Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Whoopi to McCain: ‘Should I Be Worried About Being a Slave Again?’

From ...Atlas blog

~Yes Whoopi, you should be worried about being a slave if Obama gets in and institutes "compulsory service", you asshat.How could McCain let her get away with such garbage?


Ben nailed McCain on it too. "Much as I thought, McCain is a nitwit, his primary appeal being the fact that his opponent is far worse. Case in point, thanks to Yid with Lid:"

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Do I have to be worried about becoming a slave again?

McCAIN (delivering the nitwit response): My interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court enforces the Constitution of the United States and does not legislate (yada yada yada)

The Non-Nitwit response: The Constitution of the United States, by way of Amendment 13, as enacted by Congress and not the courts, clearly probibits any such thing, so under a strict interpretation by the Supreme Court you would never have to fear. Now, with a court that plays fast and loose with words and creates its own laws, like you might get with the sort of judges that Obama might appoint, yes, it is possible.

Not once does McCain drive home the crucial point: All the changes and laws that Goldberg is so fond of originate, as they are supposed to, with Congress, and not the court, so her fears are based solely on ignorance of the American system.
She sets him up for a spike... he smiles and waves.

Nitwits to the left of us, Nitwits to the right of us, volley'd and thunder'd.


Anonymous said...

Yea...right wings...umm it's called a joke. Whoppi wasnt serious.

Anonymous said...

I quess the black chick with the jewish name can always go back to doing a skit with the white guy in black face calling her all sorts of things. I quess for a laugh its ok or is it? SBM

Anonymous said...

McCain could have given the girls from the view a bit of a civics lesson but he didn't. He could have explained to Whoopi how it is not the Job of the judicial branch of government to legislate. He could have explained to her that the Republican Party was created to stop slavery, he could have told her the Republican party ended slavery (blah- blah-blah She brought slavery up if you’re tired of hearing it), and he could have told her that no judge in our history has ever changed the constitution its the job of the "other" branch the make changes. (Do nothing Congress) I think it’s called the legislative branch? So let’s review, the judicial enforces the laws the legislative writes the laws. Did we somehow mix those two up in the last 30 years and its different now? I guess it’s easy to forget things when it’s convenient, things like separation of powers and the sort. In the same show they pointed out how McCain lied about lipstick on pig and teaching sex education to children. First everyone in the audience knew what he was referring to that’s why they laughed. On the K sex education this is the language “and whenever such courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K through 12, then such courses also shall include age appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV AIDS instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

It is true he did ask for k sex education just left out age appropriate, but the point is why is the government reaching my 5 year old about sex education? That is my job, maybe they should mandate parenting classes to teach parents how to address this with there kids not big brother.

Anonymous said...

I like the third person comments. As far as Whoopi, it was a joke and even John McCain acknowledged her point. To the anonymous comment, to enforce the law you have to be able to interpret what the law means and therefore though I am not in totally satisfied by Roe v Wade, the courts in my opinion to the right to interpret as such and decide that women had that particular right.

As far as the age appriorate sex education, I fail to understand that myself, but the govt provides the option and some ppl would argue it is better to make their child aware of the surroundings than the child thinking it is okay to get in a stranger's car. At the same time I don't have kids so I wouldn't think they would be that naive.