Gun permit allows quick access to Texas Capitol

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.

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

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.

So.. you didn't answer my question at all.

You claimed that conservative judges are only activist to erase what earlier judges did.

Who initiated the suit has nothing to do with the judges being activist.

Tell me the last time the USSC ruled that it's judgment can ONLY be applied to that particular case?

I 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.

To which David took a page from okie and ican

and wrote:

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!

U r asking qua a case in which the USSC held that stare decisis does not apply, right ?

U r asking qua a case in which the USSC held that stare decisis does not apply, right ?

So do you admit Conservative judges can be activist without overturning rulings?

No matter what you argue here David it will point to your statement about conservative judges being false.
Mendacity would be you making false statements.

As I have said b4, if thay don 't play it straight,
as the Founders set forth, then thay r deviating, which makes them liberal,
the same way that if an honest man lies,
then he is no longer an honest man; he becomes a liberal.

As I have said b4, if thay don 't play it straight,
as the Founders set forth, then thay r deviating, which makes them liberal,
the same way that if an honest man lies,
then he is no longer an honest man; he becomes a liberal.

I see. So your dishonesty is you just redefine words in the middle of your argument.

David couldn't be honest if he wore two watches and you asked him the time of day.

I just returned from seeing the French comedy Mic Macs. Very well done and very funny.

The movie begins almost as a homage to earlier movies from Humphrey Bogart pics to war movies to Charlie Chaplin comedies to Louis Malle's beautiful Au Revoir, Les Enfants. We see soldiers in the desert, searching for land mines. One is blown up. The next scene is his funeral service. Then the movie jumps 30 years to show the dead man's 40 year old son working in a video store. The adult son is accidentally shot in a bizarre accident.

The son then becomes part of a family of people who might be classed as idiot savants who create Rube Goldbergs while living together beneath a junk yard. What follows next is fast paced, inventive and entertaining. Amid the comic efforts to revenge two armament producers -- one for the death of the father and the other for the wounding of the son -- the movie presents a serious examination of the troubles, local and international, that arms create.

You redefined "liberal" to mean every human being on the planet.
And you want me to show how your argument is false?

I think everyone can figure it out for themselves David. Maybe you can too.

Now about actual conservative judges on the court ruling in Bush v Gore. They were hardly playing it straight when they ruled that the only time ballots had to be counted the same was in the Florida recount and their ruling couldn't be applied to any other vote counting. They were clearly being activist David. They clearly are conservative. Your attempt to redefine them as liberal is nothing but deception on your part.

OmSigDAVID 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.

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!

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