Re: Am I in a time warp???

JaneMarple · ‎05-23-2011

O/T Michael Moore has volunteered to pay the bail for the young lady and her companion for going up the flag pole in South Carolina.

You Don't Own Me- Leslie Gore
(You don't Know) How Glad I Am- Nancy Wilson

JaneMarple · ‎05-23-2011

@esmerelda wrote:
@Lila Belle wrote:
@esmerelda wrote:
@Lila Belle wrote:
An example of an immunity would be the 5th Am.
I don't understand. What part? Double jeopardy?

What is an "immunity" where the ruling's subject matter is concerned?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You might try going to the library and find a book about the Constitution. : )
Thank you. I have the Constitution displayed in front of me.

Is it over your head?

You Don't Own Me- Leslie Gore
(You don't Know) How Glad I Am- Nancy Wilson

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

@JaneMarple wrote:
Funny how if the ruling had gone the other way, there wouldn't be any arguments against the constitution. I also find it funny that since January of 2009, certain groups are all of a sudden experts on constitutional law.

They certainly LOVED the ruling from late in 2000...no problems with THAT!

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

@JaneMarple wrote:
O/T Michael Moore has volunteered to pay the bail for the young lady and her companion for going up the flag pole in South Carolina.

Not necessary...indigogo raised $30,000 in a day or so.

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

@terrier3 wrote:
@JaneMarple wrote:
Funny how if the ruling had gone the other way, there wouldn't be any arguments against the constitution. I also find it funny that since January of 2009, certain groups are all of a sudden experts on constitutional law.
They certainly LOVED the ruling from late in 2000...no problems with THAT!

Who is 'they' and what ruling are you referring to?

esmerelda · ‎03-10-2010

@JaneMarple wrote:
@esmerelda wrote:
@Lila Belle wrote:
@esmerelda wrote:
@Lila Belle wrote:
An example of an immunity would be the 5th Am.
I don't understand. What part? Double jeopardy?

What is an "immunity" where the ruling's subject matter is concerned?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You might try going to the library and find a book about the Constitution. : )
Thank you. I have the Constitution displayed in front of me.
@esmerelda wrote:
@Lila Belle wrote:
@esmerelda wrote:
@Lila Belle wrote:
An example of an immunity would be the 5th Am.
I don't understand. What part? Double jeopardy?

What is an "immunity" where the ruling's subject matter is concerned?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You might try going to the library and find a book about the Constitution. : )
Thank you. I have the Constitution displayed in front of me.
Is it over your head?

No, I said in front of me. I see you need a larger text.

*********************
Keepin' it real.

betteb · ‎03-09-2010

@esmerelda wrote:
@terrier3 wrote:
@sfnative wrote:
@missy1 wrote:
It was strange the mods let posters congratulate the rainbow ruling, but posters couldn't say they don't agree with it,
What missy said here is HUGE, regardless of which side you're on.

MODS: I hope you're taking notice of this, as this practice is truly a political one on the side of QVC.
The only problem with what missy1 wrote was that is was NOT correct.
What part is incorrect? Oh yes, posters could say they did not agree with the ruling, but they couldn't say it as long as those who agreed with the ruling could. One had a much longer life here than the other.

************************************************************************************************

That was not because they voiced their disagreement with the ruling, it's how they voiced it, the words they chose to express themselves with.

It's God's job to judge the terrorists. It's our mission to arrange the meeting. U.S. Marines

Lila Belle · ‎01-24-2013

Congratulations : to wish joy to; to express pleasure

Disagree: to be at varience

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

@SydneyH wrote:
@terrier3 wrote:
@JaneMarple wrote:
Funny how if the ruling had gone the other way, there wouldn't be any arguments against the constitution. I also find it funny that since January of 2009, certain groups are all of a sudden experts on constitutional law.
They certainly LOVED the ruling from late in 2000...no problems with THAT!
Who is 'they' and what ruling are you referring to?

Think back in time...counting...chads...remember who stopped it COLD???

The man at the center of the controversy had the grace to withdraw and concede, ending that whole sad saga.