Re: RE: Re: Ove Interest?

On 2/18/2025 10:24 AM, cyclintom wrote:

On Fri Feb 14 23:09:07 2025 Frank Krygowski  wrote:

>
Ah. Well, that's one opinion piece. Is it accurate? How should we check?
Shall we go down that rabbit hole?
>
I'll agree there is bias across the political - and probably every other
- spectrum. But as usual, I think it's foolish to point to one or
several incidences of failure and use that, as some do, to condemn an
entire system.
>
You, Andrew, have a tendency to do that with laws, with implications
that because a certain law is not 100% obeyed or enforced, that laws are
worthless. (I'm aware that you're careful not to say that outright, but
only by implication.)
>
Our tricycle rider has a strong tendency to do that with any information
source other than his own imagination. He proudly says or implies that
no outside sources can be trusted, and that he alone can tell what facts
are real and true.
>
Again, bias exists. But there are actual truths, and not every opinion
is correct. On most issues, it should be possible to do sufficient
tests, or research, to determine what is true and what is not. The
hardest part is finding people who will agree that their own biases are
mistaken.
>
To finish with a compliment, you're one of the few people here who has
admitted from time to time that you were wrong.

    Executive Order 2A - The 2nd Amendment has priority over any state law concerning the 2nd Amendment. You have lost and you simply won't admit it because you side with New York City and voter fraud in California.
   

There is no such order.
Executive orders can describe the means, methods and scope of federal employees' work, but are not a substitute for legislation. (or ought not to be at any rate, despite press releases)
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971