RE: Forgot to change name!
July 17, 2018 at 8:56 am
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2018 at 10:11 am by Mister Agenda.)
(July 16, 2018 at 5:35 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(July 16, 2018 at 5:23 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I agree, that it's actually not that big of deal. But still funny none the less... Especially when it was butchered that badly. However most of Trumps choices, seem to be conservative judges, by which I mean conservative in their view of proper judicial procedure and interpreting the constitution, as opposed to progressive and looking to re-write it from the bench. In which case their individual views should not come into play as much.
There are no conservative justices, only those who read the Constitution according to how it was meant to be read by those who wrote it and as it was passed into law. That's called non-partisan which is what the judiciary is supposed to be. Those who believe that the constitution requires interpretation, as opposed to its plain reading, are partisan left-wings activists.
In your expert opinion as a constitutional lawyer?
(July 16, 2018 at 5:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(July 16, 2018 at 4:49 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You don't seem to find interest in that sort of thing when you're putting something out. Your OP for example. Are you holding me to a different standard than you hold yourself to? I refer to your post #8 where you indicate that you are more interested in the idea than who it is from.
I don't think that I am. Could you be more specific on where you think this is the case?
I'm not against providing the source information, if that is what you are saying. To discuss the idea that was put forth accurately and not just the person who said it.
You provided the source. The most biased to the far-right source I know of. If Breitbart puts out something true, it's only because it's possible for something that really happened to fit their narrative on occasion. It's a propaganda site. When that's pointed out, you move to 'it's the idea that's important, not the source'. If I posted something from 'The Militant', I'd expect to be questioned on it, and my response would be to go looking for non-biased source for confirmation. I wouldn't argue that it's the idea that's important, I'd show that I was willing to back up my contention with a little bit more homework.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
