I use the word the way 99% of the English speakers use it. You can't understand "I understand and I disagree" and repeat that I don't understand.

I get that you have a mental disease that makes you a closed-minded zealot. But I thought that you understood English. Apparently your mental disease refuses to let you understand that someone can understand you 100%, yet still disagree.

It's your opinion, not fact.

It wasn't a proverbial cookie jar. It was a literal cookie, thus a literal cookie jar.

Not many hold your views, and if that's your morality, I'm happy to be immoral.

The right of property [owners] doesn't override the rights of the people. It's the other way around.

Cars? The repoman took my fucking kidney.

Yeah, and being outside the US, my April Fool's Day ended about the time it started for Slashdot. So my April Fools is having it happen on the 2nd.

Ponies!!!

So the Civil Rights movement was not related to any "rights"?

I read the blog in your sig, and it seems that the issue is that you use words outside their established definitions, not that others misunderstand. You do. Deliberately.

Yup. No true "whatever". You were the one that brought up "right" and "left". The ACLU is considered left. Radical left, often by those who are pro-gun. When you use words with unique definitions, you are no longer speaking English, and there's no point to discuss anything with you.

So a person has no rights. A "right" is only a restriction on the government, and not tied to a person. You can't have the right to travel, or the right to bear arms, as every "person" you deal with can take those "rights" from you. Up to the limits of criminal law.

That's the opposite of what the Founders of the USA said when crafting the Constitution, and I've never seen anyone agree with such an odd view of rights.

The ACLU has fought multiple times for Religious freedom in schools. That is, when Christian activities were banned, the ACLU stepped in and fought the schools to get the religious activities back into the schools.

So think you are confused as to what "left" means or does.

So the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means the government can't murder you, but your neighbor can? You deserve no protections from your neighbor, as he can't impinge on your rights.

An affirmative defense is a defense that, if accepted, wins. Like the "insane" plea. If determined and accepted as insane at the time, then you "win". Period. Same with the statute of limitations, and all other affirmative defenses. It's just trivial to prove the date of the crime and the date of being charged, so it's treated more absolutely than the others.

Benefits for the poor are mainly for the poor. But someone with $100k of net debt, and no job would lose little if China invaded and nationalized all the industry and land. But would Bill Gates lose anything? So yes, the rich receive about 100% of the benefit of a standing military. The poor only benefit if they enlist to fight the rich-man's wars.

I can find nothing that indicates she failed to comply with any Congressional request. She provided 900 pages of emails in response to a Congressional request, and provided "all" emails later.

I followed the conversation, but that law can only be broken by failing to respond to a request. You identified no such request. Thus, by your statements, it would be impossible for her to have broken that law. That's why I wasn't following. The first "email request Hillary congress" I found was in regards to Benghazi. So, that's where I got that. In direct reply to your statement, and as on topic as I could be.

If you think she broke a law by failing to follow a Congressional demand, you should specify which one you mean.

As part of the email thing? Or is this another Benghazi conspiracy theory? Because that law doesn't say anything that would make a private email server illegal.

Or is non sequitur the only response you are capable of?