Ummm. the “wait and see” is to prove who is making the “right” assessment of the situation...
***Review our posts. You’ll see that I made no predictions as to any outcome. That’s what you have been doing. If the SCOTUS takes a pass on the eligibility issue, it won’t be for lack of us trying and it will be for a lack of courage on their part. Even Congressman Billybob wrote something to that effect.
The posting is to make the assessments...
***That’s an argument from silence, the silence of the future. That’s fine that it’s what you THINK is going to happen, but you shouldn’t be putting yourself in the dishonorable position of discouraging conservative constitutionalists who think otherwise and are doing something about it.
I would have thought that was obvious...., apparently not...
***I would have thought arguing from silence and the host of other fallacies you’ve proceeded from would make it obvious that you need to take a critical thinking class.
—
[ I’m actually “supremely” confident that my assessments will be the ones that actually happen... excuse the pun there... :-) ... ]
***Of course you are. That’s why you argue from them the way you do. But you don’t know the future and that makes your arguments invalid, regardless of whether or not what you say comes true.
“EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.”
Hey,Kev,,,
Maybe the Sheeple don’t know the Truth!
Baaad Dream!!!
Well, if you think it’s for lack of courage that the Supreme Court doesn’t act the way you think it should, then you’re missing the bigger picture about how they’re not going to create a law where none exists in the first place, in terms of how one is to specifically vet a candidate (and not merely what the Constitutional qualifications are). That’s at the core of the whole issue. And that’s also a conservative principle in that a conservative doesn’t want the Supreme Court to create some kind of legislative action, by means of a court decision, where that legislation didn’t exist in the first place.
And I can’t discourage anyone from doing what they’re going to do in the first place. You seem to think that by some method or means that I can do that, which is making up situations which don’t exist. Now, if my rational for posting these things makes someone think and realize that what I’m saying is true — then that’s their own decision and thinking at coming to this point. It’s really up to everyone individually, anyway. I’m posting what I think, and what I say is going to happen and, as I’ve said, we’ll see (if it turns out to be true, which I think it will...).
For someone who is in need of a critical thinking class, it would seem that you’ve gone overboard to try and discount these things I’ve said — when it *should be* (according to you) that it’s so obvious that I’m wrong in my thinking. Your protests indicate something different than what you’re saying...
And for sure, I don’t *know* the future, but I can sure make assessments according to how things normally work in the real world. That’s where it seems to “go wrong” with some posters here — in that they think that their *fervent desires* should dictate the “reality” of the situation. On the other hand, I know what I would like — but sometimes reality decides against me. And that’s the way it is here, with Obama and this “qualifications issue”.
But, one thing that I *do know* can very easily happen, politically, is that there can be legislation put through various states to properly vet the candidate. Now, in making an “assessment” of how well what I’m saying will work compared to how well what you’re saying will work — I’ll put my bet and assessment on my methodology. And I’ll stand by it for the future, if someone wants to check on it....