![]() |
|
|||||||
| Debating with the enemy Discuss politics, current events, and other hot button issues here. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#10 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
|
Re: The Supreme Court and guns
Quote:
Mentions of "sauce" and levels of "fertility" for arguments (while quite odd) are simply a diversion from facts and are your standard MO when there's nothing but spin and distortion to support your position. It won't make a difference to you, but for those interested in truth and facts, you should read this: ‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online= 1) The Bush Admin. only dropped the criminal case, not the civil case (link explains why in detail). 2) Although it was under the Bush Admin. The career chief of the section responsible for filing of criminal charges was a prior ACLU attorney and liberal contributor/loyalist. 3) The same career chief is the one that decided not to pursue charges against the Minuteman in 2006 because there was no evidence, only allegations. An eyewitness sworn affidavit is basically the same thing as testimony under oath. This case was investigated in detail by a team of DoJ attorneys and DoJ was awarded a default judgement. The court does not award judgements just because a defendant doesn't show. The case has to have merit. Another link with great detail: Friends in High Places | The Weekly Standard And to those who just want to post "those are biased sources." Read the articles, see if you find any discrepancies of fact, and then let me know.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996. |
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|