I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
difference between then and now is stark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]

Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?

--
Rhino

On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
> difference between then and now is stark:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>
> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?

Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?

In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
> > I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
> > difference between then and now is stark:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
> >
> > Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
> > of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>
> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?

Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
child scared of non-existent monsters.

On 2022-07-27 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>
>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>>
>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>
> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
> child scared of non-existent monsters.

Exactly. It's easier to turn it back on me than to actually address the
point. Once again, can you picture any late night TV host giving a
genuinely polite interview to someone like Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantos, let
alone Trump?

--
Rhino

On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 5:17:19 PM UTC-4, Rhino wrote:
> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
> difference between then and now is stark:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>
> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?

You've never seen the confrontational 1968 interview between Johnny Carson and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison have you? No, because the video footage is not on the internet. Why?

Why?

On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>
>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>>
>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>
> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
> child scared of non-existent monsters.

Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 21:46:27 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>On 2022-07-27 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>>
>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>>>
>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>>
>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
>
>Exactly. It's easier to turn it back on me than to actually address the
>point. Once again, can you picture any late night TV host giving a
>genuinely polite interview to someone like Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantos, let
>alone Trump?

I would imagine most would be polite because that is the basis of the
interview part of their shows. That said I don't expect them to back
down from hard questions and don't consider that impolite. Any
politician shouldn't expect a true softball interview without any
questions about controversial decisions.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:16:28 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...

Isn't EVERY court decision "settled law" at least unless or until a
later court sets it aside? (usually by saying the first court
overlooked XYZ as a reason)

In article <bcbe576a-47e7-4141-becd-61d94c1696f2n@googlegroups.com>,
chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 5:17:19 PM UTC-4, Rhino wrote:
> > I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
> > difference between then and now is stark:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
> >
> > Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
> > of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>
>
>
>
> You've never seen the confrontational 1968 interview between Johnny Carson
> and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison have you? No, because the
> video footage is not on the internet. Why?
>
> Why?

Why? Because the Tonight Show tapes from before 1972 are all gone.
NBC wiped them for reuse. Carson blamed the network, but his
production company was capable of recording and storing the show, too.
The fragments that we have come mostly from ad agencies whose clients
had commercials on the show, and even the agencies didn't save much of
it for long.

You'd think one or the other conspiracy theorist would have recorded
the show and saved the tape. Is the audio online?

On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 10:42:44 PM UTC-4, A Friend wrote:
> In article <bcbe576a-47e7-4141...@googlegroups.com>,
> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 5:17:19 PM UTC-4, Rhino wrote:
> > > I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
> > > difference between then and now is stark:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
> > >
> > > Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
> > > of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You've never seen the confrontational 1968 interview between Johnny Carson
> > and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison have you? No, because the
> > video footage is not on the internet. Why?
> >
> > Why?

> Why? Because the Tonight Show tapes from before 1972 are all gone.
> NBC wiped them for reuse. Carson blamed the network, but his
> production company was capable of recording and storing the show, too.
> The fragments that we have come mostly from ad agencies whose clients
> had commercials on the show, and even the agencies didn't save much of
> it for long.

> You'd think one or the other conspiracy theorist would have recorded
> the show and saved the tape.

An old tape from CBS was saved, but wasn't aired until years later on grounds of national security.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF4_7_Emzy0

In article <flt3eh9jinr8qbc6nprahpqulqrmoebicc@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:16:28 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
> > Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
> >recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
>
> Isn't EVERY court decision "settled law" at least unless or until a
> later court sets it aside? (usually by saying the first court
> overlooked XYZ as a reason)

"Settled law" connotes that said law is not open to serious challenge.
Roe v. Wade wasn't settled law. It was under constant attack until the
antis got a Court and a case they could work with.

Congress had almost 50 years to codify Roe v. Wade, but that bunch of
cowards kept passing the buck to the courts. Now it's in the hands of
the states.

On 7/27/2022 10:39 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:16:28 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
>
> Isn't EVERY court decision "settled law" at least unless or until a
> later court sets it aside? (usually by saying the first court
> overlooked XYZ as a reason)

Sure. And that explanation is readily available to anyone who honestly
believes that's what Kavanaugh wanted him to hear. Show of hands?

On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 10:42:44 PM UTC-4, A Friend wrote:
> In article <bcbe576a-47e7-4141...@googlegroups.com>,
> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 5:17:19 PM UTC-4, Rhino wrote:
> > > I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
> > > difference between then and now is stark:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
> > >
> > > Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
> > > of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You've never seen the confrontational 1968 interview between Johnny Carson
> > and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison have you? No, because the
> > video footage is not on the internet. Why?
> >
> > Why?
> Why? Because the Tonight Show tapes from before 1972 are all gone.
> NBC wiped them for reuse. Carson blamed the network, but his
> production company was capable of recording and storing the show, too.
> The fragments that we have come mostly from ad agencies whose clients
> had commercials on the show, and even the agencies didn't save much of
> it for long.
>
> You'd think one or the other conspiracy theorist would have recorded
> the show and saved the tape. Is the audio online?

JIM GARRISON VS. JOHNNY CARSON.
https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_80-50tqkcs8

In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
> >>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
> >>> difference between then and now is stark:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
> >>>
> >>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
> >>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
> >>
> >> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
> >
> > Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
> > political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
> > child scared of non-existent monsters.
>
> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...

Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law here and
we have to respect that."

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article <bcbe576a-47e7-4141-becd-61d94c1696f2n@googlegroups.com>,
> chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 5:17:19 PM UTC-4, Rhino wrote:
>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>
>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You've never seen the confrontational 1968 interview between Johnny Carson
>> and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison have you? No, because the
>> video footage is not on the internet. Why?
>>
>> Why?
>
>
> Why? Because the Tonight Show tapes from before 1972 are all gone.
> NBC wiped them for reuse.

Actually one crazy executive ordered them burned to make storage space. Not
reuse, not donate them to a museum, not ask Carson if he wanted some, any
of which would have created the storage space he wanted. He had them
destroyed. When Carson announced it on air there was blood in his eyes. I
suspect that guy came to a bad end.

Then for years Carson showed the same clips every anniversary because the
previous anniversary shows themselves had survived. But everything else was
gone or in horrible ragged kinescope form.

But now places like shout factory IIRC have entire dedicated Tonight Show
channels and a massive number of complete shows are available and they look
great. And I have no idea where they came from.

Carson blamed the network, but his
> production company was capable of recording and storing the show, too.
> The fragments that we have come mostly from ad agencies whose clients
> had commercials on the show, and even the agencies didn't save much of
> it for long.
>
> You'd think one or the other conspiracy theorist would have recorded
> the show and saved the tape. Is the audio online?
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 7/27/2022 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>
>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>>
>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>
> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
> child scared of non-existent monsters.

You have aligned yourself to the party that denies reality and refuse to
admit to their crimes, thus I call you eunuchs. If pig actually feels
that way then he's correct. Now scurry away like the cockroach you are.

A eunuch cockroach, that's a hell of a thing.

On 7/27/2022 9:16 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
>>   moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>>
>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>>>
>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>>
>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
>
> Really?  And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>  Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...

I'll second that! Eunuch Derp is talkin' horseshit, his stock in trade.

On 7/27/2022 10:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 7/27/2022 10:39 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:16:28 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Really?  And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>>>   Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
>>
>> Isn't EVERY court decision "settled law" at least unless or until a
>> later court sets it aside? (usually by saying the first court
>> overlooked XYZ as a reason)
>
> Sure.  And that explanation is readily available to anyone who honestly
> believes that's what Kavanaugh wanted him to hear.  Show of hands?

I can show a finger.

On 7/27/2022 10:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>>>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>>>>
>>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>>>
>>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
>>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
>>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
>>
>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
>
> Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
> Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law here and
> we have to respect that."

Since you're exceptionally stupid, let me help: it's the lying in the
confirmation hearings that the people in this country with personal
integrity are outraged about. You belong to a political faction that
doesn't have a shred of integrity and literally drives off cliffs and
becomes decimated as a result.

In article <857515b4-923a-45a3-b2b2-f5e72628156en@googlegroups.com>,
chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 10:42:44 PM UTC-4, A Friend wrote:
> > In article <bcbe576a-47e7-4141...@googlegroups.com>,
> > chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 5:17:19 PM UTC-4, Rhino wrote:
> > > > I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
> > > > difference between then and now is stark:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
> > > >
> > > > Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
> > > > of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You've never seen the confrontational 1968 interview between Johnny
> > > Carson
> > > and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison have you? No, because the
> > > video footage is not on the internet. Why?
> > >
> > > Why?
> > Why? Because the Tonight Show tapes from before 1972 are all gone.
> > NBC wiped them for reuse. Carson blamed the network, but his
> > production company was capable of recording and storing the show, too.
> > The fragments that we have come mostly from ad agencies whose clients
> > had commercials on the show, and even the agencies didn't save much of
> > it for long.
> >
> > You'd think one or the other conspiracy theorist would have recorded
> > the show and saved the tape. Is the audio online?
>
> JIM GARRISON VS. JOHNNY CARSON.
> https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_80-50tqkcs8

Thanks!

On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite interview
>>>>> of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed "progressive"?
>>>>
>>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>>>
>>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
>>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
>>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
>>
>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
>
> Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
> Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law here and
> we have to respect that."

Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once appointed?

In article <RqwEK.723577$JVi.44662@fx17.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
> >>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
> >>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite
> >>>>> interview of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed
> >>>>> "progressive"?
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
> >>>
> >>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
> >>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
> >>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
> >>
> >> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
> >> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
> >> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
> >
> > Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
> > Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law here and
> > we have to respect that."
>
> Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once appointed?

Asking nominees to 'promise' how they'll rule on cases before they're
confirmed is the actual offense to the Constitution here.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 20:53:20 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
>
>Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
>Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law here and
>we have to respect that."

<sarcasm on> <sarcasm off> I'm sure.

I'm not really sure R v W was ever as 'settled' as that clunker.

On 7/28/2022 11:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <RqwEK.723577$JVi.44662@fx17.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
>>>>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite
>>>>>>> interview of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed
>>>>>>> "progressive"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
>>>>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
>>>>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
>>>>
>>>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
>>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
>>>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
>>>
>>> Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
>>> Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law here and
>>> we have to respect that."
>>
>> Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once appointed?
>
> Asking nominees to 'promise' how they'll rule on cases before they're
> confirmed is the actual offense to the Constitution here.

Oh, indeed, they didn't promise. They merely lied...

In article <W0AEK.743183$X_i.412644@fx18.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 7/28/2022 11:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <RqwEK.723577$JVi.44662@fx17.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/27/2022 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <0kmEK.549033$70j.104425@fx16.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/27/2022 6:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <37iEK.664414$wIO9.566117@fx12.iad>,
> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/27/2022 5:17 PM, Rhino wrote:
> >>>>>>> I just finished watching this political interview from 1975 and the
> >>>>>>> difference between then and now is stark:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNmnmdtcdcg [16 minutes]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can you picture one of today's hosts doing a similarly polite
> >>>>>>> interview of a potential candidate who wasn't a committed
> >>>>>>> "progressive"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you picture your bed with no "progressives" hiding under it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Standard moviePig Tactic: Pretend that only his and like-minded
> >>>>> political concerns are legitimate. Everyone else is just a frightened
> >>>>> child scared of non-existent monsters.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really? And what "legitimate political concern" is being voiced above?
> >>>> Meanwhile, the only far-reaching fairy tale that *I've* seen burst
> >>>> recently into stark reality began with: "Roe v. Wade is settled law"...
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, too bad the Court didn't stick with 'settled law' in Brown vs.
> >>> Board, amirite? They should have just said, "Plessy is the law here and
> >>> we have to respect that."
> >>
> >> Rite. And how many SCOTUS nominees reneged on that one, once appointed?
> >
> > Asking nominees to 'promise' how they'll rule on cases before they're
> > confirmed is the actual offense to the Constitution here.
>
> Oh, indeed, they didn't promise. They merely lied...

No, they said it was a precedent and at the time they said it, it was a
precedent. Then a new case came before them and in light of new
arguments presented to the Court, a different decision was reached.

There's no such thing as a precedent that cannot be overturned or a
jurist whose mind cannot be persuaded or changed. Either one of those
two things are anathema to a judicial system.