Home / Culture and Society / Constitution – Shmonsh-titution

Constitution – Shmonsh-titution

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Now that the Constitution is all the rage and in vogue, please allow me dear readers, to throw my worthless two cents into the mix. And may I add and assure you dear readers that in this day and age of the excessive, statist, liberal progressive, big government devaluation and debasement of our currency; especially so with its current round of devaluation, that my worthless two cents, in fact and indeed, any two cents at all, is now barely worth a fraction of a cent, let alone two whole cents.

Nevertheless, this article is not about the arcane minutiae of currency manipulation or “the Fed” or monetary policy et al, ad nauseam. Which admittedly makes my foregoing comments rather snide, smarmy and gratuitously flippant and facetious and sarcastic too — well, guilty as charged. Just couldn’t help myself cause I just love to annoy the hell out of the editors here. (Some of whom I must surmise will respond with a very stern and severe admonition “we are not amused.”)

Rather, this article is about the Constitution and in particular, Article I, Section 10 and its seeming significance and importance in the Arizona controversy surrounding SB 1070, Judge Bolton’s ruling on it, and the Obama administration’s consequent demonization of the state of Arizona; and even more incredibly, of President Obama and Attorney General Holder, of their waging a legalistic and litigious “war” against that state. I think one proper, apt and accurate word for this is “unprecedented” while yet another might be reasonably offered as simply “lunatic.” But the phrase “it’s so liberal-progressive, intellectually, academically and professorially f…ing smart, it’s f…ing stupid” might also suffice as well.

But why now, why I am addressing this issue at this point in time? Hasn’t it already been decided — sort of? Well yes, but just last night I was perusing the Constitution; I do that from time to time you know (which proves without any doubt whatsoever, reasonable or otherwise, what a true intellectual weirdo/geek/nerd/dweeb/idiot/moron I truly am). At any rate, when I came across Section 10 of Article I, I saw something which aroused and greatly piqued my curiosity (in fact, it hit me like a veritable lightning bolt/ton of bricks).

Eureka I said to myself, because if one goes to its last and third paragraph, one will see that it clearly states:

“That no State shall, without the Consent of Congress,” blah-blah-blah-blah, “…engage in War, UNLESS actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Bingo!!! Game over. Turn out the lights, the party’s over. Time to go home and for the Obama administration and the courts to cede the point that they are woefully mistaken and wrong on this one. How so? Allow me dear readers to “splain” myself.

Well, first off, I must confess and state the following proviso, that I am not a legal scholar nor constitutional expert nor, shoot man, I ain’t even a lawyer (which means to say I still possess both a soul and a conscience). Thank God.

But I suppose many of you might ask, especially those of you of a liberal-progressive bent and of a true-believer, leftist religious persuasion; “where the hell do you get off bloviating and spouting off about the Constitution? What are your (meaning here my) credentials?” Well, I guess my only qualifying credential is – well, in this regard, please allow me dear readers to commit and perpetrate a little schoolboy Latin herein.

Cogito ergo ius mihi dicere est.

Literally a word for word translation: I think (cognitively, analytically, critically, rationally, empirically, scientifically, logically and compassionately, and with a modicum of articulation, which means to say, I don’t think like a liberal or some such other commie-lib, pinko lefty); therefore (ergo) I possess the right (ius mihi…est, which is a grammatical construction called the “dative of possession”) to speak out (dicere, which is a complimentary infinitive to the latter). Simply stated without all of my pedantic bullshit; I think (rationally, logically, etc., etc.), therefore I possess the right to speak out. I maintain that should be sufficient enough credentials in my behalf, in and of itself.

Soooo, if I’m not mistaken, Article I, Section 10 clearly applies to the state of Arizona and its efforts to defend itself and protect the public safety of its citizenry: from what is a war, which of course is itself a moot point which certainly is open to interpretation and reasonable debate on both sides of the issue; however what is not open to such sophistic and casuistic, mind numbing debate, is the undeniable fact of its being a clear “invasion” certainly posed by virtue of the steady flood of illegal aliens across its borders and the infiltration and steady flow of drug cartel “narco’ traffickers and of other assorted criminals as well. This fact absolutely is and absolutely constitutes and defines what an “invasion” truly is, by both definition and logical necessity.

Well if this is a war, declared or otherwise, against the state of Arizona; or likewise, is an equivalent analog, tantamount to an invasion of the state of Arizona; then Arizona has every right to defend its borders and protect its citizenry from this undeclared war and or from this actual invasion. And furthermore to do so whether through the deployment of its National Guard or its other public safety entities and infrastructure, including the arming of its citizenry and their deputization for such a task, or through the enactment of statutory laws such as SB 1070 — is thoroughly within Arizona’s authority and enumerated, constitutional powers and sovereign responsibilities, again as enumerated in Article I, Section 10.

Call it a “waiver” or an “exception clause” or whatever the exact and proper legalistic term is. (This is where my ignorance of the legal profession evidently is rather glaring and stark, but in the words of Vice-president Gaff-eria, BFD and and also in one of my own favorite acronyms, SFW, which translates into “so f…ing what.”) As I see this issue and as the Constitution so very clearly and wisely implies, this is simply and solely a matter of “common sense.”

But again, what the hell do I know? Cause I’m just a lowly dumbass, former Marine, combat-wounded veteran of the Vietnam War and degree holder (and again, with just a lowly BA) in the Classics who also studied in both Paris and Rome as an undergrad. Both of which latter facts I suppose, nay, I know for an absolute certainty, make me eminently and certifiably stupid. Granted and agreed.

But what do you, dear readers, think about this argument? Does the Constitution and this “exception clause” in particular, apply in this matter or not? Clearly I say that it does.

Many of course, on the opposite side of this issue to mine will cite the “Supremacy Clause” in Article VI, Clause 2; the Doctrine of Federal pre-emption; and I suppose also, if they really want to go deep into the weeds, they will also cite the most recent Supreme Court decision in Altria Group v. Good (2008); to counter, negate, obviate and contradict my argumenta. I am not going to fight over nor quibble nor argue the finer points of its constitutionality; whether Federal Law always has “supremacy” over and “trumps” state law.

For to be quite brutally honest, that is just a little too arcane, esoteric and deeply profound for my understanding and former Marine, little, microscopic, pea brain to begin to fathom let alone fully fathom. In fact, at this juncture my eyes are beginning to glazeth over and my ears to stoppeth uppeth and my head to spineth and revolveth out of control too.

Nevertheless, (you really didn’t expect me to shut up and or cease and desist, did you?) I of course still persist and maintain that Article I, Section 10 is a reasonable, common sense exception to the “Supremacy Clause” et al. In this regard, there is an earlier ruling, Reilly 533 US, which states “the historic police powers of the States [a]re not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”

Well, where is “the clear and manifest purpose of Congress” in this matter? I maintain Justice Holder and the Justice Department has neither stated nor reasonably proven such – therefore the state of Arizona in its SB 1070 is perfectly within its constitutional right specifically by virtue of the “exception clause” in Article I, Section 10.

How’s that for legalistic mumbo-jumbo and arcane, thoroughly opaque and undecipherable “legalese?” But isn’t that the point of all this, isn’t that what all this has come down to? For you see, dear readers, this administration appears to be the most litigious in our nation’s history. Instead of dealing with issues on their individual, sui generis merits, this administration’s core ethos, mindset and modus operandi is first and foremost to send in the lawyers, then the clowns. Or vice versa? But actually it really doesn’t matter who goes first, because they’re both essentially one and the same.

And in the meantime our sovereignty and borders are daily, massively violated and the public safety of our citizenry endangered. Well, if the litigious clowns, buffoons, mental midgets and intellectual lilliputians of this administration would rather sue and wage legal warfare against states like Arizona; and argue and debate endlessly on how many millions upon millions of constitutional briefs can dance upon the head of a pin – then again, Arizona not only has a constitutional right to act, but it also has a mandate and a moral imperative to do so as well.

In regard to the recent events in Arizona —a brief afterword:

Speaking of bad timing, boy did I walk into this one blind as a bat! Nevertheless, truth be known, I was thoroughly unaware of the events in Arizona on Saturday 8 Jan. 2011. Indeed this surely and truly is a case of the unusual, starkly uncommon and most sinister of events; overtaking, overwhelming and overpowering that which is common, most ordinary and uneventful.

For I did not learn of these events until I had finished this article on Sunday morning at roughly 7:00 a.m., oh alright, to be absolutely precise at 7:26 a.m., but who’s counting anyway? I only learned of what happened when I turned on the television to watch C-Span and then viewed both television and the internet for several hours.

Well, needless to say, my heart goes out to congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her family, and to all those who were so egregiously injured, but above all else, to all those who were so mindlessly and tragically taken from us. But we must all make every effort to understand that this event was a human tragedy which is so very common to the human condition. That this tragedy was simply part and parcel of the natural rhythm and cycle of life and death itself – as so very tragic and so very difficult as that process for us survivors of it is to fathom.

But furthermore, we must not blame God nor must we otherwise demagogue this issue, by turning and making this into a crass and demagogic, political “piñata.” Nevertheless, I will be the first to cite Aristotle, (rest assured, dear readers, I will spare you the original Greek) who said in the first chapter of the “Politics” that “Man (meaning mankind or humankind generically) by his very own nature is a political animal.” But unfortunately that seems to be precisely what the liberal left is attempting to do, for the temptation to utterly demagogue this issue is just too overwhelming and tempting for them to refrain from and or avoid.

Please, let us not distort the heinous and vicious actions of this apparently delusional and profoundly psychotic young man, into a further intellectual tragedy and farce. Or as Marx himself intimated, to reduce and define this into farce. E.g, “History first appears as tragedy and then as farce.”

So therefore, in the name of intellectual inquiry and rigorous discourse and disinterested objectivity, I have, after much Hamletesque “to-ing” and “fro-ing” decided to submit this article for publication. I only hope this action of mine will offend no one, but even if it does, I still feel compelled to submit it, again, solely in the name of intellectual inquiry, rigorous discourse and disinterested objectivity.

Powered by

About Irvin F. Cohen

  • Ruvy


    Dan Miller, who used to write a lot more frequently here, is a retired lawyer who can cite the relevant case law on the section of the constitution you quote. Having gone to law school myself, I CAN tell you that the law is what the judge says it is. So, federal courts can gut sections of the constitution if they wish.

    Just a thought for you to consider….

  • Dear Ruvy,

    Of course, you’re right, absolutely fucking right-on, cannot agree with you enough. But that’s what’s so novel and unique about the Tea Party and I hope this new Congress, that politicians, shyster scumbag lawyers, lawmakers and especially liberal, commie judges actually might pay attention to both the Constitution and the Law itself. What a fucking novel idea!

    You talk about arbitrary and capricious, fickle and petulant, petty, officious and Martinet-like tyranny, and especially the Queen at the Madhatter’s tea party; that sadly is what the liberal-progressive movement and the liberal lefties and pinkos in America have done to our laws, to our Constitution, to our nation; for almost a solid century to date.

    Let us pray for a new order of a rule of laws, and not of men. Or of men who scrupulously follow those laws and the Constitution itself rather than their leftist, liberal agendas who create and conjure the Law to suit their own libeal-progressive, leftist ideological preferences, whims and caprices.

    And that they write and speak in English, clear, decipherable, lucid, simple and direct English; and not in tongues of legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and mind-numbing, highly convoluted and tortured sophistic and casuistic legalese.

    Am I asking too much? Unfortunately, I’m afraid I most likely am. You talk about pie-eyed Panglossian optimist, I guess that best describes me in this particular case. So what say you?

  • zingzing

    “And that they write and speak in English, clear, decipherable, lucid, simple and direct English; and not in tongues of legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and mind-numbing, highly convoluted and tortured sophistic and casuistic legalese.

    Am I asking too much? Unfortunately, I’m afraid I most likely am. You talk about pie-eyed Panglossian optimist, I guess that best describes me in this particular case.”

  • Dear comrade zingzing, I am absolutely delighted by your delicious ambiguity which I suspect and surmise is employed here to cast aspersions upon me, upon my own convoluted, prolix, verbose, stylistically ponderous, contrived and convoluted language or do I see too much in your quoting of me, of my own fucking words? What the fuck, is you done being a fucking wise guy or what?

    Paranoid? Who the fuck is paranoid. I ain’t got nooh steen-kingk paraah-noy-yah, I doan got-tah show you no certificate of diagnosis of steen-kingk parah-noy-yah. Aye cabron, pinch-ay caldaron.

  • Clavos

    And that they write and speak in English, clear, decipherable, lucid, simple and direct English…

    An excellent idea!

  • Actually, Irv, it is your “ambiguity which I suspect and surmise is employed here…” and your “own convoluted, prolix, verbose, stylistically ponderous, contrived and convoluted language” that buries any thoughtful point you might be trying to express. That and the four letter functionals.

    Just saying.

  • Dear comrade commie-lib/simp, etc., etc., etc., Kurtz,

    Where is you? Is you alive or dead? If the latter you need not reply, if the former – well, I guess you don’t have to reply either.

    I really need someone of your vile, untrustworthy, foul and truly hated nature and stature to start the feeding frenzy of the rabid- lunatic, professional left here; to attack me most viciously and so mindlessly and most gratuitously so. Where are you when I need thee?

    Notice that I omitted “my ideas.” Was that an inadvertent error, an unintentional and innocent mistake on my part? No, of course not, that was as purposeful and intentional as I could possibly be. Why? Because the rabid, professional left doe not criticize my ideas, but rather they prefer to attack me personally and through ad hominem smear and innuendo, etc..

    So rabid, professional left, go ahead make my day. Wait a minute – correction. Make that my “fucking day!” Surely such an omission would surely be egregious and out of character!

  • Ruvy

    Having had to read appeals decisions written by judges and derive the rule therein in law school, I can tell you that many judges just don’t know how to write.

    The catch with legalese is that every thing in the sentence is a means by which one can squeeze out an interpretation – no matter how ridiculous. So the clear language of a decision can easily get muddled by lawyers and other bullshit artists who are trying to gut the law.

    And gutting a law is not merely a function of “liberal activist” judges. It can be the activity of “conservative strict constructionists” – or of conservative radical judges intent on overturning what they don’t like, come hell or high water. Consider how the 14th Amendment was interpreted with respect to school segregation for a half century, for example.

  • Deano

    Brevity. Please, for the love of God, brevity!

  • Dear Ruvy,

    Do I detect somehow your liberal, Jewish DNA seeping through here?

    Actually I concur with most of what you say, however I really don’t know too much of the conservatives of the 19th century. I’m not all that sure they’re as bad as you characterize them to have been. However I will say, that first and foremost the Supreme Court and hence many if not most of the inferior courts of the land, are: one, not what I would reasonably call paragons and pillars of intellectual, philosophic, moral and yes, political courage. Dred Scott is amongst the three or four worst decisions of the Supreme Court – ever.

    In fact, slavery was only abolished essentially through what was initially a presidential decree, then followed somewhat slowly by the legislature and legislative process culminating with the amendment process, i.e, the 14th et al amendments.

    But secondly, the court or more broadly the courts, I maintain have a sort of doctrine of ultimate infallibility not very far removed from that of the Papacy and the Vatican. And that dear Ruvy, as a certified, mean, badass, kickass misanthropic motherf….r, is a condition not very consistent nor consonant with human beings – maybe with Gods and Saints and godlike aliens from outer space and of course self-declared saints and of course, all libs qua commie-libs qua lefty-pinkos on down the commie-Marxist line; who of course are all infallible because they say so and because it’s clearly written and stated in their dogma, doctrines and orthodoxies; and also of course in the blood of literally tens of millions of souls, who were the many millions of victims of those very same leftist, ideological tenants of theirs.

    No, infallibility and humankind are as incompatible as oil and water. And anyone who claims or professes infallibility, is fundamentally either a fraud and charlatan or a con artist, or outright liar-manipulator or a false prophet or a rather devious and evil trickster, in essence, a commie-lib, lefty pinko, etc., etc.. (Just joking, couldn’t help myself. Even it is true!)

    Am fading fast, got to take me medicine and eats me spin-itchk. Will return shortly.

  • Dear comrade, well I really don’t know at this point in time if you’re a comrade or not; Deano,

    Gah-new, so what’s on your f…k..g mind? Subtle of me, unh?

    Moreover, I surmise and conjecture by your line of questioning, that you are an editorial spy for the Comments editors fascistic censors. Am I right or am I right?

    For the sake of brevity, I direct you to my # 4, and further direct you to the very last graff. That should be more than sufficient and completely self-explanatory.

    Thank you for your substantive, brilliant, in depth analytic , well thought out and exhaustively articulated comment. And oh yes, have a nice f..k..g day.

  • Dear Ruvy,

    Me again. Just two last, quick points.

    First, it’s not as relative as you depict it – that the conservative judges do it too. Well, A, if they do, then they’re not very true to their conservative philosophy and ideology; and B, how many of these false conservatives are there to let us say, the liberal activist judges almost all of whom with very little exception, either create law out of whole clothe or decree it from the bench outside of the legislative establishment? Is it one to one, or one to two, or one to ten and or a lot more? I say it is the latter.

    Ruvy you have to be careful here of the history of the one, of false conservative scumbags, to that of the other, liberal-lefty, judicial activist scumbags; there is nothing morally equivalent nor relative about them – they are both scumbags, only one is ten times more prevalent and effective than the other. Moral relativism is always a dangerous view and mindset, in fact I say it is purely evil, and in fact the most evil philosophy ever devised by humankind.

    Secondly, I have problems with and am somewhat disquieted by the seeming inflexibility and utter rigidness of the doctrine of “stare decisis”. I”ll spare you the Latin grammatical constructions herein, just suffice it to say it literally means “to let stand (or simply to be) that which has already been decided.” Well, if you take that to an extreme, logical conclusion, then there is no need to enact law nor adjudicate it either – cause it’s already been decided. That means that Dred Scott was allowed to be created and then allowed to stand as the law of the land.

    My point is that “stare decisis” allows bad law to be protected by precedent, and good law not to overcome that bad law. It also allows Judges not to exercise some intellectual common sense and some personal, moral backbone and courage. But it can also be argued that it protects against the opposite of my argument, that it protects good law from being overcome by bad law. Well, I have to cede that, but only to a point. I hold that precedent has been used as a rather flimsy justification and excuse for bad law more often than for the good.

    All of which means to say I would have most likely flunked out of Law School, and if not, would have made one hell of a lousy shyster, lowlife, scumbag, unscrupulous, soulless, money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing, lower-than-the-belly-of-a-worm, thieving, lying, blood-sucking, sleaz-oid lawyer.

  • Decent argument, Irvin. I am for decentralization of power. Now, can you make your case in three pages or less? Never mind trying to impress your audience. Why do you even bother?

  • Ruvy

    Irvin, I would ignore Roger’s comments. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    As for stare decisis, it is just necessary in a legal system if you intend to continue the system evolving instead of going back to basics every time a plaintiff appears before a judge. Most law is “neutral”, that is to say neither good nor bad. On very rare occasions, a law actually rises to “good”, that is to say, it actually benefits society. Social security, when it was started in 1933, might have been classified as good. Workman’s compensation and overtime laws are other example of laws that might be classified as good. Notice, I said “might”.

    The Dredd Scott decision was bad – and it precipitated a war that effectively overruled it. Bad law often does that, and upholding bad law in a court tends to lead to violence and conflict. But the real issues that pertain here are the examples of case law that a good lawyer could bring up regarding Article I, sect. 10 of the constitution of 1787. We have not seen any examples of that yet in this comment thread.

    A final point for you to chew on: most judges in the States are lousy shyster, lowlife, scumbag, unscrupulous, soulless, money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing, lower-than-the-belly-of-a-worm, thieving, lying, blood-sucking, sleaz-oid lawyers with a black robe on.

  • Ruvy

    A post final thought for you to chew on, Irvin. Legal eagles really crap all over the Latin they use as terms of art.

  • Dear Ruvy,

    Again thanks. Actually you cleared up some of the shit concerning stare decisis for me, I think I may have actually learned something. Still moot and debatable, but I definitely learned something worthwhile of the other side of the equation.

    Secondly, I too am baffled why no one, especially with some legal expertise and or training and education like yourself, hasn’t entered into and added to the debate. You know of all the many commie-libs etc. at Blogcritics, who are always complaining about both of us and of our not adequately debating their so-called, supposed finer points of this or that piece of spin, propaganda or petty, quite often parochial talking point; yet when it comes to debating very important, broad and serious, fundamental issues of the Rule of Law and our very Constitution itself – they’re no where to be found.

    And finally, I wouldn’t have known if not for those black robes – thanks again Ruvy. And Sholom.

  • Ruvy

    In this case, the “rule of law” is to be found in the case law. Now, unless you actually have access to a legal library (or a lot of scratch), getting to read case law can be difficult. But this might help you. However, if you look carefully, you will find that the last part of the article you refer to does not seem to have been covered in case law. If that is so, you may be breaking fresh ground in American law. Not bad, boychik, not bad. If you do cut this down to a page or two (that’s all you really need to cover the facts of the case as you are making it) and submit it as a note to a lawyer (or law professor) friend you have, you might actually get somewhere.

  • After reading this all I can say is that you should change your name to Mr. Thesaurus!

    Having said that, I enjoyed the read!


  • Dear (I don’t as of yet know whether you’re a goddamn commie-lib/simp, lefty-pinko, commie etc., again, as of yet; so I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt for the time being) Andy,

    Thank you for your kind comment. I also want to sincerely welcome you, and ingratiate myself with you so that you may feel free to discuss or add your worthless, goddamn two cents to the mix if you so damn well please.

    Again, welcome to my f…k..g world Andy. This is your lucky day, cause I am by far the baddest, meanest, kickass “misanthropic motherfucker” on the block – if I do have to proudly say so myself.

    Swabby? And a goddamn “lifer” to boot. Well, as a former, combat-wounded Marine veteran of the Vietnam War, I won’t hold that against you. Yes I begrudgingly and reluctantly admit and cede the point that we Marines, we real warriors, need squids and swabbies to chauffeur us around the world, so thanks a whole f..k..g lot.

    And look here, just because you got an absolutely beautiful family and an adorable little granddaughter, doesn’t mean you got to be a doting father and granddad – at your age too. My God, what are you, just barely forty something? Nice going, but don’t let that go to your head.

    If you haven’t guessed by now, I was ana E-5 Sergeant, made it in 2 years and a few months and served for four, that is to say, did my four in the Corps. And as you must gather by now, I have never been more of a Marine and a gung-ho m…th..rf..k..r at that, than I am today. So, Semper Fi (even if you don’t deserve it). And by the way, that video of yours on how to scientifically determine the gender of birds is absolutely spot, right on. I’m still laughing. So welcome aboard, but be forewarned, Blogcritics is just crawling with creepy crawler commie-lib/simps and commie pinko-lefties, etc..

  • To the Comments Editor, fascist editor or editors who just recently deleted my original thread # 19, posted at 1:38 p.m. And comrade Roger’s thread which was also numbered # 19, which means to say you deleted his as I wrote mine.

    What is this? Some sort of Kafkaesque, Orwellian joke?! What is it with you people?

    Why did you delete entirely what were in essence two rather tame and innocuous threads of both Roger’s and mine? This is utterly and absolutely insane. Petty, arbitrary and capricious, and sinister and devious, underhanded and tyrannical to boot!

    Why do you hide behind the utter deceit and cowardice of your utter anonymity? How cowardly and deceitful, devious and vindictive can you possibly be?

    Is it that you want to prove a point, to show this uppity conservative American, that you have the power to squash every word of his no matter how innocuous or how controversial it might be? Is that it, you got to flex your bureaucratic muscle in order to teach me an object lesson in your utter bureaucratic power to censor me at any time you damn well please, on any flimsy pretext whatsoever, on any petulant whim or caprice of yours you machinate or conjure?

    Have you no shame, have you no honor, have you no integrity whatsoever?!

    I demand that you re-instate both Roger’s and my threads immediately

    I also demand that you explain yourselves.

    I also demand that in the future, you give notice before you so tyrannically and dictatorially, and so sneakily, arbitrarily and capriciously delete or erase any comment whatsoever. And that you give good cause for your actions. Again, that you explain yourselves and provide decent recents for your actions.

    And I demand that you not delete this thread, why? Because that would be utter, proof positive of your utter fascism. And yes I have a copy of this thread.

  • My # 20

    Correction. Next to last graff, very last sentence:

    …decent RECENTS…should read “decent REASONS.”

  • Clavos

    Umm, Irv:

    Andy’s been around BC for years — far longer than you have…

  • Clavos

    Oh, and BTW, Irv:

    I made E-5 (Army Buck Sgt.) in just over 1 year and three months.

  • And in fact, Andy was the BC Politics resident curmudgeon long before you crash-landed on the scene, Irv.

    Long time no read, Andy. Hope this wasn’t just a flying visit.

  • El Bicho

    “I am by far the baddest, meanest, kickass ‘misanthropic motherfucker’ on the block – if I do have to proudly say so myself.”

    And if you have to say so yourself, it’s likely that you aren’t

  • zingzing

    …sure has a high opinion of at least one person though. which is good. nothing like self-esteem to keep the bowels working out a steady stream.

  • El Bicho,

    Then who is?

    You perhaps.

  • Zingzing,

    Are you anal retentive? You have a thing with childish, pre-pubescent, potty humor?

  • I always like to remind marines to look at their ID card…especially to that part that says..Department of the NAVY! Subcontractors, we get to do our dirty work! But honestly, thanks for your service…it’s a F#@%ing shame that it took America as long as it did to really appreciate you Vietnam Vets.

    And I’m 51! Thanks for the compliment!

    And don’t worry about me. I know who all the commie pinko fags are at BC!

    Resident Curmudgeon? Moi?!?! I’m the nicest guy I know! I just have a few strong opinions is all!!!

    I stop by from time to time…I just haven’t been commenting in quite a while. Wasn’t up for a fight.

    But with all the crap that’s been going on and all the BS that’s been spewing around,(not here at BC of course…HA!) I figure it’s time!

  • Oh yeah, one more thing…be nice!

    You know how sensitive I am!

  • Et tu m….rf..k.r?

    I don’t cotton to no politically correct sensitivity, even in Navy dudes. Well, you are a product of changing times which unfortunately have already changed for the worse. 51? Ehhh, still a g..d..n whippersnapper as far as I”m concerned. In my day, you would have been considered to have been dead and untrustworthy for 21 years already. Actually I remember 51 and you look plenty vital and dynamic to me, and I just adore your family. Hey, good going there man, good job.

    At any rate thanks for your kind comments and yes, for your service too even if you wuzz a damn squid.

    Well, again, welcome aboard and as has been said in the good ‘ol Bible, gird up thine loins and prepare’st for battle.

  • BTW,

    I’ll let the little sly put down slide of not capitalizing Marine…you know in the Corps that’s a capital offense, you know the one in which they give you the option of wearing a blindfold or not. So Semper Fi and good luck, cause you’re gonna need at least one of them. And again, thanks again for your comments and kind words, and of course, your service too

  • Apologies….Marine. It was an honest slip of the fingers. You seem a little brighter than a lot of jarheads I’ve met…hehehe

  • Shouldn’t Jarheads also be captialized…? 🙂

  • Dear comrade commie-lib/simp pinko-lefty, etc., etc., doctah dreary-full-ness,

    My, my, you finally got something right. And of course Leatherneck too. However I am somewhat ambiguous on the more complete, accurate and precise term: “romping, stomping, kickass, lean, mean green machine, killer of commie-lib/simp, pinko-lefty and jihadist lowlife, scumbag vermin and other enemies of America; again, badass maternal fornicators.”

    And also especially the term “righteous, badass killers of pseudo, phony intellectuals what arn worsterer than commie-lib/simp, pinko-lefty comm-moon-nisses, what egregiously misuse, overuse and abuse the rather arcane, mindless, brainless, techno-pretentious term – meme.”

    What dah yah done says?

    Although to be fair to you, even though I think you give much too much importance to the word (meme) as a catch-all term applicable to all facets of human activity, as a veritable template to be applied like an adverb scientifically, socially, culturally, intellectually, artistically and socially scientifically too, i.e., psychologically, sociologically, anthropologically and politically; to all things – a real, m…rf…k…g catchall as one might say in the idiomatic vernacular. Nevertheless that over usage, even though it bugs the fuck out of me; it actually might possess a modicum of validity and legitimacy per se.

    For I too must admit that I go far beyond the bounds of the propriety of many intellectual, academic and scholastic disciplines – such as when I refer to Heisenberg’s Principle or Theorem of Uncertainty, or the Greek grammatical construction of the Potential Optative. Know what I’m sayin’ mudderfucker?

    So do, please inform.

  • PS as to your # 34 and my # 35

    Duzz yooh or duzz yooh not, get the emotican 🙂 nature of dem e-missives or e-epistles of ourn?

    If you do, fine, all well and good – I suppose. If not, then f..k you. That last piece of gratuitous vulgarity is, must be my Tourette’s again, yeah that’ the ticket.

  • zingzing

    “Zingzing, Are you anal retentive? You have a thing with childish, pre-pubescent, potty humor?”

    “prepubescent” is one word, irv. bow down to the spellchecker.

    and how you could follow up that first sentence with that second one is tearing my mind in two. you’re tearing me apart, lirvsa!

    do you keep that thesaurus handy all the time? what do you do when your hands are busy? stop talking? (as if.)

    and i don’t sit on a chair, i just carry one in me. schlurp.

  • RE: # 37

    “…bow down to the spellchecker…

    Well, I originally was going to respond with a hearty fuck the spellchecker, but I have decided to refrain from such gratuitous vulgarity and now am instead going to cede to your demand and I am going to literally bow down to thee, pray and sing hymns to thee as well. Sooooh,

    “Hymn, hymn, fuck him!”

    Is that sufficient enough for you?

    However I must ask, are we on the same page here? Cause I cannot make out a single one of your inane, fetid, pointless, rather unfunny, dumb references. Or is that the point of it all? So allow me to respond in kind.

    Are you talking to meeeh…yah talking tah meeeh…gotta be meeeh…cause I doan see no one else here…so yah gotta be talking to meeeh…youse talkin’ tah meeeh? You cryptic dumb somm-nov-ah-bitch, very, very unwitty, unclever anal aperture! – youse!

    Oh BTW, how’s the f..k..g spelling, oh divine demigod and maven of spellchecking?