|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Hey look, if you're going to take a snippet of a fuck knows how long SC decision and present it to me like it supports your argument about elections being referendums, then criticise me for not having read the whole thing when I point out your snippet doesn't support your argument, then that's just retarded.
If you really want to prove this argument, find the bits that support what you actually believe their decision was based on. It's not my fault you expect me to read into things stuff that isn't in the bit you cited.
Dude this was a gigantic news story 7 years ago. I'm sorry you missed it. But I'm not going to go back into the salt mines to dig up all the relevant sources and details. The SC said: "ACA = bad. We can make it good if we call it something different. And we're going to do that because elections"
If you disagree. Either make a supported argument, or fuck off. That's my understanding of the SC's decision, and that's how it will stand unless you can change my mind with a fact. And I'm going to apply that same understanding to wall policy, and just about anything else an elected leader does within his power.
If my thought process offends you so deeply, then you need more hobbies. Try masturbating more.
|
Reply With Quote
