Gun permit allows quick access to Texas Capitol

@revelette,

David wrote:

My point is that altho it is possible to amend the Constitution legitimately,
it can also de facto be amended by judicial cheating;
toward that end, deception is employed
by judges who wish to deviate, substituting their desires for the Constitutional law established by the Founders.
That is what liberal judges DO; if thay don 't deviate, then thay r not liberal.

revelette wrote:

As opposed to conservative judicial activism I suppose?

Judges are people and as much as they might like to claim the high road, in the end most of them always vote with their ideological views, both conservative and liberal.

Liberals got lucky at the last few elections (the mid term and then the presidential); I guess people didn't like the direction of the Bush administration. But they have quickly forgotten it and have swallowed all the bull crap from the conservatives since Obama has been in office. Its sickening really, but there it is. Luckily McCain didn't get in office so we could a few liberals in court. We just need one more, but I don't think anymore will be retiring. So you all will have all the pro guns laws passed that you want and other conservative ideological agendas.

To be CONSERVATIVE simply means ORTHODOX, it means not deviating
from the real thing, like an accurate accountant.

If a conservative judge is "active" that simply means
that he erases the errors of deviant earlier judges
and puts it back the right way that it was always supposed to have been in the first place.

That is the right thing to DO.
There is no reason to complain about that.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Really? But then you attack POM without any evidence of her doing anything the wrong way.

What is the wrong way you pointed out? What facts do you have to support your mendacity?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

More mendacity from you David. You are just full of it, it seems.

What earlier judges were conservative judges erasing in Bush v Gore?
Do you really think that states should not be able to decide the rules to their elections?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

My point is that altho it is possible to amend the Constitution legitimately,
it can also de facto be amended by judicial cheating; toward that end, deception is employed
by judges who wish to deviate, substituting their desires for the Constitutional law established by the Founders.

For someone who claims to honor the Constitution and who represents himself as an attorney, you have a strange view of the judiciary.

You use words to describe government and the Constitution that should be reserved for discussions of religion and morals!

Your views of liberals are inaccurate. What is worse, they are demeaning! Since you so often do not understand common references used by people here on this forum, I wonder how it is you have the nerve to say what you do! Most of us are kind toward you when you ask for definitions, although, I often think the requests are disingenuous.

Frankly, most of what the SC does is determine whether state and municipal law is consistent with the Constitution.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Vermont is
1.) a rather liberal state which, to me, means it would be a safer, friendlier and more peaceful state;

2.) very small with marked distances between people, which means that there is less friction there.

BTW, your use of Vermont as an example undermines your argument.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

More mendacity from you David. You are just full of it, it seems.

Those r 2 false statements, both of which I deny n reject.

parados wrote:

What earlier judges were conservative judges erasing in Bush v Gore?

There was no reason to erase that decision, so far as I 'm aware. If u have a specific objection to it,
tell us what it IS. Remember, by the way, that it was GORE, who invoked the judiciary by his suit v. Bush.
If Gore did not want the courts to decide anything, then he shoud not have sued; right or rong ??

parados wrote:

Do you really think that states should not be able to decide the rules to their elections?

That depends on what thay do; e.g. suppose a State held that only Republicans can vote,
or no blacks can vote: woud u agree with allowing that ??

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

You quoted my existential need line . . . one that I adapted from friends who used it all the time . . . but then, you referred back to your title, which I quoted to pull your leg and to demonstrate the lack of logic behind your statement.

Your headline suggests that Texans so love guns that people with permits to carry are given preferential treatment! What you wanted to say is that people with permits will be allowed to carry guns into the Texas capitol, where, one assumes, they will promptly shoot legislators who displease them.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

But, your points as to a right way and wrong way are illogical!

2 Replies

@revelette,

Quote:

Judges are people and as much as they might like to claim the high road, in the end most of them always vote with their ideological views, both conservative and liberal.

True

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Vermont is
1.) a rather liberal state which, to me, means it would be a safer, friendlier and more peaceful state;

2.) very small with marked distances between people, which means that there is less friction there.

Is that your way of saying that it has fewer blacks ?

plainoldme wrote:

BTW, your use of Vermont as an example undermines your argument.

HOW ??

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

That depends on what thay do; e.g. suppose a State held that only Republicans can vote,
or no blacks can vote: woud u agree with allowing that ??

Something tells me Parados is not a states' rights advocate.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

Judges are people and as much as they might like to claim the high road,
in the end most of them always vote with their ideological views, both conservative and liberal.

Being conservative means that u play it straight. Being liberal means that u deviate from playing it straight.
Playing it straight is OK; deviating from the agreed rules is not OK. Hence, the first ideology is OK
and the cheating one is not.

plainoldme wrote:

True

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

But, your points as to a right way and wrong way are illogical!

HOW are thay illogical ?
Inquiring minds want to know.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I wrote:

Quote:

Vermont is
1.) a rather liberal state which, to me, means it would be a safer, friendlier and more peaceful state;

2.) very small with marked distances between people, which means that there is less friction there.

To which David took a page from okie and ican and wrote:

Quote:

Is that your way of saying that it has fewer blacks ?

He has raised my ire. If he says he is being funny, I seriously think he will need to be institutionalized.

To insult me, to insult black people, to insult liberals with this sort of stupidity is beyond the bounds of polite behavior.

I have never believed that david is an attorney. I do believe that he is someone who might have had "an unlived life." However, that is no excuse for the above level of remark.

Do I want to see a gun in the hand of someone who says things like this? No. The trouble is that david is the sort of person who supports the willy nilly distribution of fire arms!

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Being liberal means you devote your life to fixing the mess made by conservatives, like the economy, ruined two years ago in the same way it was ruined in 1929 by the lack of government regulations.

Here, he set up his garbage weltanschauung in such a way as to make it look like I agreed with him when I agreed with revelette.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

What earlier judges were conservative judges erasing in Bush v Gore?
Do you really think that states should not be able to decide the rules to their elections?

The Florida Supreme Court kept changing the recount rules as Gore continued to come up a little short in the count. (If Gore had ever managed to pull ahead in the count, I have no doubt that the Florida Supreme Court would have decided that no further changes were needed.) All the US Supreme Court did was prevent the Florida Supreme Court from stealing the election.

Besides, it was a bit unlikely that the Florida Supreme Court's last gambit (the statewide handcount) could have been completed by the December 12 deadline where Bush would win by default. If they had managed to finagle a Gore win after the December 12 deadline, all they would have achieved is making Bush appear illegitimate during his time in the White House.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

You quoted my existential need line . . . one that I adapted from friends who used it all the time . . . but then,
you referred back to your title, which I quoted to pull your leg and to demonstrate the lack of logic behind your statement.

U lost me completely; I can 't follow that timeline.

plainoldme wrote:

Your headline [??]

What headline??

plainoldme wrote:

suggests that Texans so love guns that people with permits to carry are given preferential treatment!
What you wanted to say is that people with permits will be allowed to carry guns into the Texas capitol,
where, one assumes, they will promptly shoot legislators who displease them.

That 's a hell of an ASSUMPTION, u have there Prof. PLain.
Are u sure that the Texan legislators assume that ????

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I began a thread in which I asked about sock puppets because I have wondered whether okie and david were the same person.

When I consider how long david has been writing in this way, my first reaction is to say one can not sustain such an extreme personality over such a long period of time, but, then I think of how Billy Bob Thornton played Karl Childers, the 'protagonist' in Slingblade, for several years. Thornton said something about how his character got under his skin. Perhaps, it is possible to sustain a persona for one's amusement for as long as Thornton sustained the character Childers.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

With post 4298534 as my prime piece of evidence, I rest my case.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
More mendacity from you David. You are just full of it, it seems.

What earlier judges were conservative judges erasing in Bush v Gore?
Do you really think that states should not be able to decide the rules to their elections?

The Florida Supreme Court kept changing the recount rules as Gore continued to come up a little short in the count. (If Gore had ever managed to pull ahead in the count, I have no doubt that the Florida Supreme Court would have decided that no further changes were needed.) All the US Supreme Court did was prevent the Florida Supreme Court from stealing the election.

Besides, it was a bit unlikely that the Florida Supreme Court's last gambit (the statewide handcount) could have been completed by the December 12 deadline where Bush would win by default. If they had managed to finagle a Gore win after the December 12 deadline, all they would have achieved is making Bush appear illegitimate during his time in the White House.

I don 't see where there was any problem:
Bush won EVERY RE-re-re-re-count,
including the one done by left-leaning newspapers, in the end.

If the USSC did anything rong, I 'd like to know what it was.

David

1 Reply

Gun permit allows quick access to Texas Capitol

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know