Supreme Court Ruling!

[baddog]

Get out the Play-Doh and the Kleenex.......oh boo hoo hoo.....Lmao.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

What petty issues that make it to the Supreme Court.

[westend1]

Lol. Important enough for an exclamation?   Trump would say that's sad

[baddog]

13 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Lol. Important enough for an exclamation?   Trump would say that's sad

So you are petty enough to want the Redskins name changed. How about a big LOL!!!!? That's all you can say about the article....my exclamation point? Lmao.

[westend1]

I guess it's important to you. Okay. Where do you work?  Curious how you respond to everything so quickly 

[Englebert]

20 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Lol. Important enough for an exclamation?   Trump would say that's sad

Important enough that Harry Reid, you know, the former Senate Majority leader, went after the name using his bully pulpit with threatening consequences. It is hilarious that the Supreme Court, with four very Liberal judges, shot down the Patent Office's, with Harry Reid's full support, unbelievable facists attempt to dictact their insanely skewed and sanctimonious Liberal agenda on the American people. Even the Liberal judges had to shoot down the former Senate Majority leader and his ilk with a score of 8-0 unanimous decision. Speaking of Reid's ilk, it looks like there's room for one more.

[westend1]

Dude.  Try that again

[Englebert]

6 minutes ago, westend1 said:

I guess it's important to you. Okay. Where do you work?  Curious how you respond to everything so quickly 

That's the true sign of a Liberal that's lost it. You are trying to gather information for personal attacks when you realize you can't debate on facts. This is just so sad.

[westend1]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

That's the true sign of a Liberal that's lost it. You are trying to gather information for personal attacks when you realize you can't debate on facts. This is just so sad.

Lol. What do you want to debate?

[Englebert]

3 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Dude.  Try that again

My bad, I didn't realize my post was beyond your comprehension. Try reading it a few more times, and if you are still having trouble I will try to dumb it down. But you have to make an effort.

[westend1]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

My bad, I didn't realize my post was beyond your comprehension. Try reading it a few more times, and if you are still having trouble I will try to dumb it down. But you have to make an effort.

It was stupid. But go on. 

[Englebert]

3 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Lol. What do you want to debate?

Why you are asking personal questions instead of staying on topic. It is a very simple concept that only Liberals have such trouble understanding.

[westend1]

3 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Why you are asking personal questions instead of staying on topic. It is a very simple concept that only Liberals have such trouble understanding.

Deflecting again?  Good idea for you

[Englebert]

9 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Deflecting again?  Good idea for you

You need to look up the definition of deflecting. You are the one that "deflected" by asking Baddog where he worked. That has nothing to do with the debate, but your feeble mind is so confused right now all you can do is try to go on the offensive of personal attacks. It's an old worn out strategy that most people just laugh off and mutter "bless his little heart", but I will drop down into the gutter with you. Since I've been employing the Liberal strategy of debate, "that's just my game".

Pick a topic and start a new thread.

[westend1]

There is nothing wrong with telling me about your educational history. Just trying to figure out what I am dealing with 

[Englebert]

26 minutes ago, westend1 said:

It was stupid. But go on. 

That's what stupid people say when encountering something beyond their comprehension. I bet you've employed the old standard "but he's book smart" defense mechanism on multiple occasions haven't you.

[baddog]

17 minutes ago, westend1 said:

I guess it's important to you. Okay. Where do you work?  Curious how you respond to everything so quickly 

No, laughing at the frivolous issues the Supreme Court has presented to them. Laughing at the individuals who think this is even an issue, and laughing that it was shot down.

Where I work is of no consequence.

[Englebert]

18 minutes ago, westend1 said:

There is nothing wrong with telling me about your educational history. Just trying to figure out what I am dealing with 

If you can't figure out "what your dealing with" by the posts, then you have a whole other issue that you need to deal with on a personal level. And if you need personal information to debate, well, you can't debate. The topic is obvious, and  it's obvious you want to use the personal information for personal attacks. Looney Liberals have been employing this strategy for awhile now. It's pretty clear you are in need of the obligatory pat on the head with the mutterance "bless your little heart".

[tvc184]

15 hours ago, baddog said:

What petty issues that make it to the Supreme Court.

First Amendment cases are petty issues?

[baddog]

25 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

First Amendment cases are petty issues?

Yes, some are. 

[tvc184]

I have never thought of a Bill of Rights case as being petty but to each his own. 

[baddog]

24 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I have never thought of a Bill of Rights case as being petty but to each his own. 

When I think of how old the Redskins are, and just till now it has become a problem, I call that petty.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

When I think of how old the Redskins are, and just till now it has become a problem, I call that petty.

The ruling had nothing to do with the Redskins. 

 You've got to get past the fake news headlines 

[1989NDN]

36 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

The ruling had nothing to do with the Redskins. 

 You've got to get past the fake news headlines 

Those that are interested can actually read the opinion written by Justice Alito at:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Under the Recent Decisions tab, click on:  06/19/17 - Matal v. Tam

or try: 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

The total opinion, majority and concurring, is 39 pages long.  Worth a read.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

The ruling had nothing to do with the Redskins. 

 You've got to get past the fake news headlines 

Said it could affect the Redskins....I know it was about a musical group called the Slants.