Chicago to Continue Pissing on Residents' Rights

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

QUIT!!!! You'll motivate him to start posting again.

Ah, not to worry.

At best I've enjoyed a very small role around here -- entertaining Amazon and annoying Billvon. Such is my lot in dizzy com social life.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count).

That's a low blow man

Not cool, Lucky.

Why? I'm blue-collar. I work with dumbshit mother fuckers all day that couldn't tell me the basic construction of congress, impeachemnt procedure, political history, what a GDP is and the diff between real and nominal GDP, yet these dumb motherfuckers have a definite and hard opinion of the court system and politics.

- Ignorant = not knowing

- Stupid = not sharp

- Stupid and proud = all that rolled into the perspective of actual comprehensive understanding.

I work with mostly the latter, but hey, that's blue-collar for ya.

I work with some dumbshit mother fuckers too but also some smart people. Some have no degrees, some have bachelors, some even have masters and doctorates. No real corrrelation that I've seen as it doesn't depend as much on the amount of education the person has, more depends on the subject being discussed.

The one thing I've seen though is the more letters a person has after their name, the more likely they are to try and overinflate what they actually know.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

My! You're being argumentative tonight!

I'm not offended. You did not offend me (you're not that important in my life).

I disagree with an administrative policy on this forum. You reminded me of it. I posted agreeing with part of your post. Yet you choose to troll me.

Wheel? is that what you watch this late?

If you had anything constructive to add, you would.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count).

That's a low blow man

Not cool, Lucky.

Why? I'm blue-collar. I work with dumbshit mother fuckers all day that couldn't tell me the basic construction of congress, impeachemnt procedure, political history, what a GDP is and the diff between real and nominal GDP, yet these dumb motherfuckers have a definite and hard opinion of the court system and politics.

- Ignorant = not knowing

- Stupid = not sharp

- Stupid and proud = all that rolled into the perspective of actual comprehensive understanding.

I work with mostly the latter, but hey, that's blue-collar for ya.

I work with some dumbshit mother fuckers too but also some smart people. Some have no degrees, some have bachelors, some even have masters and doctorates. No real corrrelation that I've seen as it doesn't depend as much on the amount of education the person has, more depends on the subject being discussed.

The one thing I've seen though is the more letters a person has after their name, the more likely they are to try and overinflate what they actually know.

2 schools of thought:

- Academia (legitimate academia)

- Street smarts


I've seen smart and dumb amongst both, but the concentration or mode of intelligence tends to hang around the formally educated types. It's about feequency and probability. If nothing else, if I'm being jerked off I prefer it be by a person using ornate language than some simpleton telling me 'bout his diddy and how smart that guy was; taught him everything he knows. Education, intelligence turns me on, angry idiocy is a turn off; I find more of the latter with uneducated people, probably somewhat describes me before my puny little BS in Justice. I will say the blue collar types typically have more guts than the brainiacs, so I try to have a balance of each.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

If you had anything constructive to add, you would.

I started out on a tangent and you think I'm going to turn back onto topic?

Not a chance.

--
Rob

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

If you had anything constructive to add, you would.

I started out on a tangent and you think I'm going to turn back onto topic?

Not a chance.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college

Are people without college degrees all stupid?

If you have a college degree, are you superior to those who are without?

That's exactly what he said in the ivory tower wars, and you could see even here how he couldn't quite back pedal from the thought. He was the only one to make such a claim.

Interesting that his degree lead to 9 years as a process server.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

the less a person has of something, the more they pretend to have........... Uneducated people often yell the loudest on issues they know nothing about.

You seem to be the one yelling the loudest in this thread

Quote

I have a great knowledge of the law, I watch trials all the time

Court TV doesn't count.

I feel sorry for the people you work around. It's never fun being around the know it all that can't have a conversation without trying to let everyone know how smart he (thinks) is.

[AndyBoyd 0]

"show me ONE case where the decision shows that it was decided the way it was due to politics."

SC decisions, and lower court decisions, will be written in legalese, so it won't be obvious that the decisions are ultimately political. (Again, I don't think all SC decisions are political, but some clearly are.) Part of the legal realism theory I talked about earlier is the idea that there is so much law out there, any judge can justify any decision he or she makes by citing to law he or she agrees with. But there is often law to the contrary the judge ignores or works around. So to an extent you are right -- the decision itself will not be obviously political. But in many SC cases, I believe, political considerations drive the way the Court ultimately rules.

If anyone is interested in the inner workings of the SC, including how important political considerations are, here's a great book to check out.

http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Inside-Secret-World-Supreme/dp/0385516401

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"show me ONE case where the decision shows that it was decided the way it was due to politics."

SC decisions, and lower court decisions, will be written in legalese, so it won't be obvious that the decisions are ultimately political. (Again, I don't think all SC decisions are political, but some clearly are.) Part of the legal realism theory I talked about earlier is the idea that there is so much law out there, any judge can justify any decision he or she makes by citing to law he or she agrees with. But there is often law to the contrary the judge ignores or works around. So to an extent you are right -- the decision itself will not be obviously political. But in many SC cases, I believe, political considerations drive the way the Court ultimately rules.

If anyone is interested in the inner workings of the SC, including how important political considerations are, here's a great book to check out.

http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Inside-Secret-World-Supreme/dp/0385516401

Funny how neither of them are coming up with all those 'arbitrary political decisions' they claimed, isn't it?

Of course, nobody can be perfectly objective in their reading of the law - I agreed on that point, earlier. I think the political leanings of the SCJs have a bearing on how they interpret the Constitution - constructionist or non-constructionist.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[AndyBoyd 0]

"Of course, nobody can be perfectly objective in their reading of the law - I agreed on that point, earlier. I think the political leanings of the SCJs have a bearing on how they interpret the Constitution - constructionist or non-constructionist."

So we agree then. Great!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"Of course, nobody can be perfectly objective in their reading of the law - I agreed on that point, earlier. I think the political leanings of the SCJs have a bearing on how they interpret the Constitution - constructionist or non-constructionist."

So we agree then. Great!

On the objectivity point, yes - I never disagreed with you in the first place in that regard, Andy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Never fear, Al Sharpton is here:

"It is the vicious epidemic of gun violence that is claiming the lives of our young men and women in horrific record-shattering numbers. And when the Supreme Court on Monday overruled Chicago's ban on handguns, they literally opened the floodgates for a drastic rise in shootings, instability and homicide in a country that already leads the way in lethal violence."

Source: http://www.wilmingtonjournal.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=104106&sID=34&ItemSource=L

Three points, Al baby:

1. Gun violence is NOT at horrific record-shattering numbers. Overall, it's at the lowest point in 30 years.
   
2. The future hasn't happened yet, so you can't say that the ruling will make things worse.
   
3. Chicago is one of the worst gun crime places in the nation, even with a gun ban, therefore it should be obvious to you that it's not working.

More emotionalism, absent objective facts - stock in trade for the gun-ban folks.

I predict that as guns become accepted in the city of Chicago, that gun crime will go down, as the criminals begin to fear that their victims could be armed.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

More emotionalism, absent objective facts - stock in trade for the gun-ban folks.

Self gratification has again overtaken logical thinking.

Self gratification in the guise of outrage and emotionalism. It's so easy for those too lazy to use their brains.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If SCOTUS says there is, then there is.

You say the same about the Dred Scott case? Was that legal and fair as well?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Illustrate what you mean via example. I won't wait up.

Just read your own posts over just the last week and most would see the examples.

[DaVinci 0]

This from you is hilarious:

Quote

I see you support your ad hominem with a compound ad hominem

And a perfect example of your double standard on the Constitution is here:

Quote

This old rag is best left for Libertarian nuts, Minutemen, and children who still believe Santa Claus is real, the gov will do what they want and circumvent the US Const

Yet you rally around the 1st and the 4th.

Hello double standard!!!!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I'm that legal nerd who never got to law school

Got it... you are NOT a lawyer.

Quote

I actually find it interesting to read cases.

Big whoop.... You think you are the only one?