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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (1534010)	4/16/2025 11:47:23 AM
From: Bill	2 Recommendations Recommended By locogringo longz Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570804

Actually, dipshit, I can recite the Constitution in my sleep. Maybe you should visit my Constitution thread and bone up. Subject 55825 Meanwhile, I give up asking your opinion of a situation where a court makes an adverse ruling in direct conflict with law. What should the affected parties do after appeals are exhausted. At this point, I conclude you are too stupid to understand the question.

To: Eric who wrote (1534010)	4/16/2025 1:27:05 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570804

Eric, don't fall for Bill's bullshit. He's trying to argue a straw man based on the notion that the courts can make shit up. This goes to the heart of postmodernism, where truth is relative and words have no meaning. This is why Stephen Miller, for example, is arguing that the courts could theoretically grant Trump a third term, if they "interpret" the 22nd amendment to mean something much different than what the language clearly states. Bill is just following the rules of postmodernism and pretending that the courts, and not Trump, are overstepping their bounds. You can't have a free and fair society based on laws if you let guys like Bill make shit up like that. Words have meaning. Tenchusatsu EDIT: I posted this on Bill's Constitution message board: Message 35106082