've got Trump and co.

Like I've said many times before; it really doesn't matter what you and your kind want to believe. So far it is pretty inconsequential. It is a phenomenon that will be studied by future historians like when people believed in witchcraft, eugenics, and the like. People will scratch their heads and think "what the hell was wrong with them?"

[raphjd]

@jaroonn

LOL, you can't post anything other than "Orange man bad". That shows your "true journalism" really blinded you to reality.

You just admitted that the truth means nothing to you. Thank you, that's a start for your recovery.

[jaroonn]

@raphjd I can't help you anymore. Just stick with your special needs "news" sources.

Merry Christmas.

[raphjd]

@jaroonn

Says the guy that claims "true journalism" and stealth editing is the same thing.

[blablarg18]

Constitution of the State of Iowa, codified.

Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings
hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and
establish a free and independent government....

Satan is by definition, enemy of Supreme Being (God). Even its followers say so.

When followers put its bullcrap in Iowa State Capitol, by definition they commit insurrection against Iowa government.

Didn't libs say at one point, insurrection is bad?

Now, you can argue any tension of that vs. USA First Amendment. BUT, before it can get to USA Courts there must be injury - a question to decide.

So yes the display must be removed.

After removal, argument before court that Iowa constitution conflicts with USA.

To recap,

• people who want removal, correctly follow Iowa Constitution

• people who say that violates USA Constitution, jump the gun

Final point: Libs have a reputation as both pedos & satanists...... ummm...... @jaroonn any guess why?

@raphjd said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

but your side has been anti-free speech for 15+ years

Oh ya that is other thing...... Post should be titled "Liberal Hypocrisy".

Libs, after systematic fight for censorship, for satan suddenly want free speech....... Fuck off, pompous evil retards.

[blablarg18]

Satanic idol at Iowa State Capitol BEHEADED by Christian veteran

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-satanic-altar-at-iowa-state-capitol-destroyed-by-christian-veteran

A legal process will play out..... UNLIKE for activists of Antifa & BLM, Burn Loot Murder..... who burn stores or destroy entire downtowns - & usually get away with it.

Because USA is undemocratic, has 2-tier justice.

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

Constitution of the State of Iowa, codified.
Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings
hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and
establish a free and independent government....

Preambles don't have legal effect. What does have legal effect from that 1857 Constitution is Section 3 which says:

Sec. 3 Religion. The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry.

[hubrys]

While I recognize that most Republicans are grossly hypocritical when it comes to Freedom of Religion and the Free Exercise thereof, to be completely fair to the State of Iowa, the Republicans in its House seem to be divided on the issue.

I can't say that I totally disagree with Rep. Jon Dunwell's sentiments from this article from the Christian Post.

LINK: Satanic display in Iowa State Capitol stirs debate among GOP lawmakers: 'Outrage and disgust'

[blablarg18]

How would yall libs feel to see a display celebrates Hitler, in taxpayer funded-protected space at Iowa Capitol?

Oh wait - as with satan you'd feel thrill to see your secret hero & master. Let's try something else.

Ummm.... How would yall libs feel to see display that blasphemed & mocked Mohammed in Iowa Capitol? Or celebrated President Trump?

There it is!

USA authorities would CRASH DOWN on such displays - and you'd cheer - or make hero of Antifa-BLM person who trashed it.

Be honest now.

You @hubrys @jaroonn hate free speech, want censorship.

"Preambles don't have legal effect." - wrong as usual!

USA preamble quoted in legal arguments all the time. Even Statue of Liberty poem on occasion.

Just don't pretend to love free speech - in a "hypocrisy" thread. Already we know you don't.

[blablarg18]

Said shorter: The ONE time yall libs defend Free Speech, is when it's satan. Know what that makes you - in practice?

---

Where were you on Julian Assange?

Or Biden Regime efforts to 1) jail top opponent, 2) have him under speech gags?

Or peaceful abortion protestors who respect lines - then get full FBI raids anyway?

Journalist James OKeefe got FBI raid - over Ashley Biden diary that 1) he was entitled to acquire, 2) decided anyway not to publish?

Many conservative campus speakers stopped - with arson if necessary?

In Canada UK Ireland / EU, ordinary people get police visits - if they fly nation's flag, or say immigrants shouldn't stab children, or point out women can't have penis. Do you care at all?

Where were you when government & Big Tech colluded to suppress 100% TRUE, important stories?

(covid vaxx dangers, Hunter Biden laptop)

Or Twitter bans, cancel culture - all directed, we now know, by USA government since at least 2018?

Douglass Mackey - imprisoned for a years-old satire meme, that libs had also done.

Where were you satanic libs, on peaceful J6 protestors?

Owen Shroyer - imprisoned for showing up on the outskirts. Hundreds of grandmas & other harmless protestors - still in Biden Regime prisons.

Here is Alex Jones at J6 - literally calling for peace & people to go home.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1735535196383084599

Yup. "We need to NOT have a confrontation".

Doesn't make a bit of difference to yall satanic libs, does it?

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

"Preambles don't have legal effect." - wrong as usual!
USA preamble quoted in legal arguments all the time. Even Statue of Liberty poem on occasion.

I love how the non-lawyers on this board consistently try to lecture an actual attorney on how the law works. As explained by the United States Supreme Court:

Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom.

Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22, 25 S. Ct. 358, 359–60, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905)

And @blablarg18 save me from having to read some rambling, incoherent and irrelevant non sequitur response from you wherein you desperately try to distract from the fact that you were just proven wrong and had your ass handed to you. Instead, just take your "L" and move on.

[blablarg18]

"I love how the non-lawyers...." - Sorry, your dumbshit authority games don't work here. You cited one decision where Preamble was rejected - which in NO way proves you are, or ever have been, a lawyer. Meanwhile, at many other points, Preambles are indeed cited by actual lawyers & legal commentators - as they find convenient at the time.

And spare rest of us, your pretense of caring about Free Speech.

You don't.

Except of course when satan, or, pornographic children's books - your only times. Know what that makes you @hubrys ?

No honest answer eh? You'd rather not admit it?

My only 'L' would be that, until now, I had forgotten to mention your apparent support for pornographic children's books along with (we now see) the other.

---

PS. Coincidental RFK quote: "“Trusting the experts is not a feature of science. It’s not a feature of democracy. It’s a feature of religion and totalitarianism.”

And again - hubrys I have zero reason to believe you even are one. You sure don't argue well, or with any intelligence. I don't believe your self-claims, and you're further stupid for trying to set up your self-claims in anonymous forum where NO ONE should believe ANYONE's self-claims.

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

You cited one decision where Preamble was rejected - which in NO way proves you are, or ever have been, a lawyer. Meanwhile, at many other points, Preambles are indeed cited by actual lawyers & legal commentators - as they find convenient at the time.

I didn't cite a case...I cited THE case. The case which set the SCOTUS's precedent for how it treats the Preamble.

I'll let the Supreme Court of Ohio explain:

The brief of plaintiff in error exhibits unusual research of cases and authorities to sustain his contention, but we are unable to find a single citation or authority which would authorize any court to declare any statute or provision of any state Constitution invalid because the same was held contrary and repugnant to the preamble of the federal Constitution. The preamble of the federal Constitution merely states the great cardinal purposes of government. It has been held again and again that it is not a grant or delegation of power, but merely a generic statement of the great aims and ends of our national government.

Chief Justice Fuller in Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Thomas, 132 U. S. 174, 188, 10 Sup. Ct. 68, 73 (33 L. Ed. 302) says:

‘The preamble is no part of the act, and cannot enlarge or confer powers, nor control the words of the act, unless they are doubtful or ambiguous.’

Judge Story, in his work on the Constitution (5th Ed., vol. 1, section 462), uses this language:

‘The preamble never can be resorted to to enlarge the powers confided to the general government or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. * * * Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them.’

Watson, in his excellent work on the Constitution (volume 1, page 92 and following), exhaustively discusses this phase of the subject, and the authorities are collected to sustain this doctrine. We quote one more (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 22, 25 Sup. Ct. 358, 359, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765):

‘Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom.’

Hockett v. State Liquor Licensing Bd., 91 Ohio St. 176, 191–93, 110 N.E. 485, 489 (1915)

Or:

Neither the preamble to the Constitution (see Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 359, 49 L.Ed. 643, 648) nor the General Welfare Clause (Art. I, § 8 ) gives substantive power to the federal government.

[§ 1] Source of Federal Powers., 7 Witkin, Summary 11th Const Law § 1 (2023)

Or:

In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Justice Holmes, for the Court, rejected the argument that a state law requiring vaccinations violated rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution:

Although [the Constitution's] preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom.

The case law and the commentators are generally in agreement regarding the use of the preamble in Constitutional interpretation...

§ 23.13(b) The Role of the Preamble to the Constitution, 6 Treatise on Const. L. § 23.13(b)

Or:

The enumerationist way of dealing with the Preamble is simply to treat it as having no legal or interpretive significance. This view was stated by the Supreme Court at the turn of the twentieth century and is the dominant view in contemporary legal doctrine.

David S. Schwartz, A Question Perpetually Arising: Implied Powers, Capable Federalism, and the Limits of Enumerationism, 59 Ariz. L. Rev. 573, 594–95 (2017)

Dude, you're just wrong. Take the "L." Preambles do not have legal effect. Their only use is clarification or legislative history/intent to interpret actual Clauses or statutes which do have legal effect.

Maps tell you where to go; map keys don't. Statutes and Clauses enumerate powers, rights, or restrictions; at best, preambles merely aid interpretation.

God, you are so fucking stupid. Your legal analysis is so childlike it should be written in crayon.

[blablarg18]

Oh I get it. You @hubrys are so retarded, you thought I said judges enforce Preambles.

No. Not what I said. You have responded to................... nothing. Way off my actual point.

Once again: Congratulations, hubrys dumbass retard who hallucinates.

[hubrys]

Also, it should be pointed out, since @blablarg18 is too fucking stupid to actually know what the The Satanic Temple believes, that the TST does not believe or worship Satan, the Christian one or otherwise.

In their own words:

DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?

No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

Oh I get it. You @hubrys are so retarded, you thought I said judges enforce Preambles.
No. Not what I said. You have responded to................... nothing. Way off my actual point.

Dude, just take the "L." You're embarrassing yourself now. There's nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong. Don't try some "moving the goalposts" bullshit to soft-shoe away from your fucking wrong opinion.

[blablarg18]

"the TST does not believe or worship Satan" - in which case, they have no business making a "religious" "holiday" display in Iowa State Capitol.

DUMBASS.

Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.

NOT, as you yourself have now been maneuvered (by me) into admitting, to express or celebrate religion.

Go back to what I said earlier:

How would yall libs feel to see a display celebrates Hitler, in taxpayer funded-protected space at Iowa Capitol?

Oh wait - as with satan you'd feel thrill to see your secret hero & master. Let's try something else.

Ummm.... How would yall libs feel to see display that blasphemed & mocked Mohammed in Iowa Capitol? ... USA authorities would CRASH DOWN on such displays - and you'd cheer

Stop pretending you care about Free Speech.

No one believes you @hubrys

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaa - you clown

This is you:

And this is proper answer to you: