[justshutupandtakeit]

On another thread you were claiming that that ruling showed that the BoR applied to the states when it is just the opposite. If I misread your contention please rectify my misunderstanding. I don't refuse to be corrected when shown to be incorrect wrt something another has said, unlike you.

[tpaine]

This is the case you referenced earlier, tpaine, though somehow you managed not to understand a word of it.
515 justshutupandtakeit

You're getting delusionary. Prove that I somehow 'misunderstood' B v B.
559

On another thread you were claiming that that ruling showed that the BoR applied to the states when it is just the opposite.

How confused can you get? The Barron ruling does not 'show' that the BOR's applied to the states, any more than the Dred Scott 'ruling' established anything.. B v B is an erronious opinion by an old man trying to avert civil war.. You clowns misunderstand it, not me. Why are you so obsessed? --- I have no idea, as it was made a moot point by the 14th

But If I misread your contention please rectify my misunderstanding.

Done. Although your ongoing efforts to digress from your support of the AW bill is noted..