Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.tv.keith-olbermann > #2793

Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:35:34 -0800
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <usa6bk$gogq$5@dont-email.me>,
>  Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> 
> > From the moment the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald
> > Trump from the ballot a few months ago, it was obvious that their
> > decision would be overturned. As I discussed on this show at the
> > time, there were so many flaws with the opinion, it was difficult
> > to know where to begin. The decision ignored Donald Trump's calls
> > for peaceful demonstration on January 6th. It accused him of
> > speaking in violent coded language because he was mean to some
> > random protesters at his rallies. And then it concluded that a
> > single Colorado bureaucrat had the power to effectively delete his
> > entire candidacy. It’s not worth rehashing all of the details. This
> > was a decision that any reasonably informed person knew was going
> > to be overturned.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, what's become very clear in the past 24 hours is
> > that a very large number of people in this country are not
> > reasonably informed. Instead, they're told to pay attention when
> > Rachel Maddow beams into MSNBC to tell viewers that Donald Trump
> > might soon be barred from the ballot in multiple states. They're
> > bombarded with junk "analysis", like CNN's assessment that the
> > legal case for kicking Trump off the ballot was strong. And they're
> > fed think-pieces from buffoons like Harvard Law professor Laurence
> > Tribe, who called the Colorado Supreme Court's decision
> > "unassailable".
> > 
> > Think about that for a second. You can get a more accurate
> > assessment of constitutional law issues from a conservative podcast
> > than you can from an esteemed Harvard Law professor who supposedly
> > specializes in Constitutional Law.  
> 
> Tribe used to be quite good. He always leaned a little left in his 
> analyses but they were always well grounded in both history and law.
> 
> Then Trump got elected and I swear it broke something in him. He's
> been a raving lunatic ever since.
> 
> Giuliani is another example. When he was mayor of New York, he
> cleaned up a city that had been wallowing in crime and decay for
> decades and he did it in record time. And he saw the city through
> 9-11 in an exemplary way. He's probably the best example of a
> big-city mayor in our lifetime. Then he became a Trump insider and he
> went nuts. Now he's a gibbering ghost of his former self who no one
> takes seriously and *that* will be his legacy, not his
> accomplishments as mayor.
> 
> > I'll begin with Keith Olbermann  
> 
> Mr. Piss Tears himself! Crowder did a whole segment on the guy and
> his "urine tears" that was both hilarious and devastating. One can
> only imagine Olbermann listening to it in his dank basement screaming
> "I know you are but what am I?!?"
> 
> (The bit was made perfect by Crowder's excellent vocal impression of 
> Olbermann. Never knew the guy was so talented.)
> 
> > who was so worked up in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's
> > decision that he apparently admitted to having urine all over his
> > face. This is not an exaggeration, although I-- and everyone else
> > who happened to be using Twitter yesterday-- very much wishes it
> > were. Here's how Keith's day began. He tweeted,"The Supreme Court
> > has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and
> > Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension.
> > And collectively the 'court' has shown itself to be corrupt and
> > illegitimate. It must be dissolved."  
> 
> Olbermann never bothered explaining how that's supposed to happen,
> since there's no provision in the Constitution for dissolving the
> Supreme Court. Which means any attempt to do so would be... wait for
> it... an insurrection. Which I'm reliably informed is a bad thing
> that we should avoid.
> 
> I guess leftist insurrections are somehow 'different', as per usual.
> 
I have no doubt that Olberman would happily shoot all 9 justices dead
himself if someone would only give him a gun and access to the
justices. He's easily that deranged. Of course, he'd expect to be
honoured as the Saviour of the Nation and would never EVER shut up
about his "heroism".... 

> > So we're not packing the court anymore. We're just going to get rid
> > of the whole thing, according to Olbermann. In response, someone
> > helpfully pointed out that the Supreme Court's decision was
> > unanimous: "Cry more... 9-0."
> > 
> > Olbermann, reading this, announced: "Those aren't tears, Fascist.
> > They're urine. I'm sure you enjoy being bathed in it."
> > 
> > At best, that is the single worst comeback you could possibly
> > imagine in that circumstance. At worst, it's an admission of
> > exactly the kind of deviant behavior you'd expect Olbermann would
> > engage in all of the time. (Although we can't be sure if Olbermann
> > pees on his own face or if someone else does it.) There are many
> > details left obscured here and probably for the best. 
> > 
> > As distressing as these thoughts may be, the truth is that
> > Olbermann isn't alone on the Left. In response to yesterday's
> > decision, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold-- the woman who
> > unilaterally tried to have Trump thrown off the ballot-- also began
> > attacking the Supreme Court.  
> 
> > Just to restate how absurd this is-- the Supreme Court's decision
> > was unanimous. It was a 9-0 vote, overturning what this secretary
> > of state did. And instead of grappling with the implications of
> > that, both the interviewer and the woman with the crazy eyes
> > (Griswold) pretend as though this was a partisan decision. That's
> > how the question was framed and it's how Griswold responds. She
> > goes off into some bizarre discussion about Clarence Thomas. They
> > use the exact same talking points they used back when the Dobbs
> > decision came out.
> > 
> > There's a reason they're doing this which I'll get into a moment.
> > But for now it's important to highlight some more unhinged
> > responses to the Supreme Court’s ruling-- because you have to
> > understand how truly, profoundly Donald Trump has broken these
> > people. Elsewhere on MSNBC for example, a Slate columnist disclosed
> > that he went rooting around the metadata of the Supreme Court's
> > decision. In case you're not familiar with this process, because
> > you're a normal person, here's what this columnist wrote on
> > Twitter: "If you double click where it says 'JJ.' at the top, then
> > copy and paste it, that line reads: SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in
> > part and dissenting in part. And if you do a control-F search for
> > 'SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part', it
> > highlights that same line."
> > 
> > In other words, if you highlight some arbitrary portion of the
> > opinion, you'll find some evidence in the metadata that
> > previously-- before this opinion was published-- Sonia Sotomayor
> > may have written a dissenting opinion instead of joining the 9-0
> > final majority opinion. This is a discovery that could mean a clerk
> > made a minor mistake somewhere and then corrected it before
> > publishing, which would not be a remotely interesting development.
> > But it could also mean that Sonia Sotomayor changed her mind at
> > some point in the deliberations, which also would not be a remotely
> > interesting development.
> > 
> > In any event, Slate and MSNBC found this development highly
> > interesting. Watch as the Slate columnist breathlessly informs
> > viewers of his findings deep in the metadata of the court's opinion:
> > 
> > 	@mjs_DC explains how metadata suggests that the concurring
> > opinion by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the Supreme
> > Court ruling on Trump's ballot eligibility might have initially
> > been a dissent. pic.twitter.com/SsJGdB3Aoc
> > 
> > 	--MSNBC Reports (@MSNBC_reports) March 4, 2024
> > 
> > If you listen carefully to what the Slate guy is saying, you'll
> > notice that he has no proof whatsoever for any of it. He doesn't
> > actually know that this change in the opinion was made "late in the
> > process". He doesn't really know why the metadata says that
> > Sotomayor was dissenting. It's just speculation. And the point of
> > it is to avoid informing viewers that actually, all of the experts
> > you've heard on MSNBC for the past three months have been lying to
> > you. Not even Sonia Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown Jackson or Amy Coney
> > Barrett agree with them. That's the last thing they want you to
> > think about.
> > 
> > The New York Times also went into histrionics for the same reason.
> > They published an op-ed claiming that the Supreme Court had just
> > "erased part of the Constitution". They find it easier to make
> > embarrassing, emotional claims than to address, in any way, all of
> > the B.S. they've been peddling about this case. For people who
> > pretend to care so much about "misinformation", it's striking.
> > 
> > The fact none of these media organizations is reflecting on this
> > failure tells us a lot about what they're planning. Just like we
> > saw during Russiagate, they're not going to acknowledge their
> > mistakes. They're not going to give up on their goal of removing
> > the leading presidential candidate from the ballot-- all in the
> > name of "defending democracy". Instead, their plan is simply to
> > adapt and find new ways to undermine the will of tens of millions
> > of American voters. 
> > 
> > It's important to emphasize here that four justices-- Sotomayor,
> > Kagan, Jackson, and the supposedly conservative Barrett-- tried
> > their hardest to preserve this possibility in yesterday's ruling.
> > They all suggested that, while states can't bar Trump from the
> > ballot, there might be a way for the federal government to do it
> > without an act of Congress.
> > 
> > What does that mean, exactly? That's not clear. Amy Coney Barrett
> > won't tell us. Maybe soon enough, we'll find out.
> > 
> > Until then, congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland has made it very
> > clear that Democrats will press forward with an effort to
> > disqualify Trump using an act of Congress. In response to the
> > Supreme Court's ruling-- which held that only Congress, rather than
> > states, can disqualify federal officeholders for insurrection--
> > Raskin went on television to announce that Democrats in Congress
> > will indeed do everything they can to disqualify Donald Trump from
> > the ballot.
> > 
> > 	Rep. Jamie Raskin reveals he is working with Debbie
> > Wasserman Schultz, Eric Swalwell, and other Democrats to pass a
> > bill aimed at removing the leading Republican presidential
> > candidate from the ballot.
> > 
> > 	Is this "defending democracy" & "fighting fascism"?
> > 	pic.twitter.com/OgVBx9aAAY
> > 
> > 	--KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 4, 2024
> > 
> > This is the same threat that Democrats made after the Supreme Court 
> > overturned Roe v. Wade. The thought of giving up never crosses
> > their minds. The thought of allowing voters in each of the 50
> > states to make their own decisions-- whether it's about abortion,
> > or presidential candidates-- never crosses their minds, either.
> > 
> > If you page through the Washington Post's comments section, you'll
> > see that very clearly. Millions of left-wing voters want Jamie
> > Raskin to pass his bill and forcibly remove Donald Trump from the
> > ballot. And they have some very high-level support. As the
> > podcaster Comfortably Smug pointed out the other day, "Left-wing
> > dark money groups like Fix The Court are focused on packing the
> > court and their former director now works for the Biden campaign."
> > 
> > What this means is that, as deranged as Keith Olbermann is, he's
> > actually not an outlier on the Left. He's popular because he's
> > willing to say what they're thinking. He is the face of all their
> > worst impulses and ideas. And they are so committed to winning-- so
> > committed to preventing you from voting-- that they truly don't
> > care whether that face is drenched in urine or not.  



-- 
Rhino

Back to alt.tv.keith-olbermann | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> - 2024-03-06 11:41 -0500
  Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2024-03-06 10:35 -0800
    Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> - 2024-03-06 14:08 -0500
    Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> - 2024-03-06 15:26 -0500
    Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2024-03-06 17:57 -0700
    Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2024-03-06 23:04 -0800
    Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> - 2024-03-07 03:04 -0600

csiph-web