Premier Rock Forum

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 4:29 am Powell was more trusted on the world stage.

Yup. Without him as Secretary of State pushing the WMD stuff that war might never have occurred. He regretted it deeply later.

joe_lmr wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 5:44 pm Kissinger rest in piss and it's not even close

Though I have a feeling this isn't a serious inquiry but it still needs to be said

Edward Bernays should be on the list.

Curry Pervert wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:33 pm Edward Bernays should be on the list.

Curry Pervert wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:33 pm Edward Bernays should be on the list.

fascinating bio. i had no idea there used to be ideals in pr.
horrendous ideals, but still.

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 7:10 pm

Curry Pervert wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:33 pm Edward Bernays should be on the list.

fascinating bio. i had no idea there used to be ideals in pr.
horrendous ideals, but still.

Yeah he's right up there with the worst of 'em.

i wasn't thinking "deep state" when i first asked this, but it fits i guess...



of course vivek could just admit that afghanistan was more stable when we were in charge. do people still think trump was right there?

The General Lee did some impressive jumps while evading Rosco and Enos.

Out of the list presented, it's John Marshall; Kissinger is, maybe, a distant second.

John Marshall empowered the U.S. Supreme Court in a way that was entirely unnecessary: the facts in Marbury v. Madison could've been easily resolved without resort to enshrining the doctrine of judicial review; the motherfucker was personally involved in the facts of the case! He shouldn't have had anything to do with the result. In a way he began another time-honored tradition of the U.S. Supreme Court: working backwards from the result you want and twisting the law to fit it, and refusing to recuse oneself despite overwhelming evidence of a potential bias. Judicial review's effect on public policy is utterly incalculable

Marshall's opinion in Johnson v. M'Intosh, his delineation of the "discovery doctrine" and conclusions about sovereignty, was monumentally nonsensical (if not entirely idiotic or disingenuous), but was taken seriously all over the world and only recently has been called into question; the devastating impact this decision had on American Indians is also incalculable, and his attempts to ameliorate the effects with subsequent decisions did nothing to stop the continued annihilation of American Indian populations/cultures.

Hairy Caul wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2024 1:04 am the "discovery doctrine"

I'd never heard of this until this excellent interview about a year ago:



EDIT: maybe it was this interview first actually, also very interesting background on the subject: