| Antonin Artaud - 205 sec
blablabla
Auteur : jhonygrillo
Tags:Antonin
 | | Antonin Artaud - 597 sec
Antonin Artaud
Part 4
Auteur : GottfriedGeist
Tags: Antonin Artaud
| | Antonin Artaud homenaje al poeta total - 265 sec
Homenaje a Antonin Artaud, el poeta actor artista pensador. En esta ocación fotos de él y algunos de sus dibujos. Para La Belleza de No Pensar. Realización por Ignacio Muñoz Cristi. Movimiento Lúdico Films. Vea nuestro blog en http://bellezadenopensar.blospot.com
Auteur : autonautica
Tags: poesía petry Artaud surrealismo
| | Demetrio Stratos - Antonin Artaud - 126 sec
Demetrio Stratos interpreta Artaud
Auteur : epotosi
Tags:Demetrio Stratos Artaud
| | Antonin Artaud - 417 sec
Antonin Artaud
Part 1
Auteur : GottfriedGeist
Tags: Antonin Artaud
| | looks antonin caps - 136 sec
caps
Auteur : dad67230
Tags: aa
| | Antonin Dvorak, tempo di valse - 402 sec
extraordinary piece of music
Auteur : gxgfree4rhyme
Tags: Antonin Dvorak tempo di valse music classical genius masterpiece muzica clasic
| | Charlie Rose - Antonin Scalia - 197 sec
Antonin Scalia is one of the most influential Supreme Court Just
ices in modern times. He is a leader of the "originalist" school of thought that argues that the U.S. Constitution should be strictly interpreted. I recently spoke with him at the Court about the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 and his influence among other
Justices on the Court.
Auteur : CharlieRose
Tags: Antonin Scalia Supreme Court Charlie Rose
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 1 of 4 - 477 sec
Transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
On abortion: a woman who is pregnant should not be counted as two, and because the unborn child cannot walk, it is not a person, how about crawl?
Then on Gore vs. Bush, he says get over it, get over Roe v. Wade too? Is the Constitution something to get over since it was written long ago?
According to the transcript from this interview, he states that the vote was actually 7-2. I've never heard that before.
Actually the vote was right down party lines - 5 to 4
The difference was that were different legal issues at work in Bush v. Gore. On one of them, the court came down 7-2. On the other, the court was split 5-4.
The first issue was whether Florida's recount, as it was being conducted, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The argument the Bush folks were using was that the hand recounts had no standard from county to county. A vote that might have been counted in one county would have be thrown out in another. Moreover, the state of Florida seemed to have no mechanism for ensuring that each person's vote counted equally. Seven of the justices on the court agreed that, as it was proceeding, Florida's vote counting violated the Constitution's protection of the one-person-one-vote rule.
Then came the question of what to do about it, and this is where the Court split right down party lines. The left-leaning four (two of whom did not see a problem with the vote count in the first place) said, if there is a Constitutional violation here, the Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Florida courts with directions about how to revamp the vote count in order to make it comply with the Equal Protection Clause.
The right-leaning five said, sorry, but we can't do that. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to tell a state how to count its votes. We can only decide that the manner in which it's counting is unconstitutional, but we can't instruct them to do anything.
The result: Florida couldn't do anything but stop its recount, and certify the results as they were.
That's somewhat of a simplification of the issues involved, but it gets to the heart of the matter. There's a certain rationale to what the Court did, but it's a mind-numbing rationalization, and an exploitation of legal technicalities.
Not political? Bullshit. And Scalia knows it. Souter almost quit the Court because of it.
The decision also stated that it's decision should not be a precedent meaning it should never be followed by another court in making a decision.
Which in my opinion is tantamount to saying, "What we just did has no basis in law and is bullshit!"
"the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
The four dissenters argued with what they saw as problems with the ruling, including the principle of fairness, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution that the people should elect their presidential leaders, not the courts.
Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties.
But the major decision that the Judges decided to replace the vote for the nation by ceasing all recounts and by are criminals and treasonous against the American democratic process.
William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Clarence Thomas,
Antonin Scalia,
Judges that wanted a recount.
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer
Scalia also states that torture is NOT prohibited under the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment because the torture of a captured individual to obtain information is not punishment (though the individual is punished or tortured for not talking). The second way he says it's not torture is that the constitution does not apply if it is not done on American soil or to an American. That's what all the prisons overseas are for.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/60-minutes-scalia-on-bush-v-gore-2000-get-over-it/
Yet, the Supreme Court is deciding on the 2nd amendment instead of never taking up the case because the 2nd amendment is clear, but they are distorting the words and attempting to inject their own interpretation of what the founding fathers meant as if they know better than the words themselves from people who have long passed.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 3 of 4 - 388 sec
Transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
On abortion: a woman who is pregnant should not be counted as two, and because the unborn child cannot walk, it is not a person, how about crawl?
Then on Gore vs. Bush, he says get over it, get over Roe v. Wade too? Is the Constitution something to get over since it was written long ago?
According to the transcript from this interview, he states that the vote was actually 7-2. I've never heard that before.
Actually the vote was right down party lines - 5 to 4
The difference was that were different legal issues at work in Bush v. Gore. On one of them, the court came down 7-2. On the other, the court was split 5-4.
The first issue was whether Florida's recount, as it was being conducted, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The argument the Bush folks were using was that the hand recounts had no standard from county to county. A vote that might have been counted in one county would have be thrown out in another. Moreover, the state of Florida seemed to have no mechanism for ensuring that each person's vote counted equally. Seven of the justices on the court agreed that, as it was proceeding, Florida's vote counting violated the Constitution's protection of the one-person-one-vote rule.
Then came the question of what to do about it, and this is where the Court split right down party lines. The left-leaning four (two of whom did not see a problem with the vote count in the first place) said, if there is a Constitutional violation here, the Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Florida courts with directions about how to revamp the vote count in order to make it comply with the Equal Protection Clause.
The right-leaning five said, sorry, but we can't do that. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to tell a state how to count its votes. We can only decide that the manner in which it's counting is unconstitutional, but we can't instruct them to do anything.
The result: Florida couldn't do anything but stop its recount, and certify the results as they were.
That's somewhat of a simplification of the issues involved, but it gets to the heart of the matter. There's a certain rationale to what the Court did, but it's a mind-numbing rationalization, and an exploitation of legal technicalities.
Not political? Bullshit. And Scalia knows it. Souter almost quit the Court because of it.
The decision also stated that it's decision should not be a precedent meaning it should never be followed by another court in making a decision.
Which in my opinion is tantamount to saying, "What we just did has no basis in law and is bullshit!"
"the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
The four dissenters argued with what they saw as problems with the ruling, including the principle of fairness, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution that the people should elect their presidential leaders, not the courts.
Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties.
But the major decision that the Judges decided to replace the vote for the nation by ceasing all recounts and by are criminals and treasonous against the American democratic process.
William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Clarence Thomas,
Antonin Scalia,
Judges that wanted a recount.
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer
Scalia also states that torture is NOT prohibited under the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment because the torture of a captured individual to obtain information is not punishment (though the individual is punished or tortured for not talking). The second way he says it's not torture is that the constitution does not apply if it is not done on American soil or to an American. That's what all the prisons overseas are for.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/60-minutes-scalia-on-bush-v-gore-2000-get-over-it/
Yet, the Supreme Court is deciding on the 2nd amendment instead of never taking up the case because the 2nd amendment is clear, but they are distorting the words and attempting to inject their own interpretation of what the founding fathers meant as if they know better than the words themselves from people who have long passed.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
| | Charlie Rose - Justice Antonin Scalia - 133 sec
Justice Antonin Scalia
Auteur : CharlieRose
Tags: charlie rose Justice Antonin Scalia supreme court bush gore
| | Playing Antonín Leopold Dvorak on Violin : Playing Dvorak Line 6 on Violin - 66 sec
Antonín Leopold Dvorak was one of the best orchestral music composers of his time and this violin piece is a small example of that. Learn tips on how to read music and play this brilliant musical piece from a violin expert in this free video clip.
Auteur : expertvillage
Tags: violins music musical instruments theory lessons sheet notes scales antonín leopold dvorak
| | Antonin Dvorak - Aus der neuen Welt (From the new world) - 399 sec
Ein Musikvideo zu einer Adaption von Antonin Dvoraks "Aus der neuen Welt"-Sinfonie zeigt die Abenteuer eines Luftballonmannes. Die musikalische Adaption und das neue Arrangement ist von Carsten, das Video ist eine Hausarbeit von Markus, Carsten und mir im Fach Audio- und Videotechnik. Gedreht wurde in Osnabrück, Melle, Oppenwehe und Lahde. Engl.: Music video for an adaption of Antonin Dvoraks "From the new world" symphony showing the adventures of a balloonman.
Auteur : volkmaro
Tags:Antonin Dvorak Aus der neuen Welt new world Luftballonmann Zeitlupe Zeitraffer balloon timelapse lapse slowmotion slomo
| | Antonín Dvořák: Stabat mater - Eja mater - 512 sec
The 3th movement of Antonín Dvořák`s "Stabat mater"
- Eja mater fons amoris
Eia Mater, fons amoris
Me sentire vim doloris
Fac, ut tecum lugeam
Alas, Mother, fount of love,
Make me feel the violence of thy sorrow,
That I may mourn with thee.
The live recording shows the Monteverdi Choir Würzburg with its conductor Matthias Beckert at their concert in the Neubaukirche of Würzburg, Germany on February 9, 2008.
For more information please visit
http://www.monteverdi-choir.com (german)
Auteur : MonteverdiChor
Tags: anton dvorak stabat mater eja monteverdi choir chor würzburg neubaukirche
| | Warsaw Boys Choir Stabat Mater - Antonin Dvorak - Tui Nati - 294 sec
A piece (Tui Nati Vulnerati) of video recording of WBCh's 15th anniversary at Plock Cathedral in 2003 with the support of Pueri Cantores Plocences (boys' choir) and Warsaw National Philharmonic Orchestra with soloists. Conducted by Krzysztof Kusiel-Moroz. Part V of the Stabat Mater, an incredible piece of music. Hope you will all enjoy the mystic nature of that part ...
Please visit: http://www.choir-warsaw.subnet.pl/
Auteur : mactoja
Tags: klasyczna
| | antonin panenka, frantisek cipro a dalsi - zelena je trava - 131 sec
dobova fotbalova hymna
Auteur : tlacenkascibuli
Tags: antonin panenka frantisek vesely cipro ringo cech zelena trava
| | antonin artaud - 223 sec
the voice of artaud
Auteur : oligon
Tags: antonin artaud poetry
| | peynier antonin charly toma - 85 sec
bmx
Auteur : antobmxxx
Tags: peynier bmx trail charly antonin thomas pennes mirabeau
| | Antonin Artaud : Le rite du Peyotl chez les Tarahumaras - 382 sec
reading of this text written by Antonin Artaud in 1943 / lecture du texte d'Antonin Artaud rédigé en 1943 / Bibliothèque sonore francophone
Auteur : labsf
Tags:antonin artaud bsf lecture reading bibliothèque library
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 4 of 4 - 415 sec
Transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
On abortion: a woman who is pregnant should not be counted as two, and because the unborn child cannot walk, it is not a person, how about crawl?
Then on Gore vs. Bush, he says get over it, get over Roe v. Wade too? Is the Constitution something to get over since it was written long ago?
According to the transcript from this interview, he states that the vote was actually 7-2. I've never heard that before.
Actually the vote was right down party lines - 5 to 4
The difference was that were different legal issues at work in Bush v. Gore. On one of them, the court came down 7-2. On the other, the court was split 5-4.
The first issue was whether Florida's recount, as it was being conducted, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The argument the Bush folks were using was that the hand recounts had no standard from county to county. A vote that might have been counted in one county would have be thrown out in another. Moreover, the state of Florida seemed to have no mechanism for ensuring that each person's vote counted equally. Seven of the justices on the court agreed that, as it was proceeding, Florida's vote counting violated the Constitution's protection of the one-person-one-vote rule.
Then came the question of what to do about it, and this is where the Court split right down party lines. The left-leaning four (two of whom did not see a problem with the vote count in the first place) said, if there is a Constitutional violation here, the Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Florida courts with directions about how to revamp the vote count in order to make it comply with the Equal Protection Clause.
The right-leaning five said, sorry, but we can't do that. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to tell a state how to count its votes. We can only decide that the manner in which it's counting is unconstitutional, but we can't instruct them to do anything.
The result: Florida couldn't do anything but stop its recount, and certify the results as they were.
That's somewhat of a simplification of the issues involved, but it gets to the heart of the matter. There's a certain rationale to what the Court did, but it's a mind-numbing rationalization, and an exploitation of legal technicalities.
Not political? Bullshit. And Scalia knows it. Souter almost quit the Court because of it.
The decision also stated that it's decision should not be a precedent meaning it should never be followed by another court in making a decision.
Which in my opinion is tantamount to saying, "What we just did has no basis in law and is bullshit!"
"the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
The four dissenters argued with what they saw as problems with the ruling, including the principle of fairness, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution that the people should elect their presidential leaders, not the courts.
Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties.
But the major decision that the Judges decided to replace the vote for the nation by ceasing all recounts and by are criminals and treasonous against the American democratic process.
William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Clarence Thomas,
Antonin Scalia,
Judges that wanted a recount.
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer
Scalia also states that torture is NOT prohibited under the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment because the torture of a captured individual to obtain information is not punishment (though the individual is punished or tortured for not talking). The second way he says it's not torture is that the constitution does not apply if it is not done on American soil or to an American. That's what all the prisons overseas are for.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/60-minutes-scalia-on-bush-v-gore-2000-get-over-it/
Yet, the Supreme Court is deciding on the 2nd amendment instead of never taking up the case because the 2nd amendment is clear, but they are distorting the words and attempting to inject their own interpretation of what the founding fathers meant as if they know better than the words themselves from people who have long passed.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
|
|
