Senator Ted Cruz Smokes Out Dianne Feinstein: You Didn't Answer My Question! Wow!

page: 12
51
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Only lawyers could muddy the waters of the English language so much.


No wonder they are hated alongside with Politicians.

Wait, aren't most politicians lawyers??




posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Only lawyers could muddy the waters of the English language so much.


No wonder they are hated alongside with Politicians.

Wait, aren't most politicians lawyers??


yeah, for some reason they figured law makers should be educated in the law, how dumb is that?
I don't think people hate lawyers for muddying the English language, either are politicians.

They are hated because they cause people pain, and cost them a ton of money.
They take away our freedoms by winning retarded lawsuits.
They make insurance, and products more expensive by winning retarded lawsuits.
They make a society full of litigious scum and create a culture where taking personal responsibility is foolish
rather than being something to admire.
They free criminals and imprison the innocent.
. . .etc

But muddying up the English language has to be one of the worst lamest examples I have ever heard.
Res ipsa loquitur


edit on 19-3-2013 by Res Ipsa because: d



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Only lawyers could muddy the waters of the English language so much.


No wonder they are hated alongside with Politicians.

Wait, aren't most politicians lawyers??


The truth is simple.

Progressives usually try to explain something to you in a way that you can't even

understand it.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by coltcall
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


There's no cherry picking when trying to explain reality to socialists and members of the American Communist Party.

Doesn't matter what kind of logic is presented, if it isn't socialism or communism, you don't want to hear it.

Success in America is not a 'gimme'. Never has been. Never will be.

You can't have our Second Amendment. Period.


Can I take this obfuscation as your "Steve Holts!" moment of defeat? Did make me laugh though.

You just forgot the "God Bless America" and then drop the mic like its hot as you walk off the stage.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TauCetixeta

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by solomons path
 


You are moving the goal posts..............I didn't hear her say she is going to try to ban guns. She wants to ban assault rifles.........Stick to that and not that tired mantra, "the government is trying to take our guns" crap.

You haven't made one convincing argument to the contrary.

The government wants to "regulate" what you can have and can't have.........not eliminate your right to bare arms........
Does it get any simpler than that? No waffling.....



You see, the problem is that we all keeping hearing the wise words from Thomas Jefferson.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Liberty sounds pretty good to me. Sign me up for that.


come on man!............When the government fears the people there is liberty?! Hiding, running for my life, living in a refugee camp, leaving my home, that isn't liberty to me!...Ask the good people from Libya, Egypt, and Syria how that pithy Jefferson quote goes over.

There is nothing wrong with admiring our founding fathers but they weren't all knowing prophets and mystical shaman of unerring wisdoms.......Your doing the mic drop now too aren't you?



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


I have made my decision.

Thomas Jefferson or BUST !

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Sounds great to me Thomas Jefferson. Where do i sign on for that?



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Spoken like a Trial Lawyer. No greater way to justify ones existence, then what you stated.

There really is no use, as you are knee deep in the BS that you are peddling.
Sure sure then, sure sure.

You truly remind me of those in the tech world, that create such hugely complex systems, only to justify to the company keeping them around, because after all, no one else could possibly understand such a complex system.

edit on 19-3-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Her quote was not in reference to just the mythical "assault weapon". She succeeded in that endeavor . . . hence, the statement about "getting the all". "Turn them all in" . . . not just "assault weapons". That clip was from 2003 after the first AWB expired and she immediately started on the new "campaign". I wish I still had the CSPAN clip (13 mins) from 2003 where she specifically says "her only regret about the current weapons ban it that it didn't go far enough to include ALL semi-automatic weapons".

I haven't moved any goal posts . . . I've been very consistant. It's obvious, by this point, you either are in agreement with the agenda or you are intentionally being obtuse. You continually ignore direct points that refute your assertions that a prohibitive action of any type falls in line with the BoRs.

I find it very ironic that your sig line is supporting Paul and you claim to be interested in individual liberty . . . nothing about your responses back those claims up.

Enjoy your dream . . .
edit on 3/19/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/19/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



I am only interested in if she said she wanted to BAN ALL GUNS.....handguns, shotguns, bolt rifles, hunting stuff....I have said that, I don't know how many times now. You are stuck on a class or two of weapons.

Yes, the government can and will regulate weapons.....NO it does not violate the BoR.......It only violates it if the Court says it does........no matter how loud you yell or click your heels together.

No, what you think is ironic is based on what you perceive is my personal position on the topic and it doesn't help that your perception and comprehension skills need practice. Do you think my Ron Paul signature is there because I think it looks neat?
edit on 19-3-2013 by Res Ipsa because: d



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
I love how she dodges the question and goes for an emotional retort rather than address the real issue asked.

Emotions don't override the rule of law, the comparison of banned books and the first amendment to guns is spot on, you can't pick and chose what gets protected by the constitution randomly.


Don't think for one second her response was somehow planned.

She's a woman. It was automatic.

It reminds me of the quote by Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets"



Women counter reason/logic/accountability with... emotion.

When I hear her speak, I literally can hear the chain in the toilet reservoir tensing up, as the flaccid hand of Feminism flushes what was once a great country in America, down into a squalid cesspool of moral relativism.

I actually love this video, as it perfectly captures that dynamic.
Ted Cruz lays it on the line plain and simple, and he gets some emotional rant thrown at him that completely avoids addressing his very simple question.

Pathetic.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Only lawyers could muddy the waters of the English language so much.



muddying up the English language has to be one of the worst lamest examples I have ever heard.
Res ipsa loquitur


edit on 19-3-2013 by Res Ipsa because: d



Actually, he's right.

The English language that Lie-yers use is not the same English language that the rest of us use.

The words are the same, but have entirely different meanings within their "framework".

I would say "muddying" is an appropriate term to use.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Only lawyers could muddy the waters of the English language so much.



muddying up the English language has to be one of the worst lamest examples I have ever heard.
Res ipsa loquitur


edit on 19-3-2013 by Res Ipsa because: d



Actually, he's right.

The English language that Lie-yers use is not the same English language that the rest of us use.

The words are the same, but have entirely different meanings within their "framework".

I would say "muddying" is an appropriate term to use.



He would be right if he meant to say that the legal system has been made too hard for everyday people to access by the archaic language and rules, and by doing that it violates peoples rights to have their grievances addressed......but if you read his postings I'm not dealing with the 2nd coming of Einstein. He just meant it as an insult because I couldn't give him a simple yes or no answer.

Yes, everyday common words have a more specific meaning when used in law. "Good Faith" for example, it has legal meaning.

Can't wait for Jerry's kid to show up and rewrite history.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Imagine a world where the members of the U.S. Congress actually vote on laws/bills that

they actually read?

Right now they admit : No i didn't read that bill because it is written in statutory language!

We also have Nancy Pelosi telling the American people:

"Lets just pass the law so we can find out what's inside it!"

What ?!!!



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Except that the person you have in your signature line does not support crap that Difi is pushing through. You do.

www.ontheissues.org...


Really, it is embarrassing to think that you would suggest that you are for someone like Ron Paul, when it is clear that you are not.


As for an insult. it is an insult only if you take offense to it. I think that a nerve was struck for you to state that.

Nothing like self identifying with a statement to make one mad, or insulted.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TauCetixeta

Originally posted by coltcall
There's a video of Feinstein admitting she wants to outlaw ALL guns. I'm sure that video has been posted her



It just hit the Drudge Report! Senator Feinstein got the bad news from Harry Reid.

It's over. She lost. The Assault Weapon ban has been pulled!


Score a clear victory for Senator Ted Cruz!



Thank you for the good news. I was running around doing some business and hadn't heard. A hard pill for socialists to swallow. But an inevitable pill....a pill the size of reality.

We've given the socialists their increased welfare and food stamps. Enough is enough. A line drawn in the sand when it comes to the Constitution.

Yes, here's the story: Again, thanks for the heads up. I've got phone calls to make.

GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL MAN AND WOMAN:

Assault weapons ban dropped from Senate bill
By Kasie Hunt, Political Reporter, NBC News

A ban on assault weapons won't be included in major gun legislation set to take shape this week -- all but guaranteeing it won't pass Congress.

firstread.nbcnews.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Only lawyers could muddy the waters of the English language so much.



muddying up the English language has to be one of the worst lamest examples I have ever heard.
Res ipsa loquitur


edit on 19-3-2013 by Res Ipsa because: d



Actually, he's right.

The English language that Lie-yers use is not the same English language that the rest of us use.

The words are the same, but have entirely different meanings within their "framework".

I would say "muddying" is an appropriate term to use.



He would be right if he meant to say that the legal system has been made too hard for everyday people to access by the archaic language and rules, and by doing that it violates peoples rights to have their grievances addressed......but if you read his postings I'm not dealing with the 2nd coming of Einstein. He just meant it as an insult because I couldn't give him a simple yes or no answer.

Yes, everyday common words have a more specific meaning when used in law. "Good Faith" for example, it has legal meaning.

Can't wait for Jerry's kid to show up and rewrite history.


I didn't get into the history between you two in this thread. Just wanted to point out to anyone reading that the words in the English language absolutely do take on a completely different meaning within a legal frame.

Do you understand ?



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TauCetixeta
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Imagine a world where the members of the U.S. Congress actually vote on laws/bills that

they actually read?

Right now they admit : No i didn't read that bill because it is written in statutory language!

We also have Nancy Pelosi telling the American people:

"Lets just pass the law so we can find out what's inside it!"

What ?!!!



Imagine a world where Bill Clinton tried to get the Line Item Veto......oh he did try.
Don't blame the left for that one. Bills should be single topic not everything in the kitchen sink.
It is criminal how laws are passed these days.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Except that the person you have in your signature line does not support crap that Difi is pushing through. You do.

www.ontheissues.org...


Really, it is embarrassing to think that you would suggest that you are for someone like Ron Paul, when it is clear that you are not.


As for an insult. it is an insult only if you take offense to it. I think that a nerve was struck for you to state that.

Nothing like self identifying with a statement to make one mad, or insulted.



I was clarifying for that other poster your intent, which was germane to understanding what you actually were saying. I should give up my license to practice if some kid on the internet is going to get underneath my skin.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Her quote was not in reference to just the mythical "assault weapon". She succeeded in that endeavor . . . hence, the statement about "getting the all". "Turn them all in" . . . not just "assault weapons". That clip was from 2003 after the first AWB expired and she immediately started on the new "campaign". I wish I still had the CSPAN clip (13 mins) from 2003 where she specifically says "her only regret about the current weapons ban it that it didn't go far enough to include ALL semi-automatic weapons".

I haven't moved any goal posts . . . I've been very consistant. It's obvious, by this point, you either are in agreement with the agenda or you are intentionally being obtuse. You continually ignore direct points that refute your assertions that a prohibitive action of any type falls in line with the BoRs.

I find it very ironic that your sig line is supporting Paul and you claim to be interested in individual liberty . . . nothing about your responses back those claims up.

Enjoy your dream . . .
edit on 3/19/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/19/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



I am only interested in if she said she wanted to BAN ALL GUNS.....handguns, shotguns, bolt rifles, hunting stuff....I have said that, I don't know how many times now. You are stuck on a class or two of weapons.

Yes, the government can and will regulate weapons.....NO it does not violate the BoR.......It only violates it if the Court says it does........no matter how loud you yell or click your heels together.

No, what you think is ironic is based on what you perceive is my personal position on the topic and it doesn't help that your perception and comprehension skills need practice. Do you think my Ron Paul signature is there because I think it looks neat?
edit on 19-3-2013 by Res Ipsa because: d


Now it is you who is assuming. I recognize any law can be passed by Congress and once done it is law. I understand that for constitutionality to be addressed it must be challenged and heard by the SCOTUS. However, I also am fully aware of their agenda and it's evolution since the big push started in the 60's. So, regardless of your agruments against, I understand exactly why they invoke concepts about "rights not being absolute" and bring up the "child pornography" and "fire" examples. Most Americans that agree, emotionally, don't take the time or the effort to even "fact check" these statements. I've also read enough "studies" by the anti-gun lobby, from policy centers and think tanks like VPC, to know their goal is total disarmament and to confuse the public through lies and twisting of words and statistics. They blatently state as such in their papers and equate to the ammunition that their "leaders", like Feinstein, use to manufacture consent through public opinion. I'm not yelling or clicking . . . we've been having a discussion. I don't recall typing in all caps, over-using exclamations, or an excessive use of emoticons, on my part?

What I find ironic is not whatever your claimed stance on the issue or my assumptions to the contrary, but your defense of this agenda. Especially now, in light of your previous post on "personal responsiblity" (which I agree with BTW). If you are not a supporter of this agenda, to engage in it's defense truly goes against Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism (which it is founded upon).

If you were simply playing "devil's advocate to demonstrate you have a greater knowledge of our legal system and it's ability to conflate the issue of individual rights with nonsense . . . Then you simply have been engaging in argumentative theory of reasoning and we've been discussing these issues for no reason. In the process, we've been wasting each other's time.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
But, of course....you know the socialists and the American Communist Party will try again.....soon as there is another Manchurian Candidate style shooting somewhere.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HIWATT
 


are you asking me if I understand what you were saying? or that you weren't picking sides?
yes to both.





new topics
top topics
 
51
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join