Every time Congress shuts the government down because they did not get their way, the whole f-ing lot of them should have been fired, barred for life of ever having another government job, even in the mail room, and get a new group in there.
Nope.
People were throwing parties in celebration of...
ROTFLMAO
now that we all know you do not use a standard definition of the words you use, we know that what you say is much different from what you mean.
Yes, you have beaten that dead horse for quite some time.
Funny how you are the only one who seems to think that way.
At this point I am merely interested in how long you are going to beat it.
I mean, geez, it is most impressive your arms have not fallen off yet...
Interesting how you said nothing about the Republicans doing the exact same thing in the white house....
My thought is along the lines of:
"Don't demonstrate the effectiveness of a maneuver if you do not want said maneuver used against you."
and
"What's good for the goose is good for the...
um...
Perhaps it is that some theists feel threatened by science.
Now since they can not argue with science, they argue with atheists, who they associate with science.
and if they can get an atheist to admit they do not know something, then they have won a battle against science.
Maybe?
So both are only for SOME legal contexts, and neither are for all legal contexts so the difference is the specific context texts that they do not share?