Nowadays? You realize the sentence you just typed has been uttered relentlessly since the beginning of America the sovereign nation.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Nowadays? You realize the sentence you just typed has been uttered relentlessly since the beginning of America the sovereign nation.
Yup, but they were at least more aware of these situations in the past. We just accept that SCOTUS knows all nowadays, regardless of how they're ruling.
There you go again... acting like a massive authoritarian.
If you don't think the basis of our laws can be traced back to England, then you don't understand this whole ruling. In order to interpret the meaning and purpose of a constitutional question without much precedent, you have to look at it's origin. Van Damme #3 before lunch.
Well, there is a story I read about Davey Crockett voting for a disaster relief bill one time, and when he came back to his constituents one of them took him to task for it, saying it wasn't the governments job to do such a thing. I could probably tell the whole story, but the post would be so long nobody would want to read it. I'm sure there are plenty of other stories out there, but you should know them...being a history expert and all of that.
I didn't say that. You do realize that our laws aren't the exact same as those British laws, right? You can claim Van Damme all you want, but your arguments don't make any sense. You're conflating the issues now because you've been backed into a corner and it's your only play. You seem to do this a lot.
Man, this is a poor attempt by you. Not all laws are exactly the same, but if you knew why the court ruled the way they did then you would know why the origin was used. You should read up on something before you argue about it. There is no conflating the issue, because I've only been talking about this case. It's obvious you are in the corner because you haven't addressed the facts that the ruling is based on. You can't come at me with facts, which is normal for you.
What does the origin of the law have to do with the American version of the law if they aren't the same law? You're conflating the two laws in order to muddy the waters because you're on the wrong side of the facts. Between this and putting words in my mouth, those are generally the only two defenses you ever use.
The point is my historical expertise knows we are a million times more aware now of all sides of a law, bill, issue, etc. than we were at any point in the past. So I know, as per usual, your history is inaccurate.
Thank the communication/information age. No one excepts that anyone knows all because there are a million different opinions on every thing at your fingertips.
Think about the farmer who had one newspaper come once a week to get his information. You think he's more aware of anything than anyone today? To him, that newspaper told him how it was and he had no other option for a differing view point to become more aware.
Is there more communication? Sure. That doesn't mean that people are more educated on the subject. There are two problems with your statement.
- People don't pay attention nowadays as they would have in the past. There are too many "shiny objects" and a large portion of the population couldn't even tell you anything about the Bill of Rights.
- What information we do get is generally run by corporations today. This leads to a lot of intentional misinformation which hinders peoples' understanding of what the laws mean. Take the 2nd Amendment for example. It's pretty cut and dry, but for decades the media has pushed their own narrative about the Amendment.
Tell me about it. Corporate media and SCOTUS fanboys arguing against the Constitution is tough to watch.
Ouch. Two extremely poor post in a row from you. In order to under what the founders meant, you have to understand why it was written. That's a pretty simple concept and has nothing to do with conflating anything. How exactly am I on the wrong side of the facts? I'm the only one who has provided facts. Those facts show I'm right. All you have provided is opinion. Here's an idea. Offer a sound, legal argument saying why the decision was wrong. That's what it means to provide facts. Just saying they were wrong because you don't like it is opinion and all you have provided so far.
Do you know what the funniest part of all this is? I was ridiculed for my statement about how New Mexico infringed on this man's civil liberties, and now everyone has already ceded that point to me. 0910 is trying to change the subject and Strumm and Prlyles are lobbing insults and inane comments from the peanut gallery.
I'm pretty sure I get it. SCOTUS took it upon themselves to change the law. Whether or not it was a good or bad change isn't the point. The point is that they legislated from the bench. If you needed to change the law, that's what Congress or possibly a new amendment could have solved.
Of course you think the post is poor, because you don't understand that the laws are not the same. BTW, what facts have you provided?
Here's what you said and I wanted clarification on:
So, based on the above I never ridiculed anything about your NM statement. I even specifically said I'm not talking about the NM issue.
Nope. You started off by saying constitutional rights were violated. I've never talked about anything but that.
It's clear to everyone here that you're the one who lacks understanding.
I've provided the exact wording of what the Constitution says and told you why the court ruled the way they did. You've provided nothing.
To be fair to me, the insults didn’t start until you were asked to explain your post. When you failed to do that then I might have insulted you just a little but not as much as you deserved.
I did explain my post. You didn't like the explanation. So you, uncboy, and strumm do what you always do. You reverted to your three stooges act and started lobbing insults. It's all good. I've been here long enough to know what to expect.
We all know what the Constitution said and how SCOTUS changed the law. If those are your "facts" then you're in trouble. Let's put it this way, the law doesn't state that the court has the power to deny bail, it just doesn't. However, it does talk about not allowing for excessive bail. So, it allows for bail, just not excessive bail. What part of that makes you think that it gave the courts the power to revoke bail?
VIDEO: Students appalled by footage of 'creepy' Joe Biden touching women
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12141
Of course, all of us who were uneasy about Biden's actions in the first place have been ridiculed on this board, but it seems like we aren't the only ones worried.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12141
Of course, all of us who were uneasy about Biden's actions in the first place have been ridiculed on this board, but it seems like we aren't the only ones worried.
Is that an insult? I liked Curly. Any Three Stooges with Shemp or Joe were crappy by comparison to the ones with Curly.
It's a shame that you turned into a full-blown paranoid politico. Well, maybe it's not a shame.
