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 (733781)	3/23/2006 2:16:52 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"What do you want to ask?" Buddy McKee, 3-23-06 My 1st clarification, 3-18-06: I was talking about Ginsburg saying its ok to use international law when she is doing her job, whcih is really supposed to be interpretting the Costitution. Why do you change the subject? Never take a point head on, eh Buddy? Dodge and weave. My 2nd clarification, 3-18-06 I brought up some quoted material from Ginsburg that states that she thinks it is ok to use foriegn law to interpret OUR constitution. That you cannot comment on that, and that you will make up out of whole cloth what my position is on another matter and then attack me for it says a lot about the character of Buddy McKee My 3rd clarification: 3-18-06 My point was that Ginsburg and other liberals on the court see nothing wrong with using FORIEGN LAWS to INTERPRET the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. My 4th clarification, 3-19-06 It was a sentence out of an article that I posted about Ginsburg feeling that using interntional law to interpret the U.S. Constitution is good to do. You are avoiding the subject I posted on AGAIN An attempt to get your opinion, 3-19-06 I don't know why you would change the topic I was posting about then. You still have not addressed it. My 5th clarification, 3-20-06 But the point of my post was not to get clarification on whether the sentence you pulled out of the article was in the article. The post was about liberal judges using international law to interpret the U.S. Constitution. And you tried to change my point My 6th clarification, 3-20-06 I would say that using international law to interpret our Constitution (the point of my post) is quite different than the Shiavo case (which did not have an international element). Another attempt to get your opinion, 3-20-06 And note again that YOUR response has NOTHING to do with the premise of my post. Another attempt, 3-21-06 So instead of commenting on the premise of the post… My conclusion after 5 clarifications and 3 attempts to get you to state your opinion, 3-21-06 I will assume that you agree with Ginsburg and those on liberal side of the bench regarding the use of international law to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Can't see why else you would avoid comment. Follow up conclusion after more trash talk form you, 3-23-06 I asked you a few times what your opinion was on the topic I brought up. That you are afraid to give it (or stupid enough to not realize it was asked for) says a lot about Buddy McKee. After all this, here is Buddy on 3-23-06 “What do you want to ask?” Go to top of this post to start the string again. My point in keeping these exhanges going with you is just to expose your dishonesty. No point in a real discussion with someone like you. Ridicule is what your posts ask for, and ridicule is what you will get. And at this point it makes no sense to go further as I already know your opinion on the matter. And since you are a dishonest person, it doesn't really matter to me what you would state as your opinion because I would have no way of determining wheter it truly was your position. That you act as though you don't know what I was looking for (a discussion on using International law to interpret the U.S. Constituion) says all anyone needs to know. C-ya.