Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Bullies be bullying. It's what they do.
Something tells me Barker probably got picked on in high school a lot.
Is the NRA a bully for sticking up for the 2nd Amendment? The FFRF sticks up for the 1st, and is doing exactly what it was established to do.
You many not like the democratic process that exists, but the rule of law applies to everyone. Including religious organizations who consistently want to break or bend it.
Is the NRA a bully for sticking up for the 2nd Amendment?
Of course not. That's because the 2nd Amendment actually says that we're allowed to own guns.
Quote:
The FFRF sticks up for the 1st, and is doing exactly what it was established to do.
Except that no Amendment says we can't practice religion. On the contrary, if they want to ACTUALLY do what the Constitution says, they would fight FOR religious rights, not against it. But I've never gotten the impression they really know or care what they Constitution actually says.
Quote:
You many not like the democratic process that exists, but the rule of law applies to everyone. Including religious organizations who consistently want to break or bend it.
I like the democratic process. I'd like it even more if they actually followed the rules.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Of course not. That's because the 2nd Amendment actually says that we're allowed to own guns.
Except that no Amendment says we can't practice religion. On the contrary, if they want to ACTUALLY do what the Constitution says, they would fight FOR religious rights, not against it. But I've never gotten the impression they really know or care what they Constitution actually says.
I like the democratic process. I'd like it even more if they actually followed the rules.
For over 70 years, SCOTUS rulings have interpreted what the 1st AND 2nd amendments mean. You seem to agree with the later, but not the former.
Tough. SCOTUS is the third branch of government, and there for a reason. Your denial of their rulings doesn't make them go away. Instead, they become the law of the land. Your argument is just as specious as the gun control advocates and their interpretation of the 2nd.
For over 70 years, SCOTUS rulings have interpreted what the 1st AND 2nd amendments mean. You seem to agree with the later, but not the former.
And most liberals I know tend to think the opposite.
Quote:
Tough. SCOTUS is the third branch of government, and there for a reason. Your denial of their rulings doesn't make them go away. Instead, they become the law of the land. Your argument is just as specious as the gun control advocates and their interpretation of the 2nd.
And they have been corrupted. They have ruled, but incorrectly. I recognize that. The fact that you don't is sad.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
And most liberals I know tend to think the opposite.
And they have been corrupted. They have ruled, but incorrectly. I recognize that. The fact that you don't is sad.
I doubt anyone agrees with every SCOTUS ruling. That doesn't change their effect. You forget in that past 70 years that there were both liberal and conservative courts. They still have ruled the same.
Now let's discuss 'corruption'. That is a strong term, but now a days, it is thrown around the same as 'genocide' is. How exactly was the integrity of any of the judges compromised? Graft? Bribes? Or?
Don't use the term if you can't demonstrate how a judge or judges have been criminally corrupted.
I doubt anyone agrees with every SCOTUS ruling. That doesn't change their effect. You forget in that past 70 years that there were both liberal and conservative courts. They still have ruled the same.
I am aware that, even incorrect, it is the law.
Quote:
Now let's discuss 'corruption'. That is a strong term, but now a days, it is thrown around the same as 'genocide' is. How exactly was the integrity of any of the judges compromised? Graft? Bribes? Or?
I have no clue. But there have been enough questionable rulings in recent years that it really makes on wonder.
Quote:
Don't use the term if you can't demonstrate how a judge or judges have been criminally corrupted.
I have no clue. But there have been enough questionable rulings in recent years that it really makes on wonder.
I will point to their rulings as evidence.
But you didn't "wonder". You stated it is so.
Quote:
And they have been corrupted. They have ruled, but incorrectly. I recognize that. The fact that you don't is sad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
