Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #170017 > unrolled thread
| Started by | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:28 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:19 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:23 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:09 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:48 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:44 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:00 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:39 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 22:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 20:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:29 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:30 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:41 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 02:29 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:50 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:38 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-05 14:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 12:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:43 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-05 22:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:46 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-09 02:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 23:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 06:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:50 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 09:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 13:42 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 17:31 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:21 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 05:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 05:52 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 07:04 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-10 04:35 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 01:39 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 15:46 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 15:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Corwin Esterness <woolcross@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 12:00 -0600
Truth Avoidance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Truth Avoidance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 18:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 15:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:56 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Bill (not Jillians) DOW #3" <noemail@none.not> - 2018-06-09 20:06 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-12 00:11 +0100
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 17:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-07 05:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 22:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 11:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:17 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:36 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo37qrFpv2oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172843 |
On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in >>>>>>>>> the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>>>>>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>>>>>>> Committee? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in >>>>>>>> 2008. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>>>>> >>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>>>> >>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem to >>>>> think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a case of >>>>> judicial activism. >>>> >>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as the >>>> meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second amendment by >>>> the Judicial branch >>> >>> Heller didn't do that. >> >> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >> >>>> and not the Legislative branch. >>> >>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second >>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >> >> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure as >> hell should not be writing laws. > > > You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law > This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the words used... sorta my point. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 00:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fo397uFochoU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172852 |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 >>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate >>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in >>>>>>>>> 2008. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem >>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a >>>>>> case of judicial activism. >>>>> >>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as the >>>>> meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second amendment >>>>> by the Judicial branch >>>> >>>> Heller didn't do that. >>> >>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >>> >>>>> and not the Legislative branch. >>>> >>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second >>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >>> >>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure as >>> hell should not be writing laws. >> >> >> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >> > This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the words > used... sorta my point. Nice evasion. You wrote: "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common law? Or...? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc -- -v p.s. IA still NAL p.p.s. snecking sci.physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 20:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo3kh3FrvfqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172867 |
On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: >>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 >>>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate >>>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in >>>>>>>>>> 2008. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem >>>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a >>>>>>> case of judicial activism. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as the >>>>>> meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second amendment >>>>>> by the Judicial branch >>>>> >>>>> Heller didn't do that. >>>> >>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >>>> >>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. >>>>> >>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second >>>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >>>> >>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure as >>>> hell should not be writing laws. >>> >>> >>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >>> >> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the words >> used... sorta my point. > > Nice evasion. > > You wrote: > > "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." > > Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? > > Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common > law? > > Or...? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc > The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets the law. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 05:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fo3r39Fr1ppU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172895 |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: >>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 >>>>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate >>>>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown >>>>>>>>>>> in 2008. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem >>>>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a >>>>>>>> case of judicial activism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as >>>>>>> the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second >>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch >>>>>> >>>>>> Heller didn't do that. >>>>> >>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >>>>> >>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second >>>>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >>>>> >>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure >>>>> as hell should not be writing laws. >>>> >>>> >>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? >>>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >>>> >>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the >>> words used... sorta my point. >> >> Nice evasion. >> >> You wrote: >> >> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." >> >> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? >> >> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common >> law? >> >> Or...? >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc >> > The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets the > law. So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible to teach you anything about it. "Fair enough." -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 05:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fo3sk8FtabgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172907 |
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: >>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 >>>>>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate >>>>>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown >>>>>>>>>>>> in 2008. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem >>>>>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a >>>>>>>>> case of judicial activism. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as >>>>>>>> the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second >>>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Heller didn't do that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second >>>>>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure >>>>>> as hell should not be writing laws. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >>>>> >>>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the >>>> words used... sorta my point. >>> >>> Nice evasion. >>> >>> You wrote: >>> >>> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." >>> >>> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? >>> >>> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common >>> law? >>> >>> Or...? >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc >>> >> The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets the >> law. > > > So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible to > teach you anything about it. > > "Fair enough." > > Do you think common law excuses the courts for altering the meaning of language?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 23:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.35866a3df3162a0e993d03@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #172907 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <fo3r39Fr1ppU2@mid.individual.net>, vallor@cultnix.org says... > > On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: > > > On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: > >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> > >>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 > >>>>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate > >>>>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown > >>>>>>>>>>> in 2008. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. > >>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem > >>>>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a > >>>>>>>> case of judicial activism. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the > >>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as > >>>>>>> the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second > >>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Heller didn't do that. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second > >>>>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. > >>>>> > >>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure > >>>>> as hell should not be writing laws. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law > >>>> > >>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the > >>> words used... sorta my point. > >> > >> Nice evasion. > >> > >> You wrote: > >> > >> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." > >> > >> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? > >> > >> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common > >> law? > >> > >> Or...? > >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc > >> > > The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets the > > law. > > > So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible to > teach you anything about it. > > "Fair enough." I've come to the conclusion that you can't teach anybody on Usenet a damned thing, because they already know it all. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 07:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fo40s8Fu09gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172910 |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 23:51:11 -0700, Checkmate wrote: > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > Checkmate! In article <fo3r39Fr1ppU2@mid.individual.net>, > vallor@cultnix.org says... > > > >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >> > On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: >> >>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> >>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the >> >>>>>>>>>>>> history in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution to the Senate Judiciary Committee? >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism >> >>>>>>>>>>> shown in 2008. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >> >>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you >> >>>>>>>> seem to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller >> >>>>>>>> was not a case of judicial activism. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >> >>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far >> >>>>>>> as the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second >> >>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Heller didn't do that. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the >> >>>>>> Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, >> >>>>> sure as hell should not be writing laws. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >> >>>> >> >>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the >> >>> words used... sorta my point. >> >> >> >> Nice evasion. >> >> >> >> You wrote: >> >> >> >> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing >> >> laws." >> >> >> >> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? >> >> >> >> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English >> >> common law? >> >> >> >> Or...? >> >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc >> >> >> > The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets >> > the law. >> >> >> So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible >> to teach you anything about it. >> >> "Fair enough." > > I've come to the conclusion that you can't teach anybody on Usenet a > damned thing, because they already know it all. Skeeter taught me that. -- -v tpg and cola snecked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 04:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <smvphdt8275avn7bbodrct13kdno8t7ls9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #172914 |
On 10 Jun 2018 07:04:41 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 23:51:11 -0700, Checkmate wrote: > >> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >> Checkmate! In article <fo3r39Fr1ppU2@mid.individual.net>, >> vallor@cultnix.org says... >> >> >> >>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>> > On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: >>> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> >>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>> >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> history in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution to the Senate Judiciary Committee? >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism >>> >>>>>>>>>>> shown in 2008. >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>> >>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you >>> >>>>>>>> seem to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller >>> >>>>>>>> was not a case of judicial activism. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>> >>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far >>> >>>>>>> as the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second >>> >>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Heller didn't do that. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the >>> >>>>>> Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, >>> >>>>> sure as hell should not be writing laws. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >>> >>>> >>> >>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the >>> >>> words used... sorta my point. >>> >> >>> >> Nice evasion. >>> >> >>> >> You wrote: >>> >> >>> >> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing >>> >> laws." >>> >> >>> >> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? >>> >> >>> >> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English >>> >> common law? >>> >> >>> >> Or...? >>> >> >>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc >>> >> >>> > The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets >>> > the law. >>> >>> >>> So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible >>> to teach you anything about it. >>> >>> "Fair enough." >> >> I've come to the conclusion that you can't teach anybody on Usenet a >> damned thing, because they already know it all. > > >Skeeter taught me that. Obsession noted...stay smart grasshopper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fo4684FhreU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172910 |
Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > Checkmate! In article <fo3r39Fr1ppU2@mid.individual.net>, > vallor@cultnix.org says... > > >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: >>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2008. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>>>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem >>>>>>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a >>>>>>>>>> case of judicial activism. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>>>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as >>>>>>>>> the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second >>>>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Heller didn't do that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second >>>>>>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure >>>>>>> as hell should not be writing laws. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >>>>>> >>>>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the >>>>> words used... sorta my point. >>>> >>>> Nice evasion. >>>> >>>> You wrote: >>>> >>>> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." >>>> >>>> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? >>>> >>>> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common >>>> law? >>>> >>>> Or...? >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc >>>> >>> The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets the >>> law. >> >> >> So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible to >> teach you anything about it. >> >> "Fair enough." > > I've come to the conclusion that you can't teach anybody on Usenet a > damned thing, because they already know it all. > That is far too true. What have you learned?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbghpb.9qe.19.10@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #172910 |
On 2018-06-09 11:51 PM, Checkmate wrote: > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > Checkmate! In article <fo3r39Fr1ppU2@mid.individual.net>, > vallor@cultnix.org says... > > >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: >>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2008. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>>>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem >>>>>>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a >>>>>>>>>> case of judicial activism. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>>>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as >>>>>>>>> the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second >>>>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Heller didn't do that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second >>>>>>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure >>>>>>> as hell should not be writing laws. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >>>>>> >>>>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the >>>>> words used... sorta my point. >>>> >>>> Nice evasion. >>>> >>>> You wrote: >>>> >>>> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." >>>> >>>> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? >>>> >>>> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common >>>> law? >>>> >>>> Or...? >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc >>>> >>> The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets the >>> law. >> >> >> So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible to >> teach you anything about it. >> >> "Fair enough." > > I've come to the conclusion that you can't teach anybody on Usenet a > damned thing, because they already know it all. > and the biggest know it all is pissed because he has no one to teach , no one to show off his super intelligence to but the people realize fast he don't know shit and he lies about it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.35871c6372dd70b8993d1e@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #172991 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <bbghpb.9qe.19.10@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > > On 2018-06-09 11:51 PM, Checkmate wrote: > > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > > Checkmate! In article <fo3r39Fr1ppU2@mid.individual.net>, > > vallor@cultnix.org says... > > > > > >> > >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> > >>> On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: > >>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2008. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. > >>>>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem > >>>>>>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a > >>>>>>>>>> case of judicial activism. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the > >>>>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as > >>>>>>>>> the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second > >>>>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Heller didn't do that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second > >>>>>>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure > >>>>>>> as hell should not be writing laws. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law > >>>>>> > >>>>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the > >>>>> words used... sorta my point. > >>>> > >>>> Nice evasion. > >>>> > >>>> You wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." > >>>> > >>>> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? > >>>> > >>>> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common > >>>> law? > >>>> > >>>> Or...? > >>>> > >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc > >>>> > >>> The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets the > >>> law. > >> > >> > >> So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible to > >> teach you anything about it. > >> > >> "Fair enough." > > > > I've come to the conclusion that you can't teach anybody on Usenet a > > damned thing, because they already know it all. > > > and the biggest know it all is pissed because he has no one to teach , > no one to show off his super intelligence to but the people realize fast > he don't know shit and he lies about it Try to control your jealousy, just because you were born a dummy. It's not your fault. Work on not saying stupid shit so often, and maybe you can fool some of the people. Nearly everyone in this group is smarter than you, but you have to play the cards life dealt you. Compare yourself to Rachael, for instance. She's got more mental issues than you, but she can compose long and mostly coherent sentences, even though they tend to ramble all over the place. What gives away your stupidity, is the lame little immature babble-bits you post, that clearly indicate an inability to articulate anything of substance, along with your rudimentary spelling and grammar skills, and obvious lack of even a high school education. It all comes out when someone (like me) gets you rattled. You're always going to come up short in a battle of wits, because you have none. You're probably better off playing in the support groups with the other mentally crippled individuals. Perhaps some of them could even help you. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbgk1d.ru6.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #173003 |
On 2018-06-10 12:31 PM, Checkmate wrote: > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > Checkmate! In article <bbghpb.9qe.19.10@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com > says... > > >> >> On 2018-06-09 11:51 PM, Checkmate wrote: >>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >>> Checkmate! In article <fo3r39Fr1ppU2@mid.individual.net>, >>> vallor@cultnix.org says... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2008. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>>>>>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem >>>>>>>>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a >>>>>>>>>>>> case of judicial activism. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>>>>>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as >>>>>>>>>>> the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second >>>>>>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Heller didn't do that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second >>>>>>>>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure >>>>>>>>> as hell should not be writing laws. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the >>>>>>> words used... sorta my point. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice evasion. >>>>>> >>>>>> You wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? >>>>>> >>>>>> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common >>>>>> law? >>>>>> >>>>>> Or...? >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc >>>>>> >>>>> The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets the >>>>> law. >>>> >>>> >>>> So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible to >>>> teach you anything about it. >>>> >>>> "Fair enough." >>> >>> I've come to the conclusion that you can't teach anybody on Usenet a >>> damned thing, because they already know it all. >>> >> and the biggest know it all is pissed because he has no one to teach , >> no one to show off his super intelligence to but the people realize fast >> he don't know shit and he lies about it > > Try to control your jealousy, just because you were born a dummy. It's > not your fault. Work on not saying stupid shit so often, and maybe you > can fool some of the people. Nearly everyone in this group is smarter > than you, but you have to play the cards life dealt you. Compare > yourself to Rachael, for instance. She's got more mental issues than > you, but she can compose long and mostly coherent sentences, even though > they tend to ramble all over the place. What gives away your stupidity, > is the lame little immature babble-bits you post, that clearly indicate > an inability to articulate anything of substance, along with your > rudimentary spelling and grammar skills, and obvious lack of even a high > school education. It all comes out when someone (like me) gets you > rattled. You're always going to come up short in a battle of wits, > because you have none. You're probably better off playing in the support > groups with the other mentally crippled individuals. Perhaps some of > them could even help you. > holy shit look at him go , if anyone reads this . gimme a break down of what it said , so i can pick out the lies
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.358744b7c9a9c9f6993d26@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #173006 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <bbgk1d.ru6.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > > On 2018-06-10 12:31 PM, Checkmate wrote: > > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > > Checkmate! In article <bbghpb.9qe.19.10@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com > > says... > > > > > >> > >> On 2018-06-09 11:51 PM, Checkmate wrote: > >>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > >>> Checkmate! In article <fo3r39Fr1ppU2@mid.individual.net>, > >>> vallor@cultnix.org says... > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: > >>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2008. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. > >>>>>>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem > >>>>>>>>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a > >>>>>>>>>>>> case of judicial activism. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the > >>>>>>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as > >>>>>>>>>>> the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second > >>>>>>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Heller didn't do that. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second > >>>>>>>>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure > >>>>>>>>> as hell should not be writing laws. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the > >>>>>>> words used... sorta my point. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nice evasion. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common > >>>>>> law? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Or...? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc > >>>>>> > >>>>> The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets the > >>>>> law. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible to > >>>> teach you anything about it. > >>>> > >>>> "Fair enough." > >>> > >>> I've come to the conclusion that you can't teach anybody on Usenet a > >>> damned thing, because they already know it all. > >>> > >> and the biggest know it all is pissed because he has no one to teach , > >> no one to show off his super intelligence to but the people realize fast > >> he don't know shit and he lies about it > > > > Try to control your jealousy, just because you were born a dummy. It's > > not your fault. Work on not saying stupid shit so often, and maybe you > > can fool some of the people. Nearly everyone in this group is smarter > > than you, but you have to play the cards life dealt you. Compare > > yourself to Rachael, for instance. She's got more mental issues than > > you, but she can compose long and mostly coherent sentences, even though > > they tend to ramble all over the place. What gives away your stupidity, > > is the lame little immature babble-bits you post, that clearly indicate > > an inability to articulate anything of substance, along with your > > rudimentary spelling and grammar skills, and obvious lack of even a high > > school education. It all comes out when someone (like me) gets you > > rattled. You're always going to come up short in a battle of wits, > > because you have none. You're probably better off playing in the support > > groups with the other mentally crippled individuals. Perhaps some of > > them could even help you. > > > holy shit look at him go , > if anyone reads this . > gimme a break down of what it said , > so i can pick out the lies I knew it would be way over your head. Thanks for proving my point. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 15:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbgug4.nq4.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #173022 |
On 2018-06-10 3:23 PM, Checkmate wrote: > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > Checkmate! In article <bbgk1d.ru6.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com > says... > > >> >> On 2018-06-10 12:31 PM, Checkmate wrote: >>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >>> Checkmate! In article <bbghpb.9qe.19.10@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com >>> says... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 2018-06-09 11:51 PM, Checkmate wrote: >>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >>>>> Checkmate! In article <fo3r39Fr1ppU2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>> vallor@cultnix.org says... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 20:33:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/9/18 5:21 PM, vallor wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:57:14 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 4:47 PM, vallor wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:42:04 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judiciary Committee? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2008. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> case of judicial activism. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as >>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second >>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment by the Judicial branch >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Heller didn't do that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not the Legislative branch. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second >>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure >>>>>>>>>>> as hell should not be writing laws. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You're a regular Perry Mason, aren't ya? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This was not based on past precedence nor even the meaning of the >>>>>>>>> words used... sorta my point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nice evasion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you wish to review and modify your statements for the record? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or...will you be moving to a country that isn't based on English common >>>>>>>> law? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or...? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4wkkkaFTc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The legislative branch writes laws. The judicial branch interprets the >>>>>>> law. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So you still don't understand English Common Law, and it is impossible to >>>>>> teach you anything about it. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Fair enough." >>>>> >>>>> I've come to the conclusion that you can't teach anybody on Usenet a >>>>> damned thing, because they already know it all. >>>>> >>>> and the biggest know it all is pissed because he has no one to teach , >>>> no one to show off his super intelligence to but the people realize fast >>>> he don't know shit and he lies about it >>> >>> Try to control your jealousy, just because you were born a dummy. It's >>> not your fault. Work on not saying stupid shit so often, and maybe you >>> can fool some of the people. Nearly everyone in this group is smarter >>> than you, but you have to play the cards life dealt you. Compare >>> yourself to Rachael, for instance. She's got more mental issues than >>> you, but she can compose long and mostly coherent sentences, even though >>> they tend to ramble all over the place. What gives away your stupidity, >>> is the lame little immature babble-bits you post, that clearly indicate >>> an inability to articulate anything of substance, along with your >>> rudimentary spelling and grammar skills, and obvious lack of even a high >>> school education. It all comes out when someone (like me) gets you >>> rattled. You're always going to come up short in a battle of wits, >>> because you have none. You're probably better off playing in the support >>> groups with the other mentally crippled individuals. Perhaps some of >>> them could even help you. >>> >> holy shit look at him go , >> if anyone reads this . >> gimme a break down of what it said , >> so i can pick out the lies > > I knew it would be way over your head. Thanks for proving my point. > i never read it i don't know if it went over anything so that's a lie
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 01:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <LA4TC.308717$yc1.305356@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #172895 |
On 6/9/2018 9:33 PM, Snit wrote: > > The legislative branch writes laws. > The judicial branch interprets the law. The judicial branch decides cases by applying the law to the facts. Outside the resolution of cases, it does not interpret the law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fo4683FhreU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172917 |
Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: > On 6/9/2018 9:33 PM, Snit wrote: >> >> The legislative branch writes laws. >> The judicial branch interprets the law. > > The judicial branch decides cases by applying the > law to the facts. Outside the resolution of cases, > it does not interpret the law. > > Where else would it outside of cases?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 15:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <L_gTC.420306$PE5.298414@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #172928 |
On 6/10/2018 2:36 AM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 6/9/2018 9:33 PM, Snit wrote: >>> >>> The legislative branch writes laws. >>> The judicial branch interprets the law. >> >> The judicial branch decides cases by applying the >> law to the facts. Outside the resolution of cases, >> it does not interpret the law. > > Where else would it outside of cases? Some folk think the courts have something like an oversight function over other branches of government, with the abstract power to declare a law or an action unconstitutional. Consider yourself fortunate if you are not among them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 15:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo5mslF9tcaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #173019 |
On 6/10/18 2:46 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/10/2018 2:36 AM, Snit wrote: >> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>> On 6/9/2018 9:33 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>> The legislative branch writes laws. >>>> The judicial branch interprets the law. >>> >>> The judicial branch decides cases by applying the >>> law to the facts. Outside the resolution of cases, >>> it does not interpret the law. >> >> Where else would it outside of cases? > > Some folk think the courts have something like an oversight > function over other branches of government, with the abstract > power to declare a law or an action unconstitutional. Consider > yourself fortunate if you are not among them. I am not. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 18:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.358625cba17a997a993cf9@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #172829 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <MrZSC.215273$6C5.102528@fx07.iad>, JW@me.com says... > > On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: > > On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: > >>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: > >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history > >>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report > >>>>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary > >>>>>> Committee? > >>>>> > >>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in 2008. > >>>> > >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk > >>> > >>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. > >> > >> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. > >> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean > >> what you seem to think it means. Justice Scalia's > >> opinion in Heller was not a case of judicial activism. > > > > Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the > > controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as the > > meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second amendment by > > the Judicial branch > > Heller didn't do that. > > > and not the Legislative branch. > > The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second > Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. David Hogg thought it did. He's a brilliant student, according to the liberal media. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 20:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo3ll4Fs49hU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172880 |
On 6/9/18 6:59 PM, Checkmate wrote: >>> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >>> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as the >>> meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second amendment by >>> the Judicial branch >> Heller didn't do that. >> >>> and not the Legislative branch. >> The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second >> Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. > David Hogg thought it did. He's a brilliant student, according to the > liberal media. I love how much Hogg scares the NRA and so many of their supporters. In the end, though, the NRA has deep pockets and a lot of power and influence. Hogg and other citizens have an uphill battle to have the will of the people prevail. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web