Soonerman

I didn't predict an acquittal. I gave 70-30 odds on it. Those are two different things.

Couldn't have been too alone, or they wouldn't be pregnant.

In her mother's basement.

So you didn't accuse Scalia of trying to legislate from the bench for merely asking a routine question? So you didn't say the NRA "apparently" didn't respect the 1st Amendment because they disciplined a member? I guess all of us just imagined these two supremely ignorant posts by you?

It's the irony of doh-duh questioning anyone else's intelligence. Really? Where?

Yeah, he's so stupid I bet he thinks that a Supreme Court Justice asking routine questions of the parties in a case before the court is "legislating from the bench". Why he's so stupid he probably thinks the NRA "apparently" doesn't like the 1st Amendment because they disciplined a member. No wait, that's you that is that stupid. Moron.

1. Sure. Whatever. 2. I have never claimed to be an attorney. The point still holds. The actions of the NRA in this case say nothing about their feelings about the 1st Amendment. If they came out and advocated for McCain-Feingold, you could make that claim. Their disciplining of a member says absolutely nothing about their opinion of the 1st Amendment. It's quite simple really.

1. In February of 2006, during the Latin Pimp shutdown of this board, you went to the FBG board and posted how you had been "on the fence" regarding the Bush presidency, but that now you were appalled. Obviously a gigantic whopper of a lie, since you had been posting non-stop vitriol toward Bush for several years previously. 2. Just recently here, you started a thread about how the NRA didn't respect the 1st Amendment right to free speech since they were disciplining one of their members. You were immediately called out for your complete ignorance of the fact that private organizations aren't governed by the 1st Amendment regarding free speech. You then ran away like a little girl and didn't respond. So #1 is an example of lying. #2 is an example of moron. Hence Uh-huh the lying moron.

All the justices asked similar questions you moron. That's what they do in pretty much any case they hear. It's obvious that you have no idea what "legislating from the bench" means. It's apparently some phrase you picked up somewhere and thought it sounded kind of cool.

They're in post #71. This is the third time I've reminded you. You are taking your stupidity to new levels.

Man, did doh-duh run away like a poosay from my 2 simple questions. Imagine that, she was less than truthful when she said she would answer them.

More evidence that doh-duh is a moronic liar. He cherry picks a Scalia comment and infers "legislation from the bench" from that. Of course Scalia was simply questioning the attorneys as happens in every case heard by the court. Hey doh-duh, this is what SC Justices do. http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/19/free.spe...=rss_topstories

Holy crap you're stupid. Post #71. Two questions. Second time I've reminded you. :talk about crickets:

I couldn't care less about your little slap fight. Can't answer my questions?

I guess doh-duh tippy-toed away. That's just like her.