Wisconsin Dems to be in Contempt?

ZappasGuitar said:
No, I'm afraid it's highly UNLIKELY that I stepped in it...however it is becoming more apparent that you LIKELY HAVE been proven wrong!

ROTFLMAO!!

1like·ly
adj \ˈlī-klē\
like·li·erlike·li·est
Definition of LIKELY
1
: having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable <rain is likely today>
2
: apparently qualified : suitable <a likely place>
3
: reliable, credible <a likely enough story>

Poor, poor stupid, narrow minded Yurt...as the definition states...YOU MIGHT be right, but as I earlier stated, attorneys with better knowledge of the law and more access to information in this case claim there is a HIGH PROBABILITY of the opposite being true!

Spin it any way you want...it is still VERY PROBABLE that I am right.
Click to expand...

you're an embarrassment to the human race. likely does not equal definitely. at this point, everyone has given opinions....HOWEVER that law is unsettled. that is absolute truth, but you want to claim that even though no one knows for sure, that we are wrong.

that's dishonest. and really, plain stupid. you're basically declaring yourself the highest judge in the land. you're not. you're just a dumb internet poster who stepped in it big time....i can't count the times in legal issues/cases that one side that were were 99% right or even 100% right and they lost. until their high court rules on it, all you have is OPINION....but you want to pass off opinions as fact.....you're being completely stupid here by declaring anyone is wrong when it is UNSETTLED and UNCHARTERED TERRORITY (per nigel's link).

good job on making a complete ass out yourself and now dishonestly moving your goal post to "might be right"....you said i was wrong...now you're back peddling and saying i might be right....and i'm not spinning...i said they could be right as well. you an idiot who got busted and now has to lie and move the goal posts from "wrong" to "might be right".....face it.... YOU ARE WRONG by saying we are wrong....when that is unsettled.

LOL
 
ZappasGuitar said:
There's two who were wrong...
Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
In other words...

They.

Were.

Wrong.
Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
..as the definition states...YOU MIGHT be right, but as I earlier stated, attorneys with better knowledge of the law and more access to information in this case claim there is a HIGH PROBABILITY of the opposite being true!

Spin it any way you want...it is still VERY PROBABLE that I am right.
Click to expand...

:lol:

we've gone from they are wrong....to now....i might be right

300px-Project_Managers_Moving_posts.jpg
 
Yurt said:
Art IV section 7 may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide

therefore, they can compel them by arresting them to attend. this does not conflict with your cherry pick. you just want to ignore the law. the AG astutely opined years ago:



its thus clear, that if the members want to compel attendance by arrest, they can.

they can be arrested for high speed driving, drunk driving etc...the breach of the peace is broad nigel....and here they likely could be considered breaching the peace...so even if you want to go down that road, you will lose. courts in other jurisdictions have upheld such forcible returns with the same if not similar clause in their constitutions. if you can't use the arrest power, then it is absolutely meaningless to claim they have the power to enforce they own rules and COMPEL attendance. your view would make that law toothless and therefore meaningless.

such an interpretation would likely never win in court. i have case law backing me up...any case supporting you nigel? :)
Click to expand...


Yurt, you were wrong. And spectacularly so.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yurt, you were wrong. And spectacularly so.
Click to expand...

LOL...but your OPINION is right....

tff...you and zappa think your opinions and other opinions are facts, whereas my opinions are automatically wrong....even zappa admitted i could be right, too bad you can't do the same, then again, we all know you never ever admit you're wrong. you're playing a silly a game and failing big time by claiming opinions are fact.
 
Yurt said:
LOL...but your OPINION is right....

tff...you and zappa think your opinions and other opinions are facts, whereas my opinions are automatically wrong....even zappa admitted i could be right, too bad you can't do the same, then again, we all know you never ever admit you're wrong. you're playing a silly a game and failing big time by claiming opinions are fact.
Click to expand...


This is what you said:

its thus clear, that if the members want to compel attendance by arrest, they can.
Click to expand...

But, it isn't clear. In fact, it is likely that they cannot. You assertion that it was "clear" is 100% wrong. Just own up to it.

You also said that my position, which is shared by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, and which is said to likely be correct, "would likely never win in court." Once again, that is 100% wrong as even the Republican leader in Wisconsin has acknowledged.
 
NigelTufnel said:
This is what you said:



But, it isn't clear. In fact, it is likely that they cannot. You assertion that it was "clear" is 100% wrong. Just own up to it.

You also said that my position, which is shared by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, and which is said to likely be correct, "would likely never win in court." Once again, that is 100% wrong as even the Republican leader in Wisconsin has acknowledged.
Click to expand...

tff...your link uses "likely"...and that makes them right....but when i "likely" that makes me wrong....you can't have both ways. my OPINION is that they can compel attendance. i was clear from the beginning that it is not settled and that i would LIKELY win in court. of course i use words like clear to bolster my point, don't be stupid and petty. your link provided NOTHING but OPINIONS and it conceded it is unchartered terrority....that is why i kept asking you for what authority you had to SUPPORT you opinion. you're too dense and stupid to understand what a debate is. i am not wrong, it is UNSETTLED at this point, your own link said as much.

but oh no, in nigel's hack world, OPINIONS that agree with him are 100% right, despite it only being "likely" and "unchartered"....but anyone else is automatically wrong....how do cope with life on a daily basis?
 
Yurt said:
tff...your link uses "likely"...and that makes them right....but when i "likely" that makes me wrong....you can't have both ways. my OPINION is that they can compel attendance. i was clear from the beginning that it is not settled and that i would LIKELY win in court. of course i use words like clear to bolster my point, don't be stupid and petty. your link provided NOTHING but OPINIONS and it conceded it is unchartered terrority....that is why i kept asking you for what authority you had to SUPPORT you opinion. you're too dense and stupid to understand what a debate is. i am not wrong, it is UNSETTLED at this point, your own link said as much.

but oh no, in nigel's hack world, OPINIONS that agree with him are 100% right, despite it only being "likely" and "unchartered"....but anyone else is automatically wrong....how do cope with life on a daily basis?
Click to expand...


Own up to what you write. You were wrong. It isn't clear that my interpretation is wrong and would never win in Court. In fact, it my position is likely correct and your opinion is likely incorrect.

By the way, in hindsight, your "Read 'em and weep" post is a gem. It's just precious.
 
Yurt said:
awe...poor baby. first its you're right they can, now its whether they will actually do it. what slippery fish. and i don't bet that kind of money unless i know i am positively right. i'm 99% certain i'm right on this and i do have the law. you just look like a petulant fool on this one and too scared to bet a measily avi change for a week.

read em and weep bitch

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_fad6725e-45c7-11e0-8437-001cc4c03286.html
Click to expand...

I know...isn't he just the cutest the way he's certain he's got "the law".

Hey Yurt...does "99% certain" mean that you believe it is LIKELY that you are correct?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I know...isn't he just the cutest the way he's certain he's got "the law".

Hey Yurt...does "99% certain" mean that you believe it is LIKELY that you are correct?
Click to expand...

yes it does. i still maintain that i am likely correct. we'll never know until its settled in court, until then, its just opinions vs. opinions. you can whine all day that i'm wrong, but that is not true. like you finally conceded, i might be right and like i said, you might be right.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Own up to what you write. You were wrong. It isn't clear that my interpretation is wrong and would never win in Court. In fact, it my position is likely correct and your opinion is likely incorrect.

By the way, in hindsight, your "Read 'em and weep" post is a gem. It's just precious.
Click to expand...

yeah, i will own up nincompoop....i still believe i'm 99% right

that doesn't mean i'm wrong though...at least zappa owned up that, too bad you don't even have zappa's fortitude....dishonest hack

next
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top