MovieChat Forums > strntz
strntz (10955)
Posts
Satire - funny stuff here.
Anyone read Gianni Russo's book?
Alien was the first theatrical movie I saw ..
Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed sentenced
Why?
Sorry, but the poster makes this look like a gay film.
Nothing says..
Movie poster reminds me of ..
Advice on a stubborn Boston Terrier
Yesterday I told my mother her youngest child was going to die.
View all posts >
Replies
[quote]And that negates your post that I originally replied to, because it was based on the false premise that there "was no Constitutional protection for anyone in Wyoming at that time," so "the law *was* in his hands to take" and that it was "within his power to settle 'disputes' and hand out sentences in his best judgement."[/quote]
Again, we're getting to to semantics. You can say otherwise, but sheriffs and marshals had enormous latitude back then to settle things as they saw fit. The law code is 1000X times more detailed today, but in the 19th century, the laws were far less specific and covered relatively few things compared to today.
[b]So yes, using the expression that the law was in Little Bill's hands to take was not in any way inaccurate, regardless of whether there was any Supreme Court protection or not (there wouldn't be for Delilah).[/b] Again, I didn't say he could make law, but interpretation of the law was how many things were handled and Little Bill was no exception. That was the reason for the OP's post.
As far as what Little Bill did, I never tried to paint them as "legitimate" crimes, only the way things were handled, often by necessity given the times and the distances (and the days or weeks it would take to get back to the east).
[quote]And that negates your post that I originally replied to, because it was based on the false premise that there "was no Constitutional protection for anyone in Wyoming at that time,"[/quote]
My point wasn't based solely on the Constitutional protection issue, and even though I erred in my belief and even if my only point was based on the lack of Supreme Court protection for territorial residents, any intervention by the Supreme Court wasn't going to ever happen anyway, so nothing would change in Big Whiskey from the Feds.
At the end of the day, Little Bill interpreted the law as he saw fit, and absent any kind of oversight action from the territorial gov (unlikely) or the Supreme Court (virtually impossible), Little Bill did what he thought was best for the town in general if not Delilah specifically.
I didn't have any problem with Lisa being liberal in the early years, but when they stopped being even-handed is when it stops being satire and reaches the insufferable level.
Like Mad Magazine. In the golden years, they'd spoof everyone - libs, cons, every ethnic group, every religious group, rich, poor, young, old, etc. and it was fun because everyone got skewered. Later, they not only targeted only the right exclusively but made also it *mean*.
Getting back to Lisa, I love the episode where she told the young handsome "activist" that she was a vegetarian. He replied with disdain that he was a "level 5 vegan" (he wouldn't eat anything that cast a shadow).. Although I haven't seen any episodes past season 16, I doubt they would pick on vegans or any liberals today.
That was a weird one - I think most Simpson fans pretty much ignore that like a bad dream.
The big problem is that there's very little from the early years that would pass in today's more enlightened world - stuff that made The Simpsons so great. In other words, the golden age is gone forever except of course for those early episodes.
But if you somehow get your wish, see if you can also add Blood and Guts Murphy back as well even though he died in Season 6..
<blockquote>It's like it's saying "This is what happens when you tolerate and legitimise prostitution. And now there's going to be killing. Because of prostitution."</blockquote>
I think you're reading too much into this.
Where you see a point against legalized prostitution, it might simply be that the story required a victim (Delilah being cut up) and not getting justice. If this was any other townswoman who was attacked and disfigured, would Little Bill have been so cavalier in his justice? Bill would have whipped at least and maybe worse if the woman was anything but a prostitute. A prostitute provides the believability that we need to accept that a woman could be disfigured and not get justice.
"Just because we let them smelly fools ride us like horses don't mean we gotta let 'em brand us like horses".
Maybe it was more pro-women's rights than an anti-prostitution deal, or maybe it was both - or maybe it was neither.
If we go by the rules of wishes - you're right!
You're taking what I said way too literally. I was responding to the poster who questioned Little Bill's meting out justice for Delilah.
Saying "Little Bill was the law" in that town is an expression - it doesn't literally mean he made up laws - he still had to abide by the code, but he had a lot of leeway in this regard and unless someone was willing to try to take this up with a higher court, then the way he handled "his" town (throwing air quotes around that so we don't go off on that tangent) and the way he dispensed the law was going to stand. Unless someone in the Governor's office was going to go against Little Bill, then his decisions to settle disputes and hand out sentences in his best judgement was going to stand. The territorial governor had bigger fish to fry.
You're right in that I didn't realize that the Constitution extended into the territories, but again we're back to whether someone was going to go the Supreme Court for justice if they got none under the territorial Governor or laws or administration thereof, which was the point of the discussion with Little Bill.
</blockquote>Who advocated anyone invading anything?</blockquote>
By using the example of the Azov Regiment as "Nazis" fighting for Ukraine against Russia, it would seem that you are giving tacit approval to Russia invading Ukraine to allow them to rid Ukraine of these "nazis". If not, why mention Azov at all?
But if I read you wrong and you simply meant that the Azov Regiment are neo-nazis just to make that point but are otherwise against Putin invading Ukraine, then say that and I'll withdraw my observation.
<blockquote>I’m pretty sure you’re unable to read things.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Learn to respond to the correct comments instead of just spouting off thoughts that just pop into your head.</blockquote>
Honestly, ad hominem attacks are not the way to discuss something.
It's well beyond corrupted. Ken Jennings pronounces neutral pronouns (for those with logical brains, that means substituting the illogical "they" for she or he) with an almost gleeful diction as if to demonstrate to all just how evolved he is in a world populated with Neanderthals.
I guess science and biology mean nothing to him. That as much as anything shows that Jeopardy winners don't need intelligence, they just must be ridiculously well read and have an exceptional memory. Intelligence? Not a prerequisite.
The only reason I still watch this garbage is that my wife loves it, and we always watch each other's shows.
View all replies >