Because you say so, right? (I think it provided important context.) And that's the problem--you can't see anything outside your own head. A court disagrees with you? It couldn't possibly be that they know as much as or more than you do about the issue and came to a reasoned, honest conclusion. No, they must have been compromised or doing someone else's bidding or had a political axe to grind. Somebody else truncates a quote? They're a font+5 liar. You truncate a quote? "It was irrelevant." It all comes down to "reality is what I say it is." Sorry if I'm a pr*ck for pointing that out.
No it didn't. It was just elaboration on what Madison had already said. It was just added detail, and of no great significance.
And that's the problem--you can't see anything outside your own head.
No one thinks with another's mind. They think with their own. And this is a surprise to you?
It couldn't possibly be that they know as much as or more than you do about the issue and came to a reasoned, honest conclusion.
Having some understanding of how courts operate, and having the knowledge that they have not addressed the evidence on my side of the issue, it is a safe bet that the courts are in error. That a precedent driven court system flies into the ground is not surprising to me.
Again, Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Wickard v Fillburn, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood v Casey, and so forth tells us the court system is deeply screwed up. Why you seem to think they are infallible is beyond my understanding.
No, they must have been compromised or doing someone else's bidding or had a political axe to grind.
The Evidence indicates this is a plausible explanation.
Somebody else truncates a quote? They're a font+5 liar. You truncate a quote? "It was irrelevant." It all comes down to "reality is what I say it is."
And here you go acting like a prick again. The part Jeff Winston truncated is the part which absolutely contradicts his argument. It was the essential part of the quote. The part that brings clear understanding of the man's position.
The part I didn't bother to quote (but posted the link for) is merely further detail on what Madison had already said. It did not change the meaning of his statement, and it did not create a false understanding of his position.
And then here you come along with your transparent attempt to retaliate against me because I hammered Jeff for what he did. Your effort had nothing to do with any real point, you just wanted an excuse to pretend I had done the same thing. It was an effort by you to create a "tit for tat", because your buddy was caught red-handed twisting Bingham's words and you wanted revenge.
Sorry if I'm a pr*ck for pointing that out.
No you're not, you're sorry that you couldn't make the accusation stick. As far as i'm concerned, the "prick" appellation is an accurate response for such an attempted deceit.