Try Beginning with Reason...

AND NOW, WITHOUT FURTHER ADU, THE WORST OF SLINGSHIZZLE:

First, I completely agree with the author of My 2 Cents that we will not have the 44th President this year. We will all have to wait until January 20, 2005 for the 44th President to be inaugurated. We'll have to roll out several Kegs of Glory for that Thursday night...

Second, WHAT THE F***! I see that My 2 Cents decided to ignore my advice and make up his own thinking about the Supreme Court case Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 03-218. At this time, I would like to repeat what I wrote yesterday:

As I've encouraged everyone in the past, I encourage everyone to read the decision and opinions before taking sides on the issue. You can read the opinions here: Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 03-218

If the author of My 2 Cents had read any of the opinions, either majority or dissenting, of the Court, or had read ANY news coverage of the ruling, I would think he could grasp the issue. Not so.

Here is what My 2 Cents wrote about yesterday's ruling:

Let me address the topic of the Supreme Court’s ruling today regarding child pornography and the rights of old perverts to *ehm* to kiddie porn...Child pornography is not free speech. Child pornography is SICK AND WRONG – and to top it off is that THE ACLU SUPPORTS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. THIS ORGNIZATION IS HORRIBLE! WHAT KIND OF SICK PERVERT DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO GET YOUR JOLLIES OFF FROM LOOKING AT NAKED EIGHT YEAR OLD KIDS???

Let's examine that statement, shall we? According to My 2 Cents, the Court's ruling was regarding "child pornography and the rights of old perverts to *ehm* to kiddie porn." Huh...that's interesting. According to the "fair and balanced" coverage of the Fox News Channel:

The law (the Child Online Protection Act), which never took effect, would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is “harmful to minors” within the easy reach of children on the Internet.

The law also would have required adults to use access codes and or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online.

Strange. Either My 2 Cents stuck his foot in his mouth by yelling about something that wasn't at issue without an ounce of thought or research, or the Supreme Court of the United States of America stuck its foot in its mouth by rulling about what was at issue with great thought and research. I wonder which is more likely...

And the Cu de Graz of the My 2 Cents argument:

To add to the stack of s**t that Bader-Ginsberg and her minions put out today, the five Justices in the majority said it “probably” violated the First Amendment. Not “it does” violate the First Amendment, “probably”. At least when a conservative does or says something we make sure that we are solid in our stance. We don’t use “probably” when justifying our positions. (Yes, I admit I have used the term “speculated fact”, but that is beside the point.)

Here is a summary of what is inaccurate, inconsistent, bizarre or plain bull s**t about the preceding statement:

•Associate Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg was not the author of the majority opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy was.

•The reason the majority ruled the Child Online Protection Act "probably" violated free speech was that is sent the case and act back to a lower court to give the Bush administration an opportunity, in a trial, to show how it doesn't violate the First Amendment.

•Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was a member of the majority. Are you telling me that Justice Thomas is a liberal and is fluid in his stance on pornography?

•If your use of "speculated facts" are beside the point, why include them in your argument? I assumed one would learn that in COMM 101.

To top off his argument, the author of My 2 Cents believes that I am a pessimist, I hate America, I wish Saddam Hussein was still in power, I wish America never went to war and at the same time, wish America hadn't handed "sovereignty" to the Iraqis and that I wish to give Osama bin Laden the Medal of Honor. (I believe 3/4ths of those statements - don't ask or assume which ones - just kidding).

Finally, how would the Child Online Protection Act stop "allowing kiddie porn to be sold on every street corner?" I think I need an extra dose of conservative "common sense" to understand that because as a liberal it makes no f***ing sense to me...

THIS HAS BEEN THE WORST OF SLINGSHIZZLE