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: Srexley who wrote (733802)	3/23/2006 2:32:16 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Is THIS supposed to be your 'question'?????????? 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. Or is this: 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 THAT AIN'T EVEN A QUESTION! LOL! NEITHER IS THIS: My point was that Ginsburg and other liberals on the court see nothing wrong with using FORIEGN LAWS to INTERPRET the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STILL NO QUESTION! lol! 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 NOT ONE HERE, EITHER! I don't know why you would change the topic I was posting about then. You still have not addressed it. THIS AIN'T A 'QUESTION' EITHER. A DIATRIBE, YES, BUT NOT A QUESTION: 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 SILLY SCOTT! DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A QUESTION IS? LOL! 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). STILL NO QUESTION! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! And note again that YOUR response has NOTHING to do with the premise of my post. MORE SILLY FUN WITH SCOTT: So instead of commenting on the premise of the post… STILL NO QUESTION! NOT A QUESTION, NOT EVEN LOGIC: 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. ER.... IT'S BECAUSE YOU NEVER ASKED A QUESTION* YOU RHUBARB! MORE SCOTT SILLINESS: 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. NO YOU DIDN'T YOU DOOFUS! "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." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dodge and weave Scott, ALL THAT HOT AIR FROM YOU JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ASK A SIMPLE QUESTIOIN WITHOUT BLOVIATING ALL OVER THE PLACE. C-ya.