Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Of course I realized that, if they considered me a threat, that would mean that they are wrong, which means we would agree and not argue. Thanks for stating the obvious.



That sounds nice, but it doesn't represent the reality. In some cases,ethics are more objective than subjective, but over all, many are indeed subjective as previously stated. The country is divided on many of these topics and it shows during certain political shift changes.



I'm not stuck on myself, I'm simply stating the truth.

Recently a poster told me to "go away".

Another poster replied saying to "just ignore him and he'll go away".

I responded with "I've been saying that the whole time, I only respond to posts".

Another poster said, "well it's better to argue with someone like you than to be silent."

I responded with "So, what's the problem?".

The only "stupidity" that anyone has chosen is my bad writing/grammar on posts. Not only did I admit to that, it has nothing to do with the actual argument.



Yea, that's kinda how it works...




I didn't belong to every group, I just fit in. In other words, I could show up to a certain group of people and people wouldn't ask why I was there. As mentioned, even still, I didn't interact with them as the people truly in the circle. People knew of me, but really didn't know me



Really,quote one of those ethics that I "misunderstood" and explain why my interpretation is wrong. Of course you wont do it, because you can't. Those rules are pretty easy to understand.



What facts? Are you implying that there is something less than zero on a scale of 0-100? And you all tell me to read a book?! lol

dear god it's page 26

That's a cop out because you never attempted to explain how the concept of the constitution was wrong in the first place, all you said was "obviously you're wrong". The fact that you're still here pages after the fact arguing with me proves that it isn't my "stubbornness to understand", but your failure to admit. Else you would have stopped arguing with me a long time ago.

Here I'll help you and re-quote some of them for you



They seem fairly clear to me? What other interpretation do you have? Bottom line is, as a private lawyer, if you can't agree to my terms prior to me accepting the case, then I don't have to represent you. If you don't like it, find another lawyer.

It's "couldn't care less."

Edited, Aug 20th 2010 4:09am by Eske

I haven't posted on this page yet. So, there's my post.

http://www.regretsy.com/2010/07/21/when-irish-goatse-are-smiling/

Yeah, because it's pretty obvious that Kaelesh knows that and is fucking with you because you ***** it up all the time.

Like I said before, people admit when they're wrong on here all the time. You just don't notice or choose to remember.

I literally have nothing else to do here today. Just like every other day this week.

Your post count doesn't get to 50K by itself?

I see, you did. My mistake, but I was referring to people I was actually arguing with. We weren't debating anything when you said that. We both were asking questions, you gave an answer and corrected yourself before anyone said anything. Yes, it "counts", but it wasn't what I meant. I'm talking about someone actually admitting that they are wrong to me, Gbjai or someone of opposition. I've yet seen that happened. Mostly in regards to me, since I don't follow other posters.

Belkira,

I believe you, you don't seem like a troll bot as the others.

As for the evidence, there were plenty.

I mathematically shown that BT's statement did indeed call everyone outside of allakhazam stupid when him and another poster claimed that it was only calling me stupid.

I was told that I would be an unethical lawyer based on my views, yet I posted the ethics code which clearly stated otherwise.

It was argued that there was really no point where the government "got involved" in marriage because marriage was always common law that carried over from years and years of traditions. Posters argued that there was no one event after the revolution when the US evaluated their rights and laws. I responded with the U.S constitution, more importantly the Bill of Rights. Their response was "you know Zero about your history". I could have sworn your argument was to fight for the "right" to get married. I guess that was a different kind of right, huh?

You, yourself, argued that "love" was the deciding factor of a sham marriage, yet all of your sources left out that word. I argued that it wasn't love, but fulfilling the marriage role and your own definition supported that by saying something similar to "living as husband and wife".

When I asked you if you would support mandated divorces for loveless marriages since that would make them sham marriages, you responded that you were only referring to people entering a marriage. I later pointed out that your own definition of "sham marriage" used the word "intends" which is future tense. This is because traditional couples do not interact the same way before marriage as they do when they get married. You failed to address that.

Seriously, I can go on and on. The truth of the matter is, people don't like me and partly because of that, they refuse to acknowledge being proven wrong in anything.

Because that was a poor answer and no one really wanted to start at the ground level of explaining why.

The Constitution provided a framework for the federal government and a set of parameters laws in the nation would have to fall within. It did not represent a throwing out, or even a mass re-examination, of the thousands of existing state and local laws which were effectively grandfathered in from the period of British Colonial rule. More to the point, it did not represent any re-evaluation of the purpose of government's role in marriage. Claiming otherwise would require more extraordinary evidence than "We have a constitution".