Are you just trolling, or are you having problems with plain English comprehension?>

<Diceman> isn't trolling here. He's one of the good guys and is considered a brother in arms, but there are disagreements to be had with him from my point of view.

Thankfully. I come here for disagreement (but lately I've been content to read high quality back-and-forth).

<Diceman>, see your (tga) position, and mine as well for that matter, as impractical or not pragmatic. Not only that, but he doesn't actually see what we see, which is that we have a 6-3 majority on the court and not ONE of the justices affirm the personhood of the unborn child, despite advertising themselves as pro-life.

<Diceman> is stuck in a well worn groove of thinking about the libs vs conservatives and, as this conversation shows, hasn't been able to break free of that limiting perspective.

Some people just can't criticize Trump without feeling like a traitor, or, dare I say, like a lib!

There's an old saying, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" and that's how it is with these "wins" that the GOP SHEEP keeping baaahing about.

The fact of the matter is that the GOP won with Nixon (2 terms), Reagan (2 terms), Bush, Bush W (2 terms) and we've had a conservative court for 50 years - yet the country has moved so far left it's not recognizable.

We all want the same outcome, <dice>, <me> and you, <tga>. We want a conservative American like it was in the good old days, when America was America, but in order to affect that change, we need to elect a different kind of conservative.

What I'm trying to say is people like <diceman> and pretty much most other conservatives, don't realize that there are far, far, far more RINOS than they think.

My point with this discussion is to <raise awareness> of what it means to be a pro-life justice, how these justices are actually pro-abortion and the big picture of how far left America has gone despite so many <WINS!> over the last 50 years.

For now suffice it to say that I think a key concept in our differing approaches to homosexuality is <morality>. I will check back next week if still relevant. Apologies for this, and a good day to you all!>

The fact of the matter is that the GOP won with Nixon (2 terms), Reagan (2 terms), Bush, Bush W (2 terms) and we've had a conservative court for 50 years - yet the country has moved so far left it's not recognizable. >

And have held the Senate many many times under those presidents.

Which is why it is so hard to rule out conspiracy. Or maybe I shouldn't call it conspiracy:

Let's take Sen. Marco Rubio [R], for example. This guy has accomplished nothing noteworthy his entire life, unless you consider playing sportsball at an obscure college to be noteworthy.

Other than that, he's been in politics his entire adult life.

So he runs for, and wins, a state legislature spot. Then eventually becomes a senator and even wins re-election. We can consider him an archetype of the typical congressman, be it in the Senate or in the House. He wants the dream we were all sold by the TV folks, wealth and popularity and power.

But he is unremarkable, not really a great talent at anything. He's not going to be the next Wayne Huizenga. If he wants to get rich, he's going to have to work his azz off, climb the corporate ladder, and spend less than he earns. And do this for <decades>.

That sounds too much like work!

So instead, he sells himself to the donor class. The mutual back scratching ensues. But he has to get elected to be of any use to the donor class. So he tells the voters what they want to hear.

Once he gets their votes, he can ignore them for 5 years, until he needs to run for re-election. And, while in the Senate, he does what his donors want him to do.

When it comes to choosing between what the voters want, and what the billionaires want, who the hell do you think he will favor? Those voters might (just might) send him 20 bucks a month for his campaign. But those billionaires can deliver the good life, and deliver it now.

The voters don't stand a chance.

Now, I ask you, dear reader, is this a conspiracy theory? To someone without critical thinking skills, it may appear to be one.

But to someone who is willing to notice the obvious, this is simply a case of the old adage "where there's smoke, there's fire". In other words, even if you don't <see> a fire, if you see clues that there is a fire (the smoke), you can reasonably conclude that it is coming from a fire. But you have to be able to reason.

If this is a "conspiracy theory", then wouldn't forensic anthropology [FA] ALSO be nothing but conspiracy theories? After all, FA is nothing more than drawing conclusions using clues, without witnessing the underlying event.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2...

Rockstar status all the way!

I like the Howie Carr show and I used to listen to it all the time, but now I just catch the Chump Line at ten past five every day.

I saw his show on Facebook and I was browsing the page for a bit, looking through the photos when I came across this hot little chick. It turns out that's his co-host, Grace!

Wow, a fine looking woman in radio!

Now here's the point of my post.

I clicked the photo and read the comments. All the ladies said she was beautiful and all the men were kind as well, but this one guy writes this,

<Let's start out by saying she's very cool and bright. Great with commentary and comical exchanges. Add her beauty and she's amazing.>

What a cuck.

Just another brainwashed libtard ruined by his liberal mama. He actually thinks he needs to compliment her on her personality, intelligence, sense of humor and skills first before he dares to add it a compliment on her beauty as well.

This is due to the programming put out on TV starting in the 70s. The whole bs thing where a pretty girl is so down and out, moping around, unhappy, boo-hoo, because everybody thinks she's beautiful, but she wants to be respected for her mind!

lols

What a load of crap that is, but now guys are afraid to compliment a woman on her looks alone. They ACTUALLY THINK that some hot little fox is desperate to hear a word about how intelligent she is!

Give me a break!

Do you realize how much time woman spend making sure they look good? How much money they spend on beauty stuff? Ever notice pretty girls have 2 million selfie pics in their FB profiles?

No, she's doesn't care about being hot!

The ugly chicks don't want to talk to anyone about hotness because they're ugly, or plain, or not attractive, but then again the guys are falling over themselves to tell them they're beautiful either. But if a plain Jane did receive a genuine compliment on her looks, it would make her day, week and maybe a month.

The <central point> of this post is that you're a pathetic beta male if you are afraid to compliment a woman on her good looks and you throw these other lame compliments up first because that's the lib thing to do.

These cucks think they're beating the system with this, like they're going to score a hot woman because they're going to be different than all of the other guys who are so obviously drooling over her.

(Beta male walks up to the hottest woman in the entire world. She's wearing a mini skirt and high heels, got her make up, perfume, low cut shirt)

Beta: Hey. You're so, uh, uhm, err, you're so intelligent.

Her: thanks

Beta: My name is libtard and I can tell that you're really interesting. So intelligent.

Her: Thanks

Beta: I bet you're very attractive, but I wouldn't notice that at first, because I respect women for their smarts first. I'm a good lib beta male.

Her: Thanks

Beta: Uh, what are your views on egalitarianism?

Her: right, oh, excuse me, I see a friend over there.

Beta: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.

(Alpha male sees her and walks up to her with beta male watching)

Alpha: Wow, you look great! Too bad you're not my type.

Her: thinking: what's he mean? I'm everybody's type!

5 minutes later they leave together.

heh heh heh

I DID NOT say the ballot box doesn't matter.>

Close enough:

<thegoodanarchist:
The problems of America cannot be solved at the ballot box>

<thegoodanarchist
First of all, we cannot vote our way out of this mess.>

Sounds like it doesn't matter to me.

<I said that a) a Trump win buys us time to prepare, and b) the GOP liberalism is about 30 years behind the Democrat's liberalism>

Yeah, that was the second half of your first quote.

OK. I've got it now. You are really sharp because in 2020 you are giving us 4 more years. (If Trump wins) I'm wrong because I gave us 30 + 4 years.

<GOP liberalism is about 30 years behind>

Did the GOP start a great society when I wasn't looking? GOP liberalism is your liberalism. The folks who've had their legs broken by Democrats still need wheelchairs when republicans win. Since you've been supporting them,
I thought you knew that.

<<Who knew the left was willing to crush us one at a time?>

You clearly are misrepresenting my views.>

No I didn't. You brought up one kid as a problem. A kid who defended himself because Democrat rioters attempted to kill him, because Democrats allowed them to riot. Nothing to do with the GOP.

<<tga doesn't seem to realize that is the win.>

Delaying the heretofore victorious march to the Left of the last 60 years is winning?>

<victorious march to the Left of the last 60 years>

Yes, the folks you've been supporting, but take no responsibility for. (Until the Titanic's water level reached your neck)

Surrender to it is better?
Besides, you gave yourself credit for a 4 year delay that requires a Trump win to even happen.

<<You do when abortion/gay marriage is the amuse-bouche of the menu.>

Did you misunderstand again? Is it on purpose?>

No, you are misunderstanding. They are telling you what they will do and you are telling me they don't have to. You tell me they don't have to ban Rush/Hannity when they pay people to listen to catch an error, and have already tried to.

<<They have some really nice plans for you.>

No @#$%, Sherlock.>

You voted Hillary 2016 not me.
You said you supported Obama to stick it to Bush voters. (Their hate/emotion works well)

<<As optimal pointed out, so did the world.>

All 200 countries? I doubt it.>

The point is you wont be stopping it anytime soon. If the court bans it, you will get it in the states, if banned in the states people will probably go to Canada. In 2020, it is only a question of how easy it is, and how much travel costs are.

<No one said anything about electing Dems.>

...but you did complain about continually voting GOP. The only way to stop that is vote Dem, or pass. (which to me is like voting Dem)

<The question is, which Republicans stopped it?> I don't know as I was too young, but I do know who uses it, I do know who wants it. I do know who will never over turn it. The folks you voted for. You know, the smart vote.

It's fascinating.
It's as if Republicans put a boxer in the ring with a glass jaw to defend liberty. You support the side who wants him to
go down. You support the side who punches him in the face.

I will only address this one point, because I would rather see how <tga> addresses all of your points instead.

However, on this one point, <diceman>, you are straying from the <central point> and misdirecting the argument, to your detriment.

<Tga> framed this point around gun rights, and specifically how the country has moved left on the issue.

It was a point he used to support his <claim> that the US is moving left despite 50 years of so-called conservative courts and mostly GOP presidents.

The <central point> was to illustrate the fact that the <wins> you and many other conservatives seal clap aren't actually wins at all - just look at how left we've gone (i.e. gun rights, moving left, just look at a popular current case).

Instead of responding to that irrefutable point, you shifted away from the <central point of gun rights moving left>, misdirecting the debate to the irrelevant point of who allowed the people to riot in that town, which has zero to do with the <central point>.

<tga: <Dicema: Taken away your rights? Taken away your guns? >

You don't need to rewrite the Constitution when you can just arrest a 17 year old kid on trumped up murder charges, when he was only defending himself against three armed felons.>

You *have* to engage with the <central points> of the argument to stay in the debate at all. You can't have a serious, substantive and insightful debate if you avoid engaging the <central points> of your opponent.

As an expert in debating, and as the emperor of the Free Speech Zone (heh heh), I award this point to <tga> due to misdirection and a refusal to engage in the <central points>.

<Dice: The point is you wont be stopping it anytime soon. If the court bans it, you will get it in the states, if banned in the states people will probably go to Canada. In 2020, it is only a question of how easy it is, and how much travel costs are.>

"Okay libs, you win. Let's have abortion because, after all, like you said, it's gonna happen anyway."

This is a mighty concession to make to the libs just so you can <KEEP WINNING!!!!> for the GOP.

It's all about the GOP (like Red Sox vs Yankees) and nothing about the moral issues.

"Hey let's just FORGET about the moral issues so we can keep WINNING!"

GOP WINNING:

advancing the homosexual agenda
surrendering on abortion (cuz it's too hard and they'll do it anyhow) surrendering on gun rights (moved left even under GOP courts) not a single gop justice affirms the personhood of the unborn child out of control spending - big government

Here's how you make COVID go away:

You have the election.

Okay, now that that's cleared up, here's another way to make it go away:

1. No more masks unless you want to.

2. Open everything back up with no restrictions.

3. Test more people so that the survival rate is more accurate (around 0.04% mortality).

4. Have the news report that the survival rate for COVID is almost 100%

5. Don't let libtard mayors put COVID-positive patients in the nursing homes.

That's all you have to do.

***The truth about COVID***

1. It is dangerous for people over 70 and especially over 80.

2. HUG A CHINESE - the liberal attitude toward COVID, in the beginning, is what spread it around.

3. Almost half of COVID deaths are linked to nursing homes - courtesy of the libs.

4. Children 10 and under are twice as likely to die from the flu than from COVID.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...

***The truth about COVID stats***

The 7-day moving average for daily deaths in America has been on a steady decline since about August 4th.

7-day moving average <daily deaths> in America - worldometer

aug 4 - 1178
aug 11 - 1073
aug 25 - 967
sep 8 - 738
sep 22 - 737
oct 6 - 723
oct 15 - 711

7-day moving average <daily cases> in America

sep 8 - 28,992
sep 22 - 35,393
oct 6 - 44,475
oct 15 - 66,129

The number of cases rose sharply starting around September 8th - when the libs decided to riot across America.

Yet, during this same period, deaths continued to fall.

The graph lines are going in opposite directions. The cases are going up and the deaths are going down.

Who can explain this?
Who can interpret these numbers?
Why is it that cases are rising sharply but deaths are continuing to decline?

Maybe libs have stopped putting deathly sick people in the nursing homes?

Let the lurking reader see that we post seriously, substantively, and with insight on the Free Speech Zone.

<The question is, which Republicans stopped it?>>

No,. it is the only question you want to ask.

A) I have no access to the process.

B) I'm in a lib state, and have no Republicans right now. If I do they would be weak.

Is that my fault or the idiots you've supported?

C) I have no idea when a judge will be needed.

D) I have no idea who will be picked.

E) I have no idea how.

The simple premise is my side will pick one better than the folks who want to rewrite the Constitution. Not that I will win, not that I will get a guaranteed conservative.

F) My only access to the process is
vote Republican, or Democrat.

Contrary to what was said on Rogoff, we did not vote for Obamacare.

Obama ran as hope and change/ the black man.

Once elected, Obamacare was shoved down our throat.

Because of 1 man (Roberts) you tar and feather the GOP. You tar and feather conservative voters like me.

You skip the 80% of conservatives who voted against it.

You skip the 100% of elected Republicans
who didn't vote for it.

You give a pass to the 100% of libs who voted for it.

You give a pass to the liars and bribers who got it before the court.

<Tga> framed this point around gun rights, and specifically how the country has moved left on the issue.>

I don't understand how the GOP is supposed to stop rogue prosecutions?

That couple who defended themselves
from BLM were also charged like this, by a Soros DA.

Isn't the idea that self defense laws that are already on the books will free these people?

I don't understand how the GOP is supposed to stop rogue prosecutions?>

Whether or not you understand that isn't the point. The point is that you misdirected the debate from the <central point>.

The <Central point> is as I explained in the post you are referencing. The fact that rogue prosecutions on gun rights issues are even possible today only testifies to the leftward movement of the country under 50 years of conservative Supreme Courts and mostly GOP presidents.

Trump is doing a terrible job nominating the justices he's nominated, but conservatives who are <unaware> of the facts are enthusiastically seal clapping along as though Trump is winning a big one for them, for us, for all of us in America.

<diceman>, I voted for Trump in 2016 and I'm going to vote for him again in 2020. However, I am aware of the facts concerning these justices and I am not afraid or so politically biased that I am unwilling to think <critically> about what's going on.

<Raising awareness>

My point, the only point of all this, is to raise awareness of the fact that these GOP appointed justices are pro-abortion. It's disgusting.

They say, "I'm staunchly pro-life!" and then all the conservative radio hosts and TV hosts say, "this justice is staunchly pro-life!" and the seal clapping begins.

They say, "I'm staunchly pro-life" but they do not affirm the personhood of the unborn child. None of the conservative justices affirm the personhood of the unborn child. That means RvW stays where it is and has no plans on moving at all.

To make it worse (can it get worse? yes it can), these "staunchly pro-life" justices go on to say, if they are feeling especially gutsy that day, "I think the states should decide" and that is a defacto pro-abortion stance, because they're saying if the states decide it's lawful to shed innocent blood, then I'll uphold that law.

<dice>, they pull the wool over the Right's eyes on this one every single time.

Why?

Because of the overall lack of <awareness> among the Right. If the Right were to become aware of this, then they would have a more educated opinion on who to elect to the legislature, and then the GOP president would know what kind of legislature he's dealing with and would also know that the wool can't be pulled over the Right's eyes anymore, and then they would start nominating moral people to sit on the court - not moral relativists.

<dice>, you need to stop trying to make this about an attack on you, or an attack on conservatives, or about joining the other side.

Whether or not you understand that isn't the point. The point is that you misdirected the debate from the <central point>>

I didn't know I was in a debate, I thought I was talking to tga.

I didn't misdirect, I didn't understand the point.

I don't know self defense law as I live in a lib state. My understanding is they have been on the books for decades.

My understanding is the courts will clear this up.

Since they say you can indict a
ham sandwich I don't know how the GOP
stops this or what they missed to allow this.

I didn't misdirect, I didn't understand the point.>

The point is the misdirection, not whether or not we agree it's a debate, discussion, quarrel, argument or whatever you want to call it.

Whether you want to call it a discussion or not, when you misdirect away from the <central point>, it should be pointed out so that it isn't lost in what soon becomes the *noise* in the discussion.

<Since they say you can indict a ham sandwich I don't know how the GOP
stops this ...>

You stop it by appointing real conservatives, not fake conservatives, for the last 50 years and set precedent all along the way.

Just turn it the other way around. 50 years ago the libs said, "This is no good. I want it such that we can indict a ham sandwich. What shall we do?"

And they managed to get libs in conservative clothing appointed by GOP presidents so they could have things their way.

You see, the libs were <aware> of the <real> positions of these candidates. The pressure led the GOP presidents to nominate someone that they know would <look> good to the Right but would also get the votes.

All the politicians win, but the people lose. Don't you see it?

Let's take Amy Coney Barrett for example. The Democrats win because they are guaranteed to get a nominee that passes the litmus test - non personhood for the unborn child, yet they can put on a big show, lots of theater that their libtard constituents can eat up. The libs say, "Great! My senator is fighting hard for women's rights!! Yes!!"

The GOP "wins" because they can build this nominee up as staunchly pro-life. Now the GOP wins because the sheeple conservatives seal clap and say, "Yes! MAGA! Trump is appointing pro-life judges to the court! In your face! Yes! Winning!"

This helps both sides get reelected, helps the president look good, fills the seat - but make no mistake about it, it's pro-abortion all the way.

If 100 million conservatives woke up to this right now, it would change America for the better in a very big way in about a generation or so.

<This seems to be a case of false prosecution, or a frame-up, which should have laws for his legal team to throw it out of court?>

The kid being prosecuted for gunning down those armed thugs is off my radar, frankly. I wish him well, but his example was only used in this discussion to illustrate in one of many ways how America has moved quite to the left, despite 50 years of <winning>.

A country that makes the shedding of innocent blood legal is a lawless country and it sets lawlessness in motion. It gives it momentum. It gave huge momentum to the liberal cause in the early 70s and that snowball has rolled with that momentum and picked up speed. Now we have transvestites in the girl's room. It's all connected.

RvW was like someone trying cocaine for the first time. Once they cross that threshold, the taboos don't inhibit like they once did and the next thing you know, that person is using meth, heroin, pills, out with hookers, stealing, going to jail, doing crack.

No one said anything about electing Dems. The question is, which Republicans stopped it? None. That is the point <BP> was trying to make, and the point I am trying to make.>

<No one said anything about electing Dems.>

You didn't need to, if you berate me for
constant right voting the only change I can make is to vote left.

<which Republicans stopped it>

There is nothing to stop, the process starts on election day.

The President picks him, and that is your judge. Don't like it then vote left, or don't vote at all, those are your options.

There is no way for the President to know
how the judge will vote on present or future issues.

There is no way the President can guarantee a vote.

You seem to be pretending there is.

The only way to address it is win more and put more judges on the court.

Meanwhile, Biden is having rallies where zero people showed up.>

<thegoodanarchist
First of all, we cannot vote our way out of this mess.>>>>

You think that's even close?

Wrong. Those two things are miles apart.

<Sounds like it doesn't matter to me.>

That's the fault of your binary thinking. It's like saying there are only 2 colors of visible light, blue for high frequency, red for low frequency.

Two problems with this. One, you are talking about a different era. Our political parties were very much different 60 years ago than they are today. I am talking about 2020 and you are still stuck in 1960.

Second problem: Did the GOP dismantle the great society when I wasn't looking?

<GOP liberalism is your liberalism.>

I don't know what you mean by that. I hate the GOP, I only joined because of Trump's job performance.

<The folks who've had their legs broken by Democrats still need wheelchairs when republicans win. Since you've been supporting them, I thought you knew that.>

Supporting who? You named both major parties, so "them" isn't clear. But in any event, you are wrong again because I don't support either party, only individuals.

<<<tga: You clearly are misrepresenting my views.>>

dice: No I didn't. You brought up one kid as a problem.>

I did not bring up "one kid" as a problem, I brought him up as one <example> of a large problem.

<<<tga: Delaying the heretofore victorious march to the Left of the last 60 years is winning?>>

Yes, the folks you've been supporting, but take no responsibility for.>

The first time I was eligible to vote was Reagan's 2nd term. I voted third party. Second time I voted for Bush 1. Third time Bush 1 again. Fourth time I voted for Clinton's 2nd term, my first D vote. But he was a moderate, not like today's Left. In 2000 I had just moved to a different state. Instead of registering, I sat that one out. 2004 I voted for Dean in the D primary. He didn't get nominated, so I sat out the general election.

In 2008 I voted for Nader as a protest vote. I didn't want him to win, but he had no chance so it was a safe protest vote. I only voted Left the last 2 elections, but that is in the past.

So again we see the issue is that you cannot escape your binary thinking, which causes you to make incorrect assessments about me.

You will NEVER be able to understand me because you are not capable of thinking like me.

<Surrender to it is better?>

Straw man, I never said to surrender. Since you cannot refute my actual arguments, you make up straw man arguments.

<Besides, you gave yourself credit for a 4 year delay that requires a Trump win to even happen.>

I am not "taking credit" for anything, liar.

<They are telling you what they will do and you are telling me they don't have to.>

As if these both cannot exist simultaneously??? Another binary thinking error.

<You tell me they don't have to ban Rush/Hannity when they pay people to listen to catch an error, and have already tried to.>

Not what I said. You lie again.

<<<tga: No @#$%, Sherlock.>>

dice: You voted Hillary 2016 not me.>

Did you read any of my Rogoff posts since the last election???

<dice: You said you supported Obama to stick it to Bush voters. (Their hate/emotion works well)>

W is an evil sack of @#$%. Anyone who voted for that warmonger swaggering idiot ought to serve time in purgatory, even if they are a Christian.

<<<tga: No one said anything about electing Dems.>>

dice: ...but you did complain about continually voting GOP. The only way to stop that is vote Dem, or pass. (which to me is like voting Dem)>

Wrong again. There are other options, which I've discussed at length.

<It's fascinating.
It's as if Republicans put a boxer in the ring with a glass jaw to defend liberty. You support the side who wants him to go down. You support the side who punches him in the face.>

Another lie. I voted for Trump in 2020.

<The fetus win doesn't stop your side, and they go after us.>

The Left is not my side, liar.

<You still support them, and cry about the GOP when they win.>

No,. it is the only question you want to ask.>

This claim is absurd

<The simple premise is my side will pick one better than the folks who want to rewrite the Constitution. Not that I will win, not that I will get a guaranteed conservative.>

Exactly the point! A vote for [R] only buys time. We're still moving towards Marxism, only slower.

<My only access to the process is vote Republican, or Democrat.>

What does this tell you? It <should> tell you that the process is broken.

<Contrary to what was said on Rogoff, we did not vote for Obamacare.

Obama ran as hope and change/ the black man.>

No, he also campaigned on healthcare. I reject your revisionist history.

<Because of 1 man (Roberts) you tar and feather the GOP. You tar and feather conservative voters like me.>

I am not "tar and feathering" anyone. You are taking my posts as a personal attack?? It isn't. Not at all.

The point of my posts is that the system is broken. The founding fathers gave us a small central government because the US was a collection of independent colonies with different peoples, different cultures.

To quote the Z Man: <“Familiarity breeds contempt” is an old expression that like many others, remains true even though it is widely ignored. Proof of this is all round us, as Americans know more about one another than at any time in history. The more we know, the less we like about one another. The reason for this is we have never been one people or anything close to a nation. For most of our history, we have barely been a country. Now we get to see this reality every day on our media platforms.

From the very beginning, from the first settlement, America was a land with people, rather than a people with a land. The people who settled New England were very different from those that settled the South. In fact, those were groups of Englishmen with a long history of not liking one another. The Puritan settlers were on one side of the English Civil War, while the people of the South were on the other. To this day, that animosity shows up in a million little ways.>

https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=21...

<You skip the 80% of conservatives who voted against it.

You skip the 100% of elected Republicans
who didn't vote for it.

You give a pass to the 100% of libs who voted for it.

I guess I'm responsible for everyone who walks Earth, you're responsible for nothing on your side.>

The only way to address it is win more and put more judges on the court.>

I read this. I think there's nothing new here to reply to, that I didn't already say in my earlier posts today.

<The real problem is: The court itself. 9 people in black robes shouldn't be making these decisions.>