I'm noticing that you're finding it increasingly difficult to argue your points; in fact, you haven't made one in quite a while
What part of, -- 'I don't CARE what you 'notice', -- is hard for you to understand? -- I've heard your type of bull from many more talented slingers than you, ad nauseum.
---- Butt out. -- And shove your *bork* where the sun don't shine, on the way.
"I've heard your type of bull from many more talented slingers than you, ad nauseum.
---- Butt out. -- And shove your *bork* where the sun don't shine, on the way.
I'm not surprised that you'd like me to "butt out." I've shown you that my points, which you have referred to as "irrational," are in line with a constitutional scholar and conservative jurist nonpareil who is the scourge of the left, and your reply is to euphemize whatever it is you'd like me to "shove where the sun don't shine" with the man's name.
Your replies are more pointless than your opinions (which would be better informed were you to read Bork's words, provided above by yours truly for your edification and enlightenment).
Help me help you, tpaine. You need it desperately.
"I advocate the stablity of our constitutional principles" and
"Original constitutional principles suit us just fine."
Robert Bork is one of the pre-eminent Constitutional scholars of our time. He is a conservative jurist and a strict constructionist regarding the law and the Constitution. Surely, anyone advocating "the stability of our constitutional principles" will be interested in Bork's opinion...unless, of course, the person is utterly ignorant of what he thinks he's advocating (and it should be apparent to anyone reading your replies that your ignorance of Constitutional principles is worthy of a public-school dropout).