Satanists unveil proposed statue for OK state capitol

PostmodernProphet said:
I'm still waiting, HiggaDigga.....
Click to expand...

See post #74. If you phrased your question right then I have answered. You said it was "BECAUSE none of its members were students there." The restriction has no relevance to them being out of state.

Since I do assume you are too stupid to articulate the question properly I have given you numerous opportunities to clarify. You have not. Fuck off, Stodgy troll.
 
Could we please either have these two boys step out in the parking lot and duke it out or get back to rational discussion? I have a seventh grade daughter.....13 year old girls whine less than some people here.
 
1966stang said:
Could we please either have these two boys step out in the parking lot and duke it out or get back to rational discussion? I have a seventh grade daughter.....13 year old girls whine less than some people here.
Click to expand...

PiMPle would rather whine then clarify. I have already answered. He is just looking to create some sort of gotcha and hoping I will take some absolute position. If I don't then he insists I have not answered.

However, the courts have been fairly flexible in letting states do what they choose while maintaining limits in how they may restrict fundamental and constitutional rights. If there is a compelling state interest, like prohibiting electoral fraud, then states can limit non residents. If they are limiting residents in the same way which PiMPle's second failed attempt indicated then non residency is not at issue.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I sort of thought you had taken a position when you said


but you've been running from it ever since you said it......
Click to expand...

I did take a position. I have not ran from it. My statement was rather informal but was seemingly well understood by everyone but you, who insists on pathetic strawman arguments. I did not say that there can be absolutely no law restricting the actions of anyone from out of state.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I did take a position. I have not ran from it. My statement was rather informal but was seemingly well understood by everyone but you, who insists on pathetic strawman arguments. I did not say that there can be absolutely no law restricting the actions of anyone from out of state.
Click to expand...

yet, when I tried to point out your statement could not stand as an absolute you spent multiple pages trying to defend it.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yet, when I tried to point out your statement could not stand as an absolute you spent multiple pages trying to defend it.....
Click to expand...

I did not say anything about an absolute. I was responding to a reasonable person, not you. I gave a generalized and informal account of a Constitutional principle represented in the Privileges and Immunities Clause. It was well understood by everyone but you. It is just your itty bitty mind that read an absolute into it or needs one.

There have been multiple pages spent on your sloppy strawman arguments and gotcha attempts. I always play along because you are a dumbass and I enjoy demonstrating it. But you refuse to be specific when asking me for specifics about this generalized principle. It's pretty absurd and shows just how weak your argument is.
 
Does anybody really believe that a creepy goat-man surrounded by children is going to be erected at the OK Capital?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top