Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:I should have been more precise, though I appreciate that you have chosen this time to utilize the English language to its fullest extent, rather than in your nominally lax fashion.

Given that you've decided to engage in your typical debate tactics of personal attacks (that is, ad hominem) and deflection rather than address the issues raised by this post (whether fallaciously or not), I don't see any reason to continue to engage you in this thread.

I've made a reasoned argument why Gingrich's comments are constitutionally grounded and legitimate, and why the arguments presented in this thread (and elsewhere) require a deliberate misinterepretation of what Mr. Gingrich actually said. If you're interested in discussing any of these points, I'd be happy to engage you. But frankly, I'm not interested in trying to deal with the convoluted logic that you consider arguments.

But because I'm such a nice guy, I'll answer your questions.

dogma wrote:What, in your words, was the position that I expressed in my first post in this thread?

Returning to your comment:
"I never cease to be amazed how certain politicians will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat."

"I never cease to be amazed" : indicates that you believe this to be 1) a recurring theme that is 2) amazing.

"how certain politicians" : Mr. Gingrich in the specific, some group to which he belongs in the general. That group does not include "politicians" as a group or you would not have specified "certain" politicians. I could speculate that you mean Republicans, which is the only group that makes sense in this context, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're only addressing Mr. Gingrich.

"will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat" : use the Constitution as an excuse for objects or goals that are not traditionally recognized as legitimate uses of the Constitution.

Are you therefore claiming that, because I do not address every conspiracy theory that a certain poster in the OT might advance, that I support those conspiracy theories?

Not at all. However, when you participate in a thread and specifically direct your comments to one side while ignoring the failures of the other, it suggests support. Further, when certain ideas are repeated and you participate in a thread without responding to them, it suggests at the very least ambivalence towards them. Then again, you've admitted that you troll the OT. So it's possible that you know exactly what you're doing and you're intentionally trying to pick fights.

Anyway, I'm glad I could help you understand by answering some of your questions. I would appreciate, but do not expect, the same courtesy in the future. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.

biccat wrote:
Given that you've decided to engage in your typical debate tactics of personal attacks (that is, ad hominem) and deflection rather than address the issues raised by this post (whether fallaciously or not), I don't see any reason to continue to engage you in this thread.

I addressed the points you made by explaining why your arguments in support of them were bad. There is no reason for me to go further if you cannot, or will not, make coherent, convincing arguments.

biccat wrote:
I've made a reasoned argument why Gingrich's comments are constitutionally grounded and legitimate, and why the arguments presented in this thread (and elsewhere) require a deliberate misinterepretation of what Mr. Gingrich actually said. If you're interested in discussing any of these points, I'd be happy to engage you. But frankly, I'm not interested in trying to deal with the convoluted logic that you consider arguments.

Whether or not my arguments are convoluted has no bearing on whether or not they are arguments, nor does the convolution of my 'logic' (apostrophes in order to emphasize your poor usage of the word) have any bearing on the merit of said arguments.

Honestly, if formalized, every argument I have made in this thread could likely be made within 7 terms, including operators.

biccat wrote:
I could speculate that you mean Republicans, which is the only group that makes sense in this context...

Equivocation. There are numerous possible sets, and at least 1 other likely set, according to which you could define the group.

biccat wrote:
Not at all. However, when you participate in a thread and specifically direct your comments to one side while ignoring the failures of the other, it suggests support.

Clearly this is why I brought up the line-item veto.

I'm extremely critical of you, not the bodies with which you affiliate yourself, because I know that you're better than what you express here. You have expressed better here, and yet have also argued to the effect of "But he does it too!" on numerous occasions.

Also, you could at least behave in an honest fashion (I know its difficult) and acknowledge that at least 1 of the phrases of mine which you cited in this thread was made in criticism of Melissia, who is decidedly not on "your side" of the spectrum.

biccat wrote:
I would appreciate, but do not expect, the same courtesy in the future. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Seeing as your entire post was a deliberate ape of my own smarmy style, I suspect that nothing you have said is true.

It also doesn't help that you have blatantly misrepresented my posts, even only those in this thread, and when called on that fact have chosen to avoid a response.

biccat wrote:Regardless of whether it's being overturned disproportionately or not, the 9th circuit needs to be split up. They've simply got too large of a case load.

No argument there.