Liar. I stated the terms by which the judgement was rendered. 😉
The abiilty for you nitwits to throw rhetorical spaghetti at the wall hoping it sticks, never ceases to amuse me.
Source date (UTC): 2022-06-09 18:17:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534962846525685760
Reply addressees: @An0malyNine @WillFlyforFood @MPLSKerrBear
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534962532166688768
Non argument.
Source date (UTC): 2022-06-09 18:16:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534962609195196416
Reply addressees: @An0malyNine @WillFlyforFood @MPLSKerrBear
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534962116423127041
Sounds-like is an admission of ignorance.
I’m arrogant, effete, and accomplished.
That’s what I sound like.
You’d have to argue gainst the argument – not me.
Otherwise you’re just a disapproving child.
Source date (UTC): 2022-06-09 18:03:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534959385537028096
Reply addressees: @AShrew2 @MPLSKerrBear
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534958036254605313
Exactly.
Source date (UTC): 2022-06-09 16:49:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534940869534486528
Reply addressees: @SaitouHajime00
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534939268698689545
(BTW we can debate our understanding of any subject of contention within the law and I will handliy demonstrate your incompetence and deceit. No adult with knowledge of the field would have argued against my reading of the judgement.)
Source date (UTC): 2022-06-09 15:03:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534914085216821248
Reply addressees: @WillFlyforFood @MPLSKerrBear
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534912833502097411
Ergo I demonstrated by expertise. You evaded argument in order to claim an pretense of knowledge and understanding you cannot demostrate, and therefore simply ‘lied’. The science says that you are demonstrating the female cognitive bias of undermining(lying) vs arguing (truth)
Source date (UTC): 2022-06-09 14:56:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534912319251177472
Reply addressees: @WillFlyforFood @MPLSKerrBear
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534910950821638145
Your opinions measure only your ignorance.
I read the ruling and correctly described it’s meaning. The fact that you are engaged in ad hominems (cancel culture) is evidence that you (a) havent read it (b) don’t understand it (c) don’t understand what I said in response.
Source date (UTC): 2022-06-09 14:54:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534911930560806913
Reply addressees: @WillFlyforFood @MPLSKerrBear
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534910950821638145
I mean, it’s hard to believe that Vox even read the ruling. (Not that it’s out of character for Vox to make up agitprop out of thin air.) Certainly no one in the comments has.
Source date (UTC): 2022-06-09 14:52:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534911227624927234
Reply addressees: @MPLSKerrBear
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534722484280381440
Journalists are from the bottom 16% of graduating classes.
Try to listen to smart people instead.
They’re usually nerds.
They aren’t entertaining.
But they’re probably right.
And the popular press is almost certainly wrong.
Source date (UTC): 2022-06-09 14:41:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534908643388301317
Reply addressees: @Hobzen78 @MPLSKerrBear
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534905858496245760
BTW: Sotomayor is not intelligent or competent enough to sit on the supreme court. Ginsberg was just wrong about the court’s duty and wrong about the common law, and wrong about the constitution. She was plenty smart enough.
Source date (UTC): 2022-06-09 13:52:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534896101765132290
Reply addressees: @MattLaneWrites
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531613221999755266