Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
nyc.transit
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion LIRR and Metro North extend ticket validity
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Peter T. Daniels  
View profile  
 More options Aug 7 2012, 3:48 pm
Newsgroups: nyc.transit
From: "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Aug 7 2012 3:48 pm
Subject: Re: LIRR and Metro North extend ticket validity
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Aug 7, 3:03 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> On 07-Aug-12 11:58, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 12:32 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> On 07-Aug-12 06:32, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Aug 7, 2:48 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >>>> On 06-Aug-12 14:13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>> Right, defend rove and romney,

> >>>> I am not defending their actions.  I'm stating that, according to
> >>>> current FEC interpretations of the law and SCOTUS rulings, what they did
> >>>> does not appear to be illegal.

> >>>> I personally find it deplorable, as I do when PACs on the left do the
> >>>> same thing.  IMHO, it _should_ be illegal, and I have explained in
> >>>> detail how my interpretation of constitutional law reaches that
> >>>> conclusion.  However, that is not the logic that SCOTUS followed in
> >>>> Citizens United.

> >>> What you have failed to "explain" is why your "interrpretation" should
> >>> bear any more weight than anyone else's.

> >> When did I ever say it should have more weight?  It's an opinion, and as
> >> such mine is no more or less valid than yours.

> > Since you want me to accept your "explanation," you obviously think it
> > has more value than someone else's.

> I couldn't care less whether you accept my opinion.  I just want you to
> stop falsely accusing me of having opinions that I do not have.

Ah, now it's changed from a "explanation" to an "opinion"? I suppose
that's progress.

What is your background? What do you do for a living?


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google