c770a965
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
XPost: can.politics
From: wy_@myself.com
On 18 Apr, 02:36, "Scout"
wrote:
> "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.goo
legroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On 17 Apr, 20:21, "Scout"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> "wy" wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:bf21673f-27c1-4bcd-8076-a9a063ce05ae@y14g2000vbk.
ooglegroups.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?
Who says you're discussing anything?
>
> Oh, that would be you. Maybe your rant is more about yourself than it is
> about me.
In your backwards, upside down, cock-eyed koo koo universe, I suppose
it is.
> >> 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.....
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
