\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Top five cliches that liberals use to avoid real arguments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/top-five-cliches-libe...
Avocado hominid
  05/01/12
Lol @ this idiot defending a debunk theory like originalism ...
Smoky Pocket Flask
  05/01/12
I think that the theory of an evolving Constitution was esta...
Charismatic theatre
  05/01/12
This. I cannot fathom what twisted logic one has to apply to...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
You take originalism seriously? That's the epitome of twiste...
Smoky Pocket Flask
  05/01/12
Then fucking amend it you retard. Do you not understand that...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
thats patently absurd considering shit gets called unconstit...
Confused hall
  05/01/12
To be fair, lol you're flame right
diverse blathering box office
  05/01/12
1) Justice sees something they don't like 2) reads into t...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
look, by definition, if we didnt have a constitution/werent ...
Confused hall
  05/01/12
To be fair, lol brother your're a fagg'ot
diverse blathering box office
  05/01/12
Holy shit "very obviously different outcomes" ...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
o rite so when u say "not have a constitution" wat...
Confused hall
  05/01/12
That is the point from the start: If you believe that the co...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
lol. so basically your argument rests on an unsupported infe...
Confused hall
  05/01/12
Cow Goes Moo doesn't understand what original public meaning...
Smoky Pocket Flask
  05/01/12
wont surprise ne1 whos read him try 2 defend austrian econ
Confused hall
  05/01/12
You actually think that Justices interpret the 8th Amendment...
Smoky Pocket Flask
  05/01/12
Article Five amendment process is both arduous and rare. ...
Smoky Pocket Flask
  05/01/12
To be fair, That's fairly implied in the federalist struc...
diverse blathering box office
  05/01/12
"I should repeat, this is not a libtard-only trait. But...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
Nope. Not saying that. It is simply a function of human rati...
Smoky Pocket Flask
  05/01/12
do you think the second amendment gives me the right to own ...
Crimson Brunch Immigrant
  05/01/12
I think that if people were honest and stuck with the entire...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
non-responsive. there has been no such amendment. I agree th...
Crimson Brunch Immigrant
  05/01/12
Such amendments were not made exactly because people bought ...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
i thought you were offering a workable judicial philosophy f...
Crimson Brunch Immigrant
  05/01/12
haha
Confused hall
  05/01/12
I'm honestly interested in your answer. is your position mer...
Crimson Brunch Immigrant
  05/01/12
What is this? The fact that we have thousands of Federal la...
Charismatic theatre
  05/01/12
i'm pretty sure regular legislation doesnt trump constitutio...
Crimson Brunch Immigrant
  05/01/12
Obviously not brother, but federal legislation imposes laws ...
Charismatic theatre
  05/01/12
it seems like these examples support the idea of an evolving...
Crimson Brunch Immigrant
  05/01/12
A statute the empowers an Administrative Agency cannot reaso...
Charismatic theatre
  05/01/12
i disagree with your agency rulemaking analogy, but even if ...
Crimson Brunch Immigrant
  05/01/12
Bro, it was obviously fucking flame with my slander/libel co...
Charismatic theatre
  05/01/12
I'm xo's designated straight man
Crimson Brunch Immigrant
  05/01/12
You were an unfortunate victim. I was hoping SSM or Cow Goe...
Charismatic theatre
  05/01/12
all good man. SSM is one of my favorite posters actually. I ...
Crimson Brunch Immigrant
  05/01/12
To be fair, Brilliant article, tyvmft.
diverse blathering box office
  05/01/12
...
Comical lodge
  05/01/12
To be genuinely fair, that's retarded.
Confused hall
  05/01/12
To be fair, Missppelled "completely true and scarily...
diverse blathering box office
  05/01/12
no i dont think i did.
Confused hall
  05/01/12
you post above outs you as a tard, just leave this thread.
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
lol @ cgm calling me a tard. its hardly even an argument, u ...
Confused hall
  05/01/12
To be fair, *Sets up system where I decide, on a case-by-...
diverse blathering box office
  05/01/12
literally no idea what you're trying to say in this post.
Confused hall
  05/01/12
To be fair, Well this surprises me
diverse blathering box office
  05/01/12
lol ok tbf. ur the mfe, scalia is the great genius of the wo...
Confused hall
  05/01/12
If you knew anything you would know that someone with TBF's ...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
i know that tbf likes thomas a lot better, hes stated that m...
Confused hall
  05/01/12
lol i just reread this. u realize most of the posters here a...
Confused hall
  05/01/12
To be fair, Hey bro I don't want to break up this sandbox...
diverse blathering box office
  05/01/12
i have but 4 watever reason thats how i like 2 post. To be f...
Confused hall
  05/01/12
To be fair, Brother politics aside will you at least fond...
diverse blathering box office
  05/01/12
will it cum? if no itll b a VERY frustrating experience 4 me
Confused hall
  05/01/12
like I said, you may just be having a bad day, or you don't ...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
i'll take ur advice, i always 4get how posting abt politics/...
Confused hall
  05/01/12
lulz
Smoky Pocket Flask
  05/01/12
outcome would not. The law would be struck down, just under ...
vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
  05/01/12
only in a very specific kind of constitutionless state
Confused hall
  05/01/12
i actually thought AEI was somewhat respectable. this is lik...
bossy stag film gay wizard
  05/01/12
Thanks breh. Very cogent point
Smoky Pocket Flask
  05/01/12
cr
Confused hall
  05/01/12
What are the alternatives
hairraiser cruise ship newt
  05/01/12
It's a WaPo article, reposted at AEI.
Avocado hominid
  05/01/12


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 11:42 AM
Author: Avocado hominid

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/top-five-cliches-liberals-use-to-avoid-real-arguments/2012/04/27/gIQAFR1zlT_story.html

Complete article:

http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/top-five-cliches-that-liberals-use-to-avoid-real-arguments/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588716)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 11:44 AM
Author: Smoky Pocket Flask

Lol @ this idiot defending a debunk theory like originalism and executive power aggrandizement. He sounds incredibly butthurt over Rasul v Bush, hamdan v Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v Bush:

It is dogma among liberals that sophisticated people understand that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.” The idea was largely introduced into the political bloodstream by Woodrow Wilson and his allies, who were desperate to be free of the constraints of the founders’ vision. Wilson explained that he preferred an evolving, “organic,” “Darwinian” Constitution that empowered progressives to breathe whatever meaning they wished into it. It is a wildly ideological view of the nature of our political system.

It is also a font of unending hypocrisy. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, conservatives argued that the country needed to adapt to a new asymmetrical warfare against non-state actors who posed an existential threat. They believed they were working within the bounds of the Constitution. But even if they were stretching things, why shouldn’t that be acceptable — if our Constitution is supposed to evolve with the times?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588732)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 11:51 AM
Author: Charismatic theatre

I think that the theory of an evolving Constitution was established when the drafters incorporated a process of amendment.

Really, your post is pseudo-intellectual fluff.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588768)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:26 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

This. I cannot fathom what twisted logic one has to apply to justify the judiciary "evolving" the constitution when we already have a fucking process in place. Just admit it: When libtarded, and conservatives to a lesser extent, justices see something they don't like, they want to change it themselves rather than risk a pesky more democratic system.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588910)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:27 PM
Author: Smoky Pocket Flask

You take originalism seriously? That's the epitome of twisted logic. Things change--the meaning of liberty, for example, in 1791 and today are radically different.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588912)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:28 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

Then fucking amend it you retard. Do you not understand that if you abide by the notion that we can change what the constitution means at will, then you may aswell not have it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588919)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:28 PM
Author: Confused hall

thats patently absurd considering shit gets called unconstitutional all the time

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588923)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:29 PM
Author: diverse blathering box office

To be fair,

lol you're flame right

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588926)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:30 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

1) Justice sees something they don't like

2) reads into the "living" document

3) Manufactures a rationalization why the thing they don't like is unconstitutional

I should repeat, this is not a libtard-only trait. But it is a fundamental flaw in how the judiciary has, and does, operate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588933)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:31 PM
Author: Confused hall

look, by definition, if we didnt have a constitution/werent a constitutional state nothing wld b called unconstitutional. so ur example basically proves that its not true that "we might as well not have a constitution" since something was. very obviously different outcomes, not sure why this is so hard

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588944)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:32 PM
Author: diverse blathering box office

To be fair,

lol brother your're a fagg'ot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588956)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:33 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

Holy shit

"very obviously different outcomes"

No, just instead of "unconstitutional" it would read "Breyer and 5 other justices don't like this law". The outcome (if people bought it) would be the same.

The consitution would only serve as a tool to lend legitimacy to the process for 80IQ tards.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588962)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:35 PM
Author: Confused hall

o rite so when u say "not have a constitution" wat u mean is that INSTEAD of a constitution, we'd have the supreme court as a kind of superlegislation. that seems like only 1 of many ways that things might work out if we didnt have a constitution. it wld have been nice 4 u 2 b honest abt that up front, but now ive gotten it out of u.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588968)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:37 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

That is the point from the start: If you believe that the consitution is a "living" document that the justics can interpret at will then they can basically do whatever they want.

Now, they have to play politics so there is a constraint in not pissing off the general populace or Obama, but beyond that...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588983)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:39 PM
Author: Confused hall

lol. so basically your argument rests on an unsupported inference which is basically a restatement of what you want to conclude. do you have any reason to think that "living document"-jurisprudence justices are "do[ing] whatever they want" or that "originalists" aren't? you're a college freshman, right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588996)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:45 PM
Author: Smoky Pocket Flask

Cow Goes Moo doesn't understand what original public meaning originalism is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589033)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:45 PM
Author: Confused hall

wont surprise ne1 whos read him try 2 defend austrian econ

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589034)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:40 PM
Author: Smoky Pocket Flask

You actually think that Justices interpret the 8th Amendment based on what the words of "cruel or unusual mean", ha?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589000)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:32 PM
Author: Smoky Pocket Flask

Article Five amendment process is both arduous and rare.

Your accusing something that liberal justices do, but turn a blind eye to the Rehnquist Court's reading-out-of-their-faggot-asses "state sovereign immunity" under the 11th amendment (see the Seminole Tribe line of cases).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588952)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:34 PM
Author: diverse blathering box office

To be fair,

That's fairly implied in the federalist structure of our government you stupid nigger.

"But so is abortion!!!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588963)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:34 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

"I should repeat, this is not a libtard-only trait. But it is a fundamental flaw in how the judiciary has, and does, operate."

Reading is step one in being able to discuss legal matters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588966)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:36 PM
Author: Smoky Pocket Flask

Nope. Not saying that. It is simply a function of human rationality--we cannot be constrained by doctrine. We inevitably are deciding and litigating cases with the background of contemporary norms and ideas.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588980)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:36 PM
Author: Crimson Brunch Immigrant

do you think the second amendment gives me the right to own nuclear arms?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588975)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:40 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

I think that if people were honest and stuck with the entire notion of the consistution that in 1950 there would have been an amendment passed banning personal ownership of nukes. i.e. fucking evolving the constitution the way it was intended.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588998)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:42 PM
Author: Crimson Brunch Immigrant

non-responsive. there has been no such amendment. I agree that there should have been. the question is, in the absence of such an amendment, can I own a nuke?

the fact that ther SHOULD HAVE BEEN shitloads of amendments is the problem with your position.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589014)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:45 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

Such amendments were not made exactly because people bought into this living consitution bullshit. They knew that under this context, no amendment re: nukes was needed. Going back and saying "Assuming we did not have a living constitution, would people have nukes?" needs to also include what would probably have been the historical amendments and changes that would occur if people did not buy the "living" bullshit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589032)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:47 PM
Author: Crimson Brunch Immigrant

i thought you were offering a workable judicial philosophy for today. are you saying we'd have to rewrite all of american history for your approach to work?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589042)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:48 PM
Author: Confused hall

haha

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589047)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 1:00 PM
Author: Crimson Brunch Immigrant

I'm honestly interested in your answer. is your position merely a gripe about history? if so, cool, I guess I agree.

if not, how do you deal with the absolute language used in the bill of rights?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589086)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:46 PM
Author: Charismatic theatre

What is this? The fact that we have thousands of Federal laws is evidence that you don't need an amendment for every possible issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589035)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:48 PM
Author: Crimson Brunch Immigrant

i'm pretty sure regular legislation doesnt trump constitutional rights mang

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589045)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:53 PM
Author: Charismatic theatre

Obviously not brother, but federal legislation imposes laws that is able to restrict rights.

Take, for instance, our idea of freedom of speech. How free is it? You only need look to slander and libel laws to realize that speech is not completely free. You can also look to Federal Securities laws with regard to material misstatements to see that certain statements result in legal liabilities. This is in contrast with our theory of "freedom of speech" but not actually in contrast with the reality of freedom of speech.

Our fundamental freedoms are limited by Constitutionally-enacted laws all the time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589060)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:56 PM
Author: Crimson Brunch Immigrant

it seems like these examples support the idea of an evolving constitution rather than congress's ability to limit constitutional rights through regular legislation.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589078)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 1:04 PM
Author: Charismatic theatre

A statute the empowers an Administrative Agency cannot reasonably be called evolutionary simply because it grants that agency rulemaking powers.

(this is effectively what the Consitution does with Congress)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589104)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 1:09 PM
Author: Crimson Brunch Immigrant

i disagree with your agency rulemaking analogy, but even if i accept it, the language of the first amendment (I guess the "intelligible principle" in your analogy) is plainly inconsistent with any restriction on speech.

the obvious solution is that the constitution cant be interpreted literally, and this is the conclusion that every person who thinks about the issue comes to, even Scalia (Thomas, not so sure). Either you havent been to law school or youre flame

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589126)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 1:16 PM
Author: Charismatic theatre

Bro, it was obviously fucking flame with my slander/libel comment.

Constitution doesn't have ANYTHING to do with tort actions between people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589149)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 1:18 PM
Author: Crimson Brunch Immigrant

I'm xo's designated straight man

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589162)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 1:19 PM
Author: Charismatic theatre

You were an unfortunate victim. I was hoping SSM or Cow Goes Moo would attack so I could get some lulz out of them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589174)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 1:21 PM
Author: Crimson Brunch Immigrant

all good man. SSM is one of my favorite posters actually. I think cow goes moo is probably flame too

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589193)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:19 PM
Author: diverse blathering box office

To be fair,

Brilliant article, tyvmft.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588881)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:33 PM
Author: Comical lodge



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588961)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:27 PM
Author: Confused hall

To be genuinely fair, that's retarded.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588913)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:28 PM
Author: diverse blathering box office

To be fair,

Missppelled "completely true and scarily accurate"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588925)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:30 PM
Author: Confused hall

no i dont think i did.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588935)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:32 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

you post above outs you as a tard, just leave this thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588949)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:33 PM
Author: Confused hall

lol @ cgm calling me a tard. its hardly even an argument, u say we might as well not have it but its clear outcomes wld b different if we didnt. just a ridiculous statement on ur part

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588959)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:35 PM
Author: diverse blathering box office

To be fair,

*Sets up system where I decide, on a case-by-case basis predicated on my gut judgment, what activities I feel like saying are 'constitutional'*

*Smugly points out that 'we must have a constitution', otherwise 'I couldn't make those calls, now could I?'*

*Has a probable IQ of ~105*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588969)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:37 PM
Author: Confused hall

literally no idea what you're trying to say in this post.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588982)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:38 PM
Author: diverse blathering box office

To be fair,

Well this surprises me

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588992)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:40 PM
Author: Confused hall

lol ok tbf. ur the mfe, scalia is the great genius of the world or w/e

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589003)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:42 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

If you knew anything you would know that someone with TBF's stance would, odds are, like Thomas alot better. But you are an ignorant retard who thinks "DERP ORIGINALIST DERP CONSERVATIVE DERP SCALIA". Did you just read Scalia's wiki entry and see that he is claimed to be the "originalist" of the court?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589013)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:42 PM
Author: Confused hall

i know that tbf likes thomas a lot better, hes stated that many times. my post wasnt abt who he agreed with more. its amazing that even in a small post like this u find some small distinction 2 completely fail 2 appreciate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589020)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:48 PM
Author: Confused hall

lol i just reread this. u realize most of the posters here are practicing or unemployed lawyers from T14 skewls rite? & ur a college freshman who believes in austrian economics magic? u might consider not accusing ppl of not knowing their shit and instead listening & trying 2 learn a bit. itll help 4 when ur finally at ur regional law skewl & get ur first semester straight Bs back.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589044)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:51 PM
Author: diverse blathering box office

To be fair,

Hey bro I don't want to break up this sandbox scuffle, but have you ever considered not spelling/writing like you're posting a comment about a Wu-Tang music video on Youtube?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589053)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:54 PM
Author: Confused hall

i have but 4 watever reason thats how i like 2 post. To be fair, I can use whatever diction I want; it's not like I don't know how to spell, punctuate, and use grammar. its just that i find typing like this 2 b a healthy alternative 2 taking this place srsly. i read my own statements & remember i & every1 else are flame. Thank you for the opportunity to explain, however.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589069)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:55 PM
Author: diverse blathering box office

To be fair,

Brother politics aside will you at least fondle my engorged dickhead a little

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589073)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:57 PM
Author: Confused hall

will it cum? if no itll b a VERY frustrating experience 4 me

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589081)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:39 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

like I said, you may just be having a bad day, or you don't grasp the subject matter, or you are plain retarded, but you need to stop posting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588995)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:42 PM
Author: Confused hall

i'll take ur advice, i always 4get how posting abt politics/law here is like sticking my head up sean hannity's ass these days

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589016)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:53 PM
Author: Smoky Pocket Flask

lulz

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589066)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:35 PM
Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker

outcome would not. The law would be struck down, just under a different (more truthful) label.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588970)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:37 PM
Author: Confused hall

only in a very specific kind of constitutionless state

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588985)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:38 PM
Author: bossy stag film gay wizard

i actually thought AEI was somewhat respectable. this is like fox news comments bullshit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588988)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:40 PM
Author: Smoky Pocket Flask

Thanks breh. Very cogent point

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589002)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:41 PM
Author: Confused hall

cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589004)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 12:43 PM
Author: hairraiser cruise ship newt

What are the alternatives

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589025)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 1st, 2012 2:14 PM
Author: Avocado hominid

It's a WaPo article, reposted at AEI.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589520)