Dude, lighten the fuck up. I made the assumption that you knew there was nowhere in the Constitution that allowed for Congressional hearings. A rhetorical question, in this case, being used to make the point (by you) that no such power existed and that everyone should know that.
I've been far too "light" in the past, so no I will not "lighten the fuck up," I will go dark and hard on anything I see as pushback against unveiling the true nature of this society.
And maybe you've been dealing with ironic hipsters too often lately, with your assumption that my actual curiosity about how Congress managed to obtain and retain legal powers they apparently pulled from their asses and were never questioned on was me trying to guide people to "rightthink" through fake questions and pretend disengenuousness, because if I believe something I say I believe that thing, and if I don't know something I ask if anyone else knows who could tell me.
So far, to the best of my ability, I have found no actual basis for Congress possessing any powers to subpoena a person to "testify" at a "hearing," and even less power to penalize people for "Contempt of Congress," So they must have granted themselves these powers. And the Judiciary was complicit, in .
So you're going to prove your point by pushing back at people who agree with you? OK then. Enjoy.
So you're going to agree with people by asking them if they were actually serious in what they just said? OK then. Enjoy.
You are not the great communicator that you think you are. You just post a lot.
(post is archived)