Cancel 2016.11
Darla
It's hard to say for sure, but he uses language that is strikingly similar to Yurt. If they aren't the same person, surely someone should introduce them? I see a remake of "Love Story" here.
4th Amendments thoughts...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
It's hard to say for sure, but he uses language that is strikingly similar to Yurt. If they aren't the same person, surely someone should introduce them? I see a remake of "Love Story" here.
LMAO; it is the definition of irony when two unintelligent morons have a circle jerk debating intelligence.
LMAO; and the "yurt" story continues among the race hustling brain dead trolls.
maineman
Banned
similar, perhaps, but, IMO, Yurt is not as repetitive.... TD overuses "moron" "shit for brains", and the "you really are that stupid" tagline a lot more often than yurt.... it would seem to show an intellect with even less imagination than yurt.
This coming from a fool with an incredible propensity for spamming this forum with unadulterated stupidity. You're only profound in that tiny closed mind of yours Jarod. And the notion that you could be a lawyer requires the willing suspension of disbelief.
LMAO
SmarterthanYou
rebel
guns
Yes, yurt is smart enough to avoid socially progressive threads, to keep his true opinions to himself. He is a weasel for certain, but he has slipped up a few times.
Ah, here you are mistaken. Yurt was well known for repeating statements that he thought were funny, in fact this was one of the clues.
Crooks v. State
How so, has someone argued that because guns have always been illegal they should rightfully always be...?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Have I stated anywhere that SCOTUS is always correct? No. So why do you create moronic straw men Garud?
You asked if they violated your rights. They did not. Then you ask if we think they did the right thing. They did. The 'lurching' of your boat towards a dock justifies them pulling you over. Period. You were a potential endangerment to others. It is at that point that law enforcement has the right to stop you.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
link
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Ok, I looked up that case. It is completely irrelevant to your situation.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Your supposition that they are correct seems to center around whether or not you like the decision.
For example, you like Obamacare (presumably until it negatively impacts you) so you agreed with their decision. Whether it was the "right" decision is irrelevant to you. It is always party over principle with you.
The bottom line is that you are more concerned with being inconvenienced than whether or not the law was applied appropriately. It is very common among you Richerals. The rules are meant for the rubes not elites like you
Yes, I have an independent belief as to whether I think they are correct or not. What do you base your decision on if they are correct?
To get more specific, I believe the result of the Obamacare decision was correct, I don't agree 100% with the basis upon which they made the decision.
So, swerving in your lane on the road is not similar to a boat making a lurch in one direction?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yes. it started with the argument that the 2nd Amendment has always been just for the national guard (sic) and then when machine guns were banned, it was the 'in common use' argument. that one still goes today.
Ok, you have a point.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
First off I don't believe that the Founders ever meant for the US Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the US Constitution says. The Constitution says what it says. It doesn't require "interpretation"
Ah, I see, so when two parties have a disagreement over what is to be done under the rules of the Constitution, who is to decide what happens?