Fiorina Did Refer to SCOTUS Decision As “Law of the Land”

If you think that analogy is applicable to anything I’m saying, obviously you’re not getting a very clear picture of what I actually think.

Maybe I’m a failure at communicating. Maybe you’re just hearing what you want to hear. I don’t know.

I prefer to set up the lawsuit I am more likely to win.

I don't have any problem with that. There is always room for prudential judgement, tactically.

As long as that approach isn't used as an excuse for cowardice or a craven unwillingness to sacrifice something to do what's right.

Which isn't uncommon.

Maybe I’m a failure at communicating.

No, it's how you are communicating that makes for unnecessary strife. When you use absolutes and unqualified statements lacking alternatives, the reader is forced to take you literally. Thus:

I believe you fight on EVERY front you can.
Yeah. They can also EITHER ignore their immoral, unconstitutional opinions, and/or impeach the usurpers.
True. But the threshold for simply ignoring their immoral, unconstitutional opinions as the legal nullities that they in fact are, is AS LOW AS IT CAN GO.
It doesn’t usually cost ANY money to simply do your duty and keep your oath.
I believe you fight on EVERY front you can.
Maybe they’ll listen FOR ONCE. Yes, you do have a communication problem:

EVERY (twice), EITHER (with no other possibilities), as low as it CAN go (as if there was no possibility of a defensible hazard or way it could be easier), FOR ONCE (as if FRC had never listened before)... Each of these statements is exclusive, placing its object in a position or condition that is logically unlikely. Each invites argument by exception which you apparently find frustrating. Yet by closing the box, you exclude solutions outside the box, and are thus forced to struggle out of an unnecessarily difficult position. Struggles don't go over well.

I don't recommend that style of discourse. It carries the risk of making enemies where you could have enlisted allies.

Actually, my “either” was simply an addition, an expansion, to the very narrow range of options you offered for dealing with the problem - a grand total of one option.

And you didn’t like that.

You’re just nit-picking and fault-finding.

Talk about unnecessary strife.

You’re just nit-picking and fault-finding.

Considering that I merely responded to your query in order to be helpful as it seemed you wanted the feedback, isn't that the character of what you just wrote? I'm trying to tell you that when you leave no room for acceptance of alternatives, it is natural for people to take exception or simply not want to deal with you. If you don't care, that's fine, but when you list what you state to be the only alternatives when others exist, you just may get that response.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.