Thursday, October 1, 2015

Assistance Package 161b

This is a continuation of the previous entry concerning the one hundred and sixty-first entry that continued the lies and errors;

# @Anon#1: I'm telling the truth.
There is no proof that you are, Oliver.

# @Anon#2: I will not be fought as neurodiversity is more than a good enough reason to give someone the death penalty.
It isn't.

# @Godwin: I am not gay.
There is no proof of this either.

# I don't need to prove shit.
Yes you do and the fact that you refuse to lends itself to the assertion that you are a liar.

# @Rick: You liar. Show me real proof that you spoke with those Congresswoman. Your word alone is not enough.
This is hypocritical given the immediately previous remark.

# @Anon#1: I did not make this up for attention.
This is very hard to believe.

# @Godwin: A proctologist is a doctor who examines men's assholes. Only a gay person would do that.
That is not true. A proctologist deals with the colon and the rectum as well as the anus, and examinations do not entail external examinations of rear ends as Oliver appears to be insinuating.

# @anon#2: I am not a traitor.
There is plenty in what Oliver says that proves he is a traitor to the human race.

# @Anon#3: I can tell by the way you write that you're a retard who needs to be institutionalized. I feel bad for you.
This is inconsistent because this is the sort of person that actually would be killed by Oliver's Amendment.

# @Godwin: A proctologist is an ass doctor.
No, that definition is not correct.

# @Rick: Nope. I've already given you sufficient proof. The ball is in your court.
No, Oliver, it's in yours.

# @Anon: You can keep dreaming, but I won't be fought. An execution, by definition, is not first degree murder. On the contrary, it is the punishment for those who commit first degree murder.
And supporting neurodiversity is not first degree murder.

# The death penalty, in my opinion, does inflict great suffering on the murder, as well as give much needed closure to the victim's family.
I'm assuming a typographical error was made with murder (it should have been murderer) and this is not correct. There is no suffering for the murderer.

# @Rick: I have indeed proven it, and you will be in for a rude awakening when your death sentence is handed down.
Oliver has proven nothing, which is typical of him.

# @Anon#1: That is not true. I have spoken with multiple victims' families, and they all strongly support the death penalty. They say that attending the execution and watching their relative's killer meet his demise is the ultimate form of closure.
I seriously doubt Oliver has spoken to any such families.

# @Anon#2: I am a real American citizen, unlike Barack Obama.
Oliver missed the point here. It doesn't matter if he is a citizen or not. He is not a real American as his lack of support of the Constitution demonstrates.

# @Matt Hogan: You are such a stupid idiot. An amendment, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional because it is an AMENDMENT, which means that it changes the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
That's not how it works. If a new Amendment is proposed it can not be in defiance of another part of the Constitution. That part of the Constitution needs to be amended or repealed first. The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct to our way of life.

# By your insane logic, the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional because it forbids slavery. Should all black people still be held as slaves?
This, I have to say, is insane logic. What part of the Bill of Rights is challenged by the 13th Amendment?

# There have been multiple attempts throughout history to amend or repeal the 1st Amendment, the most recent example being the Democrats trying to overturn the Citizens United decision.
And the Supreme Court rightly knocked the attempt on the head for reasons already explained.

# There have been attempts in the past to ban burning the flag, as well as to allow school prayer.
The issue with school prayer was making it a part of the school's actual teaching, not the prayer by itself. Individual children can engage in it. The flag burning goes back again to the Supreme Court.

# All of those actions would repeal the First Amendment.
It would need to be amended, which is the whole point I have already made.

# Democrats continually attempt to ban the 2nd Amendment.
No, they are seeking laws that the 2nd Amendment would actually allow. A restriction on the type of weapons available.

# Honestly Matt, you are so stupid. You should be institutionalized for your stupidity.
I think I have already demonstrated on this blog who the stupid one is, and it isn't "Matt".

# @Real Help: I am not a leper, and there are multiple people who love and respect me.
There is no proof of this.

# I am not in denial, and I definitely do not reject autism. On the contrary, I accept that it is a terrible disease that needs to be cured, which is more than neurodiversity can say.
This is a contradictory remark, and not only that but Oliver is denying his own Autism.

# The reason neurodiversity, should die is because they are terrorists, just like the Nazis and al-Qaeda.
Neurodiversity is not a group of people as has been previously explained.

# You NDs are not telling me the truth. I listen to the scientists, and they say that autism needs to be cured.
There is not one credible scientist who has called on Autism to be cured.

# It is not possible to bully someone while guiding them to a better life.
You are not guiding anyone to a better life, Oliver, especially as it is clear that you do not have a life yourself.

# Bullies are terrorists, and should be killed. That includes you.
That is a threat. Bullies are not terrorists. Bullies don't kill. Terrorists do.

# @Anon#1: Wrong again. All the scientists at Autism Speaks and the Autism Science Foundation are working to cure autism.
There is no proof that either organization employs or sponsors qualified scientists.

# @Anon#2: I am not a coward and I will get my way.
This is more childishness. Lying is a cowardly act and that is what Oliver is doing.

# @Tex: Pretty much everything you said is wrong. Prior to the 13th Amendment, the Constitution specifically allowed slavery, and said that slaves counted as three fifths of a person in the census.
This claim is completely false.

# The 21st Amendment is directly contrary to the 18th Amendment.
This is inaccurate. The 21st Amendment specifically repeals the 18th Amendment which is not the same thing.

# You cannot amend an amendment. Any amendment automatically supersedes a previous one.
As the previous comment proves, the 21st Amendment did exactly that. Amended an Amendment - or rather repealed it which amounts to the same thing.

# Some state constitutions may allow you to insert an amendment elsewhere, but the US Constitution does not.
Yes it does.

# You are not a lawyer, and Texas A&M does not have a law school.
Not true. Texas A&M has had a law school since 2013 and previously outsourced to the Texas Wesleyan University School of Law. Before that it was the Dallas/Fort Worth School of Law formed in 1989. And before that A&M worked with SMU.

# You do not even exist, and you are really Phil Gluyas in disguise.
There is no proof of this.

# I have no idea this amendment's file number, but it is publicly accessible and can easily be looked up online.
It's not. It doesn't exist. That is the real reason why Oliver does not know the file number.

# @Anon#1: That is not true. You cannot go to law school until you have graduated from college, and schools don't outsource their law programs. "Tex" has been caught in a lie and he knows it.
Again, not true as previously stated.

# @Rick: I have already proved it. Go fuck yourself.
No you haven't, Oliver.

# @Tex: You are lying again. SMU is private while Texas A&M is public, so there is no way that they could share housing.
Indeed they could and they did.

# The classes you mention are undergraduate level and would not be taught in a law school.
The classes mentioned were separate.

# If a university doesn't have a law school, you can't get a law degree there, plain and simple.
That's not what happened obviously.

# @Anon#2: I'm laughing so hard at you right now because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
He had every idea and playing the ignorant fool is something Oliver is very good at.

# @Anon#3: That is not true. The 21st Amendment does indeed repeal the 18th Amendment, but it doesn't add anything so it was just easier to say that it repeals it. Had it said "alcohol is legal now," it would have been no different. Amendments cannot be amended as they are automatically superseded by subsequent amendments.
It had to specifically say that the 18th Amendment was repealed. If a new Amendment is contrary to an existing part, the new part is unconstitutional.

# @Anon#4: That proposal is exactly that, a proposal, just as my amendment is.
Your proposal has not been presented. This other one has been.

# @Anon#5: Ever heard of the three fifths compromise?

# @Anon#6: I am not lying. I am not an elected member of Congress so I do not have access to those records, and I don't really care anyway.
Everyone has access. It's available on the Congress website.

# @Anon#7: I am rational and I live in the real world. That is all.
It's clear that Oliver is not rational and lives in a fantasy world.

# @Anon#1: Schools don't outsource if they have too many applications. They simply accept fewer students.
The issue wasn't too many applications. It was not enough residential accommodation.

# @Anon#2: Again, not true. The text of an amendment automatically supersedes anything written previously.
Not true.

# @Anon#3: Yes you do. The general public does not have access to Congressional records due to national security.
As already stated it is available through the Congress website.

# @Anon#4: There is such an amendment on the table.
There is no proof of this.

# @Frank: It would be unconstitutional for a public school like Texas A&M to take on students from a private, religious school like SMU as it would violate the separation between church and state.
It would do no such thing.

# Law students generally do not reside on campus, only undergraduate students do.
All students can reside on campus and do.

# "Tex" stated that he took Sports Management in Education and Human Development, which are definitely not law classes.
It doesn't matter. He took law as well and made that pretty clear.

# We all know that he is really a sock puppet and nothing more than a figment of Phil Gluyas's imagination.
We don't know that at all

# @Anon#6: It will pass. It's already been referred to committee and a voice vote is expected tomorrow.
There is no such referral and there will be no voice vote at any stage.

# @Anon#7: Yes it was. The Constitution specifically said that slaves counted as three fifths of a person in the census.
No it did not.

# @Friend: This entry stays up. I'm winning like Charlie Sheen.
This is a major social error. Charlie Sheen lost and in a rather substantive way.

# @Anon#8: I am very rational and quite sane, thank you very much.
That is highly questionable.

# It is quite obvious that all you anons are the same person, given that your comments have all been submitted within minutes of each other and you all have the same IP address. This is astroturfing at its finest.
There is no proof of this claim

This assistance shall continue.

No comments:

Post a Comment