Justice Thomas Calls for End to Legislating from the Bench, Drives the Left Even Crazier. That is what is at the heart of the entire conflict. The left wants lawfare, it's that simple.

submitted by Chipit from pjmedia.com

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]CreditKnifeMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

That is what is at the heart of the entire conflict.

it's that simple

"And this is what you should think about it"

Most of your submissions have your own ideological opinions baked into the title.

You put opinion oil on the propaganda fire.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

It's an accurate statement; I stand by it.

If you disagree, tell us why. Don't just throw personal insults at me, in violation of Saidit TOS.

[–]IMissPorn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

Oh no, the TOSers followed me from reddit.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So, how about that lawfare? On Saidit we follow the Pyramid of Debate. Address the arguments. Insults are grounds to be banned.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I used to get angry at insults, but now I just smile. Because it means the other person cannot answer the argument.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

    Insults are grounds to be banned.

    Chipit is a poopyface

    [–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Still waiting for any discussion of the lawfare.

    [–]IMissPorn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Invoking TOS is kind of like lawfare, and we're discussing that. Probably the best you're gonna get.

    [–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    How about that Justice Thomas calling for an end to legislating from the bench?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Calm down... she voluntarily keeps on hating herself till she dies of cancer or an aneurysm anyways.

    You actually don't need to piss into the pile of shit she perpetually stirs for herself...

    She has to eat it up all by herself anyways. If not in this life then in the next one. Develop some trust in the gods doing the things they do best.

    [–]Questionable 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

    I need for you do something for me now Chipit. I need you to look at the pyramid of debate. Then point to place on the pyramid of debate entitled "name calling". Are you doing that? Are you pointing at it now? See where it is located on the pyramid of debate? It is there is it not? So if someone calls you a name, they are adhering to the pyramid of debate are they not? Now stop being a dumb ass.

    [–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    I didn't call anyone names. But you are, as you certainly know with the "dumb ass" remark. You're just another sock puppet troll, but we know that already.

    [–]Questionable 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    I didn't call anyone names. But you are, as you certainly know with the "dumb ass" remark.

    Correct. You didn't call anyone a name until now. But that is irrelevant. As you don't even seem to understand the conversation that you are currently in, or why name calling is a relevant topic.

    Trying to intimidate others into silence with terms of service, accusing someone of being a sock puppet account. Refusing to address the argument, while launching a personal attack of your own. You really are the piece of shit everyone accuses you of aren't you? Spinless, tone def, and weak. And worst of all, incapable of addressing persons online as individuals.

    You're just another sock puppet troll, but we know that already.

    Did you just call me names? Oh no, that's against the TOS! YOU CAN BE BANNED FOR THAT! In addition you must address the central argument I made, or be banned! You must fight this argument until you are exhausted, and without end, until the thread reaches it max character limit or you concede. TOS dictate that you have no choice, as you must debate within the confines of the pyramid of debate!

    Now as for your central argument, I shall now debate it. My answer is:

    No, I am not, you are. :P

    [–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    It's not name calling. Name calling is something like "you are a dumb ass". You really are a troll, here to disrupt the site and not to contribute to discussions. How about that Justice Thomas and his call to end legislating from the bench?

    [–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Your opinion is rejected outright and with prejudice. In the future, instead of virtue signalling how that you 'laugh off insults', while simultaneously threatening other users with Terms of Services violations, I recommend you simply click that button entitled "disable inbox replies" and move on.

    Now if you want to see what dealing with a real Troll looks like, without that disable button:

    BUCKLE UP BUDDY! MICKEY TAKE THE WHEELE!!!

    Ĥ̅͛ǝ̮̺͕̲̰llo ʍoɹlp' I,m Qnǝsʇᴉouɐqlǝ.̬̘̟ͅ

    [–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Ah, I thought your group was active on that site, too. Now I know.

    [–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    If you disagree, tell us why.

    Low-budget propaganda messages don't improve anything.

    If anything, it makes the situation worse by polarizing both sides.

    Saying nothing is a better tactic than stating transparent talking points; assuming you're not intentionally pushing the divide and conquer agenda.

    A questionable assumption.

    [–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Once again, completely avoiding the point of the post. Tell us why the Supreme Court should or should not legislate from the bench.

    [–]CreditKnifeMan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Once again, completely avoiding the point of the post.

    People should decide for themselves.

    Tell us why the Supreme Court should or should not legislate from the bench.

    That's what the comments section is for.

    People should think for themselves, and don't need your unsolicited input.