Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
And they will see that you got schooled -- badly.
Given your pathetic grasp of English, logic and science, it is you who is the imbecile here.
And so far, you failed to clinch your case.
The claimant needs to prove their case -- you are the claimant here and YOU need to prove your case, not me.
Why do you insist on exposing your ignorance of law to every one?
Did the mirror lost its function? Or did the operational parameters got changed? This is where you are confused.
The setup lost its function. My words are there explicitly. The only thing imaginary here is your delusion that you understand English, logic or science.
This is the third or fourth time I am repeating this. I continue doing so because it shows your desperation and intellectual dishonesty to keep twisting my -- plain English -- words because you are smarting from your drubbing.
Some 'man of science' you turned out to be. What a fraud...
Just repeating the same blabber when your own dishonesty and deliberate misquoting is on display only makes you look like a fool.
This is continually to be a pathetic attempt to recover your behind. I made no distortion and no misquote. Either 'challenge' or 'chewed up' are appropriate
Again, you can keep repeating your idiotic excuses. Your words are there -- you claimed that I posited a challenge on expertise -- when I did nothing of the sort. Only you in your desperation deliberately misquoted me and then replied to your own fabrication. As you always do when you get owned.
Show me where I claimed that the lawyer would challenge the expert on his subject matter?
Wrong. When the US Constitution was enacted, there was no mention of slavery. Now you are going to trot out the 3/5 rule?
It's so much more than the 3/5 rule. The original Constitutional civil rights protections did not apply to African-Americans.
The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution
The Constitution that the delegates proposed included several provisions that explicity recognized and protected slavery. Without these provisions, southern delegates would not support the new Constitution--and without the southern states on board, the Constitution had no chance of being ratified. Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress (even though the slaves could not, of course, vote), expressly denied to Congress the power to prohibit importation of new slaves until 1808, and prevented free states from enacting laws protecting fugitive slaves.
[...]
The Supreme Court, in its infamous decision in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), ruled that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in its territories. In so doing, Scott v Sandford invited slave owners to pour into the territories and pass pro-slavery constitutions. The decision made the Civil War inevitable. Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the majority in Scott, also concluded that people of African ancestry (whether free or a slave, including Scott) could never become "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, and hence lacked the ability to bring suit in federal court.
Now, before you waste everyone's time with your predictable nonsense that the word 'slavery' is not there, read the link I provided, read the historical context of southern States insisting on these particular provisions, read the SCOTUS decisions on slaves, and understand that legal documents use legal terms, not vernacular terminology.
Why do you continually insist on exposing your ignorance of just about everything outside cut-and-paste radar specs?
If you do, you will end up a greater spectacular @ss than you are now.
Look who's talking.
You get owned again and again and, like a pathetic glutton for punishment, you keep coming back for more.
Muslims
Yes, we know how you start smarting and foaming at the mouth when you get exposed as a clueless clown.
Since you demonstrated that you are ignorant of basic English, law, science, US Constitution, US history, and common sense, you are now falling back on your pathetic routine of evil Moooslims.