posted
If I remember history a wee bit, Hitler was very set in his political views also. Started as a youth at the end of WWI when he had enlisted as an late teen...
------------------ Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
No, my problem is when people act like they know what I'm thinking, act like I don't, while misrepresenting my views, and making no effort to figure out what I'm actually talking about.
And I would point out that instead of responding to my argument, you all simply started poking at ME. Surely, if my position was so full of holes, you'd be able to point at least one out in such a simply laid out argument.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
posted
Other than Omega acting as a jurist what else is there to say. If Brother Jeb of Florida realy believes that the justices oversteped their bounds, I would imagine that there is an impeachment process that he can bring about.
I believe that the Court acted within the scope of their authority and Omgea does not.
Further I believe that Omega did not take the time to read the decision and if he did, he glossed over the legal issues he appears to have already made up his mind about.
QED
What the point of going on.
------------------ Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit? ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
If you're not going to try to point out the specific flaw in my arguments, there is no point in going on, the reason being that you lost the argument.
Come on, guys. I've laid it all out for you, nice and simple. If you can't point out a hole, then the logical conclusion (under the provision that one is not later discovered) is that there is none, and that my chain of reasoning is correct.
You can see my reasoning. If it's so horribly flawed, then point out the EXACT point that contains the flaw. I've done this before, and gotten the exact same response. Namely, none. And frankly, I'd love to see you, Jay, do something similar with YOUR position.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
posted
Omega, it comes down to the point that I've read the decision and agree with it. You, I'm not so sure if you have read it, do not. You argument hinges on your singular interpretation of "may" in the statute in question being shall. I disagree and the Court does too. There is the flaw in your argument.
However I would also like to point out that English Common Law is based on precedent a point you either seem not to agree with, not know about or ignore at your convenience. Whichever it is, you haven't been able to refute using anything other than 'this is what I believe' arguments to refute the Courts' arguments in why they ruled the way they did.
The Court was quite specific about why it ruled about extending the deadline as it did, and I bet that you don't know what those reasons are.
------------------ Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit? ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
Did you even read the decison of the Court?
Go and read that now.
------------------ Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit? ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
The decision of the Florida Supreme court will most likely be another footnote in history... one of a million other times in which a body of learned, astute gentlemen was wrong, even about something within their field of study. (has one already forgotten the huge number of 'experts' that said Goddard's rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum?)
It certainly can't be the first time... or the US Supreme Court would NEVER hear a case.
The numbered argument put forth by Omega, is logical, coherent, and internally consistent. If the premises are accepted as true, so must be the conclusion.
Clarification of the invalidity of any or all the premises has been requested, but instead, the opponents have fallen back on "The Court said it, I believe it, that settles it." (And yes, that IS satire on the very similar standard Creationist irrational retort: 'God said it, I believe it, that settles it.') (In Locical Philosophy, these are referred to as an irrelevant Appeal to Authority -- in Creationism's case, the Bible Authors, in your case, the Judge.)
Thou hast also fallen for the 'two wrongs make a right' fallacy, in that accusing Omega of being irrational when it comes to Creationism does NOT bolster your own argument when you demonstrate equal irrationality towards this subject. You cannot legitimately say, in response to an argument that you are being irrational, "Well, YOU'RE irrational about THIS unrelated thing, so I can be, too!"
So: refute the points, clearly, succintly, and without resorting to further namecallings or counteraccusations, or consider thy argument successfully refuted.
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
The whole crux is that a lawyer is more knowledgeable about law than the average layman. Do you say Omega is smarter than people who graduated law school?
Frankly, I don't give a damn whats going on down in Florida. Anyone whose read the first page of this thread knows that myself, and Jay, and others, want Gore to concede.
LAWYERS know the LAW. If the Florida Supreme Court did wrong, then the US Supreme Court will do right.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic