Hey Dingle berry, balls whatever your name is ........you are a fucking bore dude!!!I Take it somewhere else!! The information is there, don't be fucking lazy!!
It's Old Latin for 'tongue' or 'language', but naturally you wouldn't know that.
you are a fucking bore dude!!!I
Because I'm actually acquainted with US law and legal history?
Take it somewhere else!! The information is there, don't be fucking lazy!!
I'm not lazy; I'm pointing out that the "information" is not only wrong, but laughably so. Do you think that the constitution was instituted in 1776, and not 1789, then? That's embarrassing.
Washington DC is a municipal corporation under the sovereignty of the United States, which is blindingly obvious from the fact that it's under US jurisdiction - hence the enforcement of US laws within its confines, by US courts, and not the British or Vatican ones. The idea that the British or Vatican "own" Washington DC is also, frankly, embarrassing, since, y'know, municipal corporations don't have owners.
Like, it's not controversial that the constitution was instituted in 1789. It's a basic fact of American history. Nor does anyone think that the British courts are hearing cases that take place in DC, or that people in DC obey British laws, etc. Do you believe otherwise? If so, why?
Hey Dingle berry, balls whatever your name is ........you are a fucking bore dude!!!I Take it somewhere else!! The information is there, don't be fucking lazy!!
It's Old Latin for 'tongue' or 'language', but naturally you wouldn't know that.
Because I'm actually acquainted with US law and legal history?
I'm not lazy; I'm pointing out that the "information" is not only wrong, but laughably so. Do you think that the constitution was instituted in 1776, and not 1789, then? That's embarrassing.
Washington DC is a municipal corporation under the sovereignty of the United States, which is blindingly obvious from the fact that it's under US jurisdiction - hence the enforcement of US laws within its confines, by US courts, and not the British or Vatican ones. The idea that the British or Vatican "own" Washington DC is also, frankly, embarrassing, since, y'know, municipal corporations don't have owners.
Like, it's not controversial that the constitution was instituted in 1789. It's a basic fact of American history. Nor does anyone think that the British courts are hearing cases that take place in DC, or that people in DC obey British laws, etc. Do you believe otherwise? If so, why?
These beliefs are embarrassing.
LMAO you asked the guy to prove the kid wrong, he proceeded to do so, and now you call him a 'bore' because you have absolutely no rebuttal.