[2/2]
And↑ again↑, which leads us back to #71, in which it is pointed out that your revised argument, the changed subject, is already covered, such that your pretense in #58, "if you can't admit ... [
then] I can't take you seriously" was false; your subsequent,
puffed-up pretense↑ in response has nothing to it but puffery.
As I
said at the time↑, whether you're just a lazy troll or actually, genuinely so ignorant, people aren't going to rush to write your stupid theses for you.
And what is remarkable about your
self-righteous retort↑ is that your complaint (#78), "When I asked if you could even admit the two shared a common heritage, you just ignored it", points to post #47, which, if we look to #71, occurs
after I have already acknowledged the shared heritage,
e.g., #30. Do you get it, yet? Everyone sees you screwing up this way, botching and crashing and embarrassing yourself over and over and over again, and at some point it does occur to
wonder↑ at the difference 'twixt Skitt and will, and it is true there comes a point at which people no longer care
why you fail.
So think about that, for a moment: When you take your moment to laugh in #78—
"And then you wonder why I can't take you seriously. Hahaha!"—you're actually botching up,
yet again, and getting caught in a two-count lie: (1) Ignoring the address in the
immediate response at #49↑; (2) ignoring reference to that response in #71.
And, yet, after all that, you
return to your insupportable demand↑ for synonymity 'twixt "law" and "law enforcement", just blithely returning to the point: "So Obama was lauding the same thing?"
All of that scrambling and twisting and failing and generally embarrassing yourself, and for what?
Nothing. It wasn't for a damn thing, because in the end you aren't addressing any useful or arguable thesis, and not only did you work your way back to square zero—(
Hint:
Rubber-glue↑ ought to be hard to botch, but it is possible, as you have shown, by lying.)—yet
facing your own words↑, all you could manage was clumsily
changing the subject↑; your question about Obama in #118 only reiterates that you do not understand what you are on about, but the context of the U.S. Senator who happens to be black appealing to an ostensibly proud Anglo-American heritage in
law, in order to forestall a white supremacist foray against
habeas corups is neither criticizing nor lauding, except in appealing to merits claimed according to Anglo-American heritage of
law regardless of the Anglo-American heritage of
law enforcement; indeed, the time since Obama's statements are such as to reiterate that even the Anglo-American heritage of law, which is supposed to be proud in the case of
habeas corpus, is insufficient for white supremacism, and even and especially Barack Hussein Obama knew that true the day he uttered those remarks; the American heritage of
law enforcement is presently
infamous.
Oh, hey, speaking of insufficient: So, yeah, I even
asked↑, "You're the one who quoted it; do you not know whence it comes?" and you managed to
botch the answer↑: "I know where habeas corpus comes from," speaks nothing to the context of Obama's words. But in that same post, #120, you offer yet another version of your changed subject: "No, I'm saying that Anglo-American heritage is comparable, and its law enforcement operates under its law." And you keep failing to grasp the simple point: "Since it seems like you really don't know, habeas corpus comes from English law". Yes, and perhaps it feels good to put on the pretense, but you are in that moment screwing up again—unless, of course, you're just trolling—and repeating your failure to comprehend the context of Obama's words. You know, like I
explained↑ in my response: "You're the one who quoted Obama, why do you not know the context of what you quoted?" Your
response↑, "I already cited where habeas corpus came from, and I'll repeat it for you", is just another utter failure; you have no idea what you're on about, else you would have started making an actual point somewhere along the line. And, again, botching "poisoning the well" isn't the sort of thing that reinforces confidence in what you are telling people.
No, really, consider:
So you just think the Anglo-American legal system racist, regardless of origin?
If you're tired of being misunderstood, you might try answering direct questions.
The problem here is that you're staking your petulant self-righteouness on a fallacy;
see #120: "Hahaha! So because our legal heritage happens to come from a predominately white country, you naively think it's somehow inherently racist?" As I said in #124, false attribution; the word "because" is problematic, and you are projecting a fallacy of your own construction onto another as a windmill for tilting.
And again we see your demand for synonymous value; the
law can be as good and kind as we can make it, and that will mean nothing if the
law enforcement is corrupt. Your muddling of
law and the
enforcement thereof under a rubric of a
legal system only reminds that the American legal system is corrupted not because its heritage includes Ancient Rome and Greece, Enlightened France, or British tradition; the legal system falters when the
people enforcing the laws are corrupt. You continute to undermine yourself, even finishing #125 with a PBS citation that pretty much wrecks the sameness demanded in
#11↑, dodged and avoided repeatedly, and then revisited in, coincidentally, #111.
There is a lot about being an American that goes into what you would treat so simply; the absence of context and nuance is one thing, and compounded with a lack of any consistent thesis that leaves you constantly reeling and reacting and revising, as well as a strange inability to understand your own hooks and barbs, the sum of your performance throughout this thread has pretty much been a waste of your time and everyone else's.
And there is also this:
Well, since I've never heard them called frankfurters in the US, you'd have to enlighten me on when they may have been, and whatever that may have to do with the subject under discussion.
Was I
too subtle↑?
• It is true, we did intern German-Americans during WWII, but not nearly as many, and they were harder to find despite their numbers, and for obvious reasons. Still, if anyone remembers "freedom fries", that's also how Mitt Romney got into the queerest of news cycles when saying he liked tube steak. No, really, we didn't want to say "frankfurter" or "hamburger", so we said, "tube steak" and "liberty steak".
World War II. See, when Mitt Romney did this weird bit about "tube steak", the phrase had long been adopted, used, abused, and relegated to specialty by gay men, so ... right. Something about faces and palms, but that's a queer joke in and of itself. Suffice to say, his weirdness about processed potted meats is just ... really ... I mean, it's one joke after another.
But, yes, "tube steak" is a word for frankfurters, which we renamed during WWII.
Meanwhile, it's not quite trivia about
Miranda v. Arizona and
Dickerson v. U.S. but the parts about Anglican heritage from Justice White in the former and Chief Justice Rehnquist in the latter, are intriguing, but rather quite nuanced, because it's one thing to recall the application of Amendment XIV and voluntariness doctrine as such beginning in the 1880s, but we can also find a benchmark involving sheriffs specifically—you know, just to be particular, instead of city police (
Miranda) or feds (
Dickerson)—in a 1936 case,
Brown v. Mississippi, which involves beating confessions out of black men; the case extended voluntariness doctrine under the Fourteenth to state cases. So, yeah, you can see at least some of what that Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement brings.
We can get to those, later. I don't feel like writing the citations right now.
[fin]
