Y’know, if I could, I’d start a thread for RT and Elvis and Uncle to debate who’s the biggest stalker or liar or whatever. But I’m afraid I’d violate the “let’s you and him fight” rule by doing so (despite my total lack of desire ever to visit that thread). All I can do is, once again, ask that y’all take it to another thread; it’s really, really, really got nothing to do with this one. Could one of you start that thread and link to it from here, at least?
Daniel
Couple of quick points: Based on some other news reports of DeLay’s statement, along with the story cited by Homebrew, I think I’ve got DeLay’s motivation pegged. He is trying to get a soundbite out to the voters and decision-makers about the “judicial activists” (his words) who aren’t ruling by law. I believe (but cannot prove) that he’s trying to imply Justice Kennedy (and others) are basing legal rulings and interpretations on public opinion rather than Constitutional law. As Homebrew said, he’s flinging stuff everywhere in an attempt to deflect attention.
RTFirefly: I’ve got absolutely no dog in this fight, but from this uninvolved corner, you’re not coming off looking too well here. Best-case, you’re engaging in the same type of tactics for which you’ve already lambasted Unclebeer, and for which he apparently apologized. This does not speak highly of you.
LHOD, if you’d been reading more carefully, you’d have noticed that I have not called anyone a liar here. I’ve said that manhattan is a tool and a hate-filled fool, and I’ve suggested that UncleBeer is drunk and that Weirddave and Shodan are clueless with a big helping of irrelevant. Those are not really debatable points though, are they? The accusations of lying have been drooled out by *those * personages. But not me, you tool.
We now return you to reality, already in progress.
Sauron, Daniel - I see your point. Apologies.
Can’t see it’s worth the trouble of a new thread, and sorry for adding to the trainwreck in this one.
::bows out::
I may be irrelevant, and I am frequently clueless, but one thing I don’t do is lie about what someone else posts, in particular I’m smart enough to realize that here anyone can simply go back and read what was actually posted, so if I claim otherwise it’s pretty easy to disprove my claims. I notice RTF has bowed out of this thread and neither of you has come up with one single example of manhattan defending Mr. DeLay in this thread, so I stand by what I said. You are deliberately lying. This may not bother you, but my mother raised me with enough integrity 1) Not to lie in the first place and 2) to be ashamed of myself when if I was caught in a lie. I guess you weren’t raised to believe that integrity was important.
manhattan seems to taken a page from DeLay himself. Rather than suffer the consequences of his actions, DeLay seeks to distract and obfusicate. Rather than defend DeLay directly, manhattan tries to deflect the righteous anger from DeLay. It may be indirect and even denied; but it’s still a defense.
Every post from manhattan I’ve read in this thread was addresed to LHoD and about his inane and ill informed OP. Please link me to the one I missed where he adressed the issue of Mr. DeLay and his statements.
His very first post was meant to deflect the reader from the content of the OP onto the posting habits of LHoD. Classic distraction technique and it has the bonus of plausible deniability of a even being a defense.
Well, at least some ignorance is being fought here. Prior to now I didn’t know they even made busses that fucking short.
If it helps, I don’t give a shit about manhattan’s take on the OP any more; I concede that there was a punctuation error in it, which I regret, but I think that the central issue of the OP is worth discussing, and I think that manhattan’s opinion of me is NOT worth discussing, or at the very least merits its own thread, which I can blessedly ignore.
But since there’s no news on this in the last few hours, I’m not sure what else there is to discuss, so it looks as if people are going to continue bickering about who’s the bigger liar, or fool, or inane poster, or doodoohead, or whatever. I only hope that, if someone’s able to find out what DeLay was talking about, they’ll post it to bring this thread back on-topic.
Daniel
So you were in a residence program then?
So now you know not only what is posted, but also the thoughts and intentions of the person making the post? That’s pretty fucking amazing, how come you’re not claiming Randi’s million dollars? Can you tell what I am thinking right now as I write this? Betcha can.
That you’re spending way too much time and aggravation picking fights over idiotic, petty little matters? Am I close?
Children please. Can we all just admit that we are all retarted in our own special way and end this bitchy little slapfest?
All except for RTFirefly, because the Marz Brothers kick ass 
That sounds plausible. But I suspect that if the Court ruled that the Pledge was unconstitutional, they’d be roaring about how most of the public supports it.
This isn’t new, by the way. About whether habeas corpus applied in the newly conquered Philipines:
From about 100 years ago.
Methinks old dropsie has the right of it.
It seems a fair paraphrase of Delay’s statement, as far as we know. Maybe he was taken completely out of context; maybe he just had a brain fart and said something stupid.
But that ain’t LHoD’s problem. Daniel, I don’t usually agree with you, but I generally respect you. Nothing you have posted in this thread has made me do otherwise.
Regards,
Shodan
But the mods are, and should be, quite strict about the use of quotes. Had the title been: Delay thinks jduges shouldn’t use the internet, that probably would have been OK. You simply don’t put something in quotes, ESPECIALLY in the title, unless someone actually said those exact words.
For a post, sure. For a thread title? I think that’s getting a little anal. It’s the thread title. That alone makes it clear that it’s a paraphrase, not a direct quote. I’m a little surprised that it drew a mod warning, too. Is this a new rule? I can’t recall anyone else ever getting warned for putting a paraphrase between quote marks in a thread title before, and I’m sure I’ve seen it often enough.
Sorry to come late to this party, but I have to disagree with the claim that the OP, and its title, are spreading ignorance, particularly intentionally.
If I see a thread entitled, say, Bush: “Soldiers shouldn’t have camera phones”, I will immediately assume two things:
(1) Bush said something about soldiers and camera phones
(2) If I read the OP, I’ll get an actual quote, along with someone attempting to convince me that the actual quote is accurately summed up by the thread title, and that’s a bad thing (assuming this is a pit thread).
I certainly will NOT just look at that thread title and say “wow, Bush said quote soldiers shouldn’t have camera phones unquote, and I don’t care what the context is, I just now know what his precise quote was.”
Furthermore, I will assume that Bush, whatever he precisely said, said it about soldiers DURING THEIR SOLDIERING. It certainly would NEVER occur to me that Bush would claim that soldiers shouldn’t have camera phones in their private lives at home with their wives during peacetime. Sure, it COULD have been titled Bush: “Soldiers shouldn’t have camera phones while soldiering”, but that clarification hardly strikes me as relevant, and leaving that clarification off definitely does NOT strike me as in any way deceptive.
And one other point, to attempt to back up something RTFirefly was saying: if someone I disagree with says something that sounds stupid, I will happily post it and say “this sound stupid”. And if someone who agrees with that person thinks there are reasons of some sort why the statement was NOT actually stupid, they should feel free to point those reasons out. I do not, however, feel obligated to go out and prove that my initial impression was an accurate one before starting a pit thread.
One of the nice things about practicing in Kanukistan is that for the most part relevant decisions from other jurisditions may be considered with varying degrees of persuasiveness. Not only do we consider international law, but, dare I say it, we have even been known to consider law from the Great Satan.
That some folks would want to insulate their courts from considering relevant law outside their own nation seems very unwise to me. I am glad to be in a system that looks about rather than puts a hood over it’s eyes.
As far as using the internet goes, up here in the Great White it is a primary research tool through which we connect with legal databases such as Quicklaw/Lexis and Carswell/Westlaw, and, if you can believe it, various databases of courts and tribunals themselves. As far as sources outside of judicial decisions and statutes go, it again comes down to how such sources are weighted by the judge. Whether the medium is electronic or paper usually makes little difference.