6469fe15   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "wy"  wrote in message   
   news:5467b72e-4c57-480c-ac82-0cca92664979@h1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...   
   > On 18 Apr, 00:34, "Scout"    
   > wrote:   
   >> "wy"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:bbd6ebe0-24ef-40d5-b0c6-cf1ae0b930fb@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> > On 17 Apr, 22:09, "Scout"    
   >> > wrote:   
   >> >> "wy"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> >>news:3cf4b6d8-cd9d-4ee6-be02-f7dd6cfb60f6@x14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> > On 17 Apr, 20:21, "Scout"   
   >> >> >    
   >> >> > wrote:   
   >> >> >> "wy"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> >> >>news:bf21673f-27c1-4bcd-8076-a9a063ce05ae@y14g2000vbk.go   
   glegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > On 16 Apr, 22:37, "Scout"   
   >> >> >> >    
   >> >> >> > wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> If you don't wish to discuss it and consider the other side   
   >> >> >> >> >> of   
   >> >> >> >> >> the   
   >> >> >> >> >> argument, that is your choice.  However, the Supreme Court   
   >> >> >> >> >> has   
   >> >> >> >> >> ruled,   
   >> >> >> >> >> and, IMHO, gotten it right.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> > Well, of course it's gotten it right for you because you're a   
   >> >> >> >> > right   
   >> >> >> >> > wingnut who's totally satisfied by a razor-thin partisan win   
   >> >> >> >> > of   
   >> >> >> >> > 5-4.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> Oh, I'm sure he would have been happier with a 9-0 win, but in   
   >> >> >> >> any   
   >> >> >> >> event   
   >> >> >> >> is   
   >> >> >> >> was a win.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> > But a partisan ruling in and of itself is not a valid ruling.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> Sure, but can you show us it was a partisan ruling in and of   
   >> >> >> >> itself?   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> I don't think you can.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > Hmm.  5 right wingnut judges vote one way and 4 left wingers vote   
   >> >> >> > the   
   >> >> >> > other way.  How is that not partisan?   
   >>   
   >> >> >> So you can't show the ruling was partisan in and of itself.   
   >>   
   >> >> > I see you couldn't answer the question that gave you the opportunity   
   >> >> > to prove that it wasn't partisan, so I guess I must be right that it   
   >> >> > was.  Thanks.  I knew it all along.   
   >>   
   >> >> Nope, because you didn't show it that it was decided as it was only   
   >> >> because   
   >> >> of partisanship. Simply asserting it isn't PROOF.   
   >>   
   >> >> And I will note you still haven't been able to show the ruling was   
   >> >> partisan   
   >> >> in and of itself.   
   >>   
   >> > And you're still failing to prove otherwise.  I win.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >  If the   
   >> >> >> >> > same make up of the court of 5 conservatives and 4 liberals   
   >> >> >> >> > had 2   
   >> >> >> >> > liberals and 3 conservatives voting in favor for the same 5-4   
   >> >> >> >> > result,   
   >> >> >> >> > then that could be viewed as a more objective opinion because   
   >> >> >> >> > it'd   
   >> >> >> >> > be   
   >> >> >> >> > based on a certain common ground agreed upon by both sides, it   
   >> >> >> >> > would   
   >> >> >> >> > cross the spectrum of views and not be restricted to just one   
   >> >> >> >> > view.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> I see....so your complaint isn't that they got it wrong.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> Your complaint is that you don't view the court as being   
   >> >> >> >> objective.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> Well, I can't help you with how you view the world. For that,   
   >> >> >> >> you're   
   >> >> >> >> on   
   >> >> >> >> your   
   >> >> >> >> own.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > If the court isn't objective, then the likelihood of being wrong   
   >> >> >> > follows.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> Ah, but simply saying there is a likelihood neither establishes   
   >> >> >> that   
   >> >> >> there   
   >> >> >> is, or that it occurred in this case.   
   >>   
   >> >> > You're accused of killing someone.   
   >>   
   >> >> Really? I am?   
   >>   
   >> >> Who exactly an I suppose to have killed?   
   >>   
   >> >> > Then you're at court before 9   
   >> >> > judges. 5 judges are avowed believers in the death penalty, 4 don't   
   >> >> > care for it much.  You explain your story to counter what are the   
   >> >> > prosecution's litany of circumstantial evidence against you.   
   >>   
   >> >> You really don't understand how SCOTUS works, do you?   
   >>   
   >> >> Tell you what, when you can find an ACTUAL case that does what you   
   >> >> claim,   
   >> >> then we can talk. I'm not interested in your FICTIONAL cases.   
   >>   
   >> >>    
   >>   
   >> > I knew you'd answer wrong and so I also knew you'd simply not even try   
   >> > at all just so as to avoid answering wrong.  Thanks for not playing   
   >> > along, but I win.   
   >>   
   >> You think that because you can propose a fantasy in which your views   
   >> somehow   
   >> become relevant that has any bearing on reality?   
   >   
   > In your case, no.  You don't reside in reality to be able to   
   > intellectually engage in any discourse that challenges you to think   
   > beyond your total blindness and mental vacuousness.   
      
   And yet who is turning to insults rather than discussion?   
      
   Oh, that would be you. Maybe your rant is more about yourself than it is   
   about me.   
      
      
   >> Ok....you won in your fantasy. Does that make you happy?   
   >>   
   >> Meanwhile back in reality, you're flopping around like a fish out of   
   >> water.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> So....still looks like your only complaint is the matter of how you   
   >> >> >> view   
   >> >> >> it.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> > There is no common ground in how the SC has ruled on gun   
   >> >> >> >> > issues,   
   >> >> >> >> > especially with the right dominating the bench, if only by 1   
   >> >> >> >> > vote,   
   >> >> >> >> > and   
   >> >> >> >> > voting in unison on it.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> I agree, we need to get rid of those 4 on the Supreme Court that   
   >> >> >> >> don't   
   >> >> >> >> seem   
   >> >> >> >> to understand what the 2nd Amendment means.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > Proving my point of partisanship, especially when you side with   
   >> >> >> > the   
   >> >> >> > other 5 on a partisan basis.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> No, 4 Justices clearly don't understand the 2nd Amendment. It's   
   >> >> >> meaning,   
   >> >> >> intent and history.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> You tell us that a 5-4 vote on this issue wasn't right and it   
   >> >> >> should   
   >> >> >> have   
   >> >> >> been far more one sided.....   
   >>   
   >> >> > If there were 10 judges on the bench equally divided politically,   
   >>   
   >> >> Well, there isn't 10. We have 9. Welcome to reality.   
   >>   
   >> > Evidently, you're impotent when it comes to arguing a scenario that   
   >> > you know you'd lose at arguing.  I win.   
   >>   
   >> Sorry, but I'm not going to waste time arguing your fantasies.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)