39
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 08:24 am
@Frank Apisa,
Mine too, it's about vital antiterrorist information... aren't you interested in that?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 08:36 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Mine too, it's about vital antiterrorist information... aren't you interested in that?


I'm sorry, Olivier...I'm not sure what you are asking here. I went back and read the referenced post of mine...but I don't understand what you are suggesting here.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 09:30 am
@Frank Apisa,
Well, you may or may not understand what I am saying... :-)
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 09:49 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Well, you may or may not understand what I am saying... :-)


Whatever.

I wanted to respond to whatever you were asking or stating...but I could not understand what it was that you were asking or stating.

You apparently are not interested in explaining.

Fine.

If you change your mind, I'll be happy to respond.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 10:11 am
@Frank Apisa,
You,
Quote:
...yet you seem almost to want a ticker tape parade for Edward Snowden WHO BROKE HIS OATH.


Show me from any of my over 88,000 posts on a2k where I even mentioned such a thing?

You have good imagination, but no skills in English or comprehension about the Constitution of the US.

All those who take office in the Administration, the congress, and the SCOTUS swear to uphold the Constitution, and they are the "they." That you don't even know basics of our democracy proves your ignorance.

All military personnel who volunteer must also swear to uphold the Constitution.

Here, get some education, Frank. You embarrass yourself.
http://twothirds.us/the-oaths-of-office/
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 10:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You,
Quote:
...yet you seem almost to want a ticker tape parade for Edward Snowden WHO BROKE HIS OATH.


Show me from any of my over 88,000 posts on a2k where I even mentioned such a thing?


You definitely have never used those words. I acknowledge that, ci. But you have on several occasions indicated that you hold him in very high esteem. But he is an oath breaker...and I wonder why you feel that way.

Quote:
You have good imagination, but no skills in English or comprehension about the Constitution of the US.


My English skills are fine...and my comprehension of the Constitution of the US also is.

Quote:
All those who take office in the Administration, the congress, and the SCOTUS swear to uphold the Constitution, and they are the "they." That you don't even know basics of our democracy proves your ignorance.


I do know the basics of our democracy...and I am not ignorant, ci. Your need to call people who disagree with you "stupid" or indicate they are "ignorant" of the subject matter has become a habit with you. That habit ought to embarrass you, but I suspect you are missing a personality ingredient that will allow for that.

Quote:
All military personnel who volunteer must also swear to uphold the Constitution.


I know. I was in the military.

Quote:

Here, get some education, Frank. You embarrass yourself.
http://twothirds.us/the-oaths-of-office/


I am not embarrassing myself, ci. You ought to be embarrassing yourself, but like I said, I suspect you lack something necessary for that to happen.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 10:57 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, You seem to think you can interpret my posts any way you wish based on the wording, but you don't allow others the same courtesy. Figures.

You still haven't answered my question about our Constitution.
Quote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

What does this mean to you, Frank? I posted this three pages ago.
Quote:
What's relevant is their breaking the laws established by our Constitution.


How does this differ from,
Quote:
I said the law of the land is the US Constitution.


You do understand the term "differ?"
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 11:25 am
@Frank Apisa,
You,
Quote:
I do know the basics of our democracy...and I am not ignorant, ci. Your need to call people who disagree with you "stupid" or indicate they are "ignorant" of the subject matter has become a habit with you. That habit ought to embarrass you, but I suspect you are missing a personality ingredient that will allow for that.


You consistently prove these points, and I've identified them. There's not much more that I can do. It's about debating any issue; your guesses are usually wrong, and many people on a2k have pointed them out to you. You are stubborn, arrogant, and without much sense of what is right or wrong.

"They" all swore to uphold the Constitution, and have failed. Your guesses and excuses about their unlawful search into private lives continues to prove you have no idea about our democracy or Constitution.

You continue to embarrass yourself! You just won't accept that simple fact.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:09 pm
Quote:
“Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Your need to call people who disagree with you "stupid" or indicate they are "ignorant" of the subject matter has become a habit with you. That habit ought to embarrass you, but I suspect you are missing a personality ingredient that will allow for that.


You said carnie is "out of control" and what you have said about me in that line of work is legion.

How does it happen that an adult person criticises someone for doing something they have done themselves shortly before and will do again shortly after.

In fact, the paragraph is internally inconsistent if there is no real difference between calling somebody stupid or ignorant and suspecting, out loud, that they are missing a personality ingredient which saves them being embarrassed.

It's incomprehensible. It beggars belief. It's top-o'-the-range stupidity.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I wanted to respond to whatever you were asking or stating...but I could not understand what it was that you were asking or stating.

Just saying that guessing what "may or may not" happen is irrelevant, facile, and useless. If you want to bank on something happening (or not), just say so frankly. Don't hide behind rhetorics.


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank, You seem to think you can interpret my posts any way you wish based on the wording, but you don't allow others the same courtesy. Figures.

You still haven't answered my question about our Constitution.
Quote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

What does this mean to you, Frank? I posted this three pages ago.
Quote:
What's relevant is their breaking the laws established by our Constitution.


How does this differ from,
Quote:
I said the law of the land is the US Constitution.


You do understand the term "differ?"



How about you go back and answer my question posed here:
http://able2know.org/topic/217301-228#post-5542891
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:33 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You missed that? My copy and paste from the dictionary's I copied from show s as their "synonyms" as the other word used.

Here's another English lesson for you!
Quote:
syn·o·nym
ˈsinəˌnim/Submit
noun
1.
a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close.
synonyms: alternate, substitute, alternative, equivalent, euphemism More


As of now, I'm quitting as your tutor/teacher. I just don't have the patience.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
So apparently you have no problem with people breaking oaths...so long as they are the people you want to be breaking them.


An you have no problem with our president and others breaking their oaths to defend the constitution.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 12:47 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I'm still waiting, Frank.
Quote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank, You seem to think you can interpret my posts any way you wish based on the wording, but you don't allow others the same courtesy. Figures.

You still haven't answered my question about our Constitution.
Quote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

What does this mean to you, Frank? I posted this three pages ago.
Quote:
What's relevant is their breaking the laws established by our Constitution.

Also, study the word "synonym."


How does this differ from,
Quote:
I said the law of the land is the US Constitution.


You do understand the term "differ?"
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 01:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You missed that? My copy and paste from the dictionary's I copied from show s as their "synonyms" as the other word used.

Here's another English lesson for you!
Quote:
syn·o·nym
ˈsinəˌnim/Submit
noun
1.
a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close.
synonyms: alternate, substitute, alternative, equivalent, euphemism More


As of now, I'm quitting as your tutor/teacher. I just don't have the patience.




How about you go back and answer my question posed here:
http://able2know.org/topic/217301-228#post-5542891

My question was: What is the contradiction?

You haven't answered that.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 01:16 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
So apparently you have no problem with people breaking oaths...so long as they are the people you want to be breaking them.


An you have no problem with our president and others breaking their oaths to defend the constitution.



I have said every time the issue was raised, that if they are charged with anything...they should have a fair trial.

What makes you think I want to give any of them a pass?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 01:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm still waiting, Frank.
Quote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank, You seem to think you can interpret my posts any way you wish based on the wording, but you don't allow others the same courtesy. Figures.

You still haven't answered my question about our Constitution.
Quote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

What does this mean to you, Frank? I posted this three pages ago.
Quote:
What's relevant is their breaking the laws established by our Constitution.

Also, study the word "synonym."


How does this differ from,
Quote:
I said the law of the land is the US Constitution.


You do understand the term "differ?"



I'm still waiting for you to answer my question, ci.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 01:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I did; that's the reason why you're stupid and ignorant!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 02:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I did; that's the reason why you're stupid and ignorant!


Since there is no contradiction there, ci...I doubt seriously that you did answer the question.

I understand that you think I am stupid and ignorant.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 230
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/29/2017 at 02:53:25