Adolph the Great
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Mark Olson on 8 Mar 2010 21:24 Twibil wrote: > More importantly; the ACLU -now listen closely here- does *not* render > judicial decisions. All the ACLU does is take interesting cases to > court and present their evidence. Yes, that's pretty clear, sort of in the 'news flash- water is wet' category. Is there any reason why you are so didactically pointing out that particular bit of undisputed information at this point?
From: Twibil on 8 Mar 2010 22:29 On Mar 8, 6:01 pm, BryanUT <nestl...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > WUT? A Repubican supporting the ACLU? Admit it Pete, you are a closet > liberal. Naw. I'm an old-fashioned Goldwater Republican who actually thinks that big government has too much power (and it gains more every minute) and that the people don't have *enough* to counterbalance it. If that means allying with liberals in common cause on some points, then hoo-ray for left-right alliances. > Take YOUR party back from the whack jobs. Please. I wish. Either side trying to pretend that *everything* the loyal opposition proposes must needs be either utter betrayal or a sign of the coming apoclaypse is both stupid and -eventually- suicidal. See California's grid-locked state government for an example of what the Federal government is heading towards.
From: Twibil on 8 Mar 2010 22:34 On Mar 8, 6:05 pm, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > Any group defending the Constitution would have a hard time standing > up for laissez-faire gun laws when the Constitution is quite clear > that the intent of the provisional amendment was the need for armed > military volunteers at a time before we collectively paid for a > standing military. Uh, perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that it's the *courts* which make such judgements? ( You somehow seem to have got the notion that I said "Saddlebag" makes those decisions, and, thank Ghu, you don't. ) In fact, The Supremes have recently opined that Americans *do* have a right to protect themselves with firearms, and that decision had zilch to do with a militia.
From: tomorrow on 8 Mar 2010 22:37 On Mar 8, 4:43 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Never expect logic when you're dealing with the masses. Them asses. Some might say that they need the help of an enlightened government to help them see things properly....
From: Twibil on 8 Mar 2010 22:37
On Mar 8, 6:24 pm, Mark Olson <ols...(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: > > > > More importantly; the ACLU -now listen closely here- does *not* render > > judicial decisions. All the ACLU does is take interesting cases to > > court and present their evidence. > > Yes, that's pretty clear, sort of in the 'news flash- water is wet' > category. Is there any reason why you are so didactically pointing > out that particular bit of undisputed information at this point? Certainly. Many folks seem to think that the ACLU's having an opinion equates to an ability to make Law. |