Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (732887)	3/18/2006 12:36:26 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Because YOU posted (I believe, approvingly) that....." Here is what I posted: "Proof that the liberal judges on the USSC don't even know what their job is" - srexley And then I pasted an article that has this as the basis for the article: "Addressing an audience at the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Feb. 7, the 73-year-old justice, known as one of the court's more liberal members, criticized various Republican-proposed House and Senate measures that either decry or would bar the citation of foreign law in the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings." Are you sooo stupid that you could not see what my point was? If so, let it be clear to the muddled thinking and dishonest Buddy. My point was that Ginsburg and other liberals on the court see nothing wrong with using FORIEGN LAWS to INTERPRET the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. If you are being honest and REALLY cannot figure out what my point was (funny that other posters usually get my point), now you should be clear with it. And if you are being honest, you seem to beleive that when someone posts an article to bolster their point that they agree with every sentence the author writes. That those positions are NECESARILY in accordance with the poster. But you are dishonest, and that is why you IGNORE the point being made, and then ATTACK the poster on something else. Liberals would be proud of you for this technique. But level headed folks see you for what you are. A dishonest person that twists and turns away from the point being made to personally attack one he disagrees with. Still not a word uttered by you about the topic from the post. Nice debating technique. Dishonestly change the point, and then personally attack the poster. Howard Dean would be proud of you.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (732887)	3/18/2006 12:46:24 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"so what is your hair on fire for, Scott?" Nothing has my hair on fire. When you dishonestly attack I like to point it out. Buddy cannot write anything that makes me mad. He can only effect what I think of him. And in each case my opinion goes lower and lower. Can't get much lower at this point as I have known about your dishonest debating technique for quite some time. "why are you parroting the Tom-bot's lingo now [re: 'Samo, samo']?" I don't think he invented that term. My guess as to why it bothers you and why you even make this observation is that you hear it a lot. Buddy dishonestly twists the intent of posts almost every time he responds. That is why I say "samo samo". It is very predictable. Even to this point in our exchange you have never said what you thought about my point. What do you think, Buddy? Since you have avoided it my guess is that you agree with Ginsburg that it is fine to use foriegn law to interpret the supreme law of the United States, but are too embarrassed to admit it.