Let's Help GWB and Rove Out With Their Propoganda

Exactly, parados, That is why we have "checks and balances".

You will recall, I am sure, that before the DNA of President William Jefferson Clinton surfaced on the little blue dress and President William Jefferson Clinton appeared on national television to assure us that he had not had relations with that woman, Ms.Lewinsky, the left wing was denying that Clinton had sexual relations with Lewinsky and were portraying her as a stalker type.

If it had not been for the special prosecutor(You do know, of course, that several years previously Clinton had pressed hard for the creation of such an office) nothing would have happened.

That's what the Supreme Court is for--to rule on constitutional questions when there is a controversy or a question to be settled.

I would respectfully suggest that you do more reading on the role of the Supreme Court in the USA.

I know that some people feel that the law is slow to act. But I do not think that the law of fanatic Islamo-Fascits who cut off heads two or three days after capturing enemies is a good substitute.

Clinton and cutting off of heads..

ANYTHING but talking about how the courts have said Bush has pretty much violated the law.

Bernad I'm stunned that you would think I would think Guantanamo Bay would be OK if Clinton were president.

Can't you see an issue as an issue and not as somehow besmirching your political affiliation?

You'd have to be kidding, right?

Hi Deb - hadn't come across evil B until recently, I guess you have more experience his 'strafe defence' method of interaction...

Hell, that ain't no strafe defence....he ain't nuthin' but a troll....ain't no sense in expectin' anythin' but trollishness from a troll.....you'll break yer heart tryin' to argue all rational like with him son...I say give 'er up and just poke fun.

He's been round here since the beginnin' with different names, ain't never been no different, never will be.....

ooh - do tell - what other names?

Mr.Dlowan- I am very surprised at you. I have read your posts and know that you are one of the most perceptive and intelligent posters on this venue. Instead of "name-calling"--You do know what Ad Hominem means, I am sure, why don't you apply your brillliance and wit to destroying my posts with logic and evidence.

I am sure you can do that easily.

Or can you?

Mr. Parados- Please help me out. I wish to learn from you. You say, in response to my post

quote:

"Clinton and cutting off heads"

ANYTHING but talking about how the courts have said that Bush has pretty much violated the law"

Please sir- I did not say "Clinton and cutting off heads"

Here is what I said--I would be most appreciative if you responded to my entire post.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly, parados, That is why we have "checks and balances".

You will recall, I am sure, that before the DNA of President William Jefferson Clinton surfaced on the little blue dress and President William Jefferson Clinton appeared on national television to assure us that he had not had relations with that woman, Ms.Lewinsky, the left wing was denying that Clinton had sexual relations with Lewinsky and were portraying her as a stalker type.

If it had not been for the special prosecutor(You do know, of course, that several years previously Clinton had pressed hard for the creation of such an office) nothing would have happened.

That's what the Supreme Court is for--to rule on constitutional questions when there is a controversy or a question to be settled.

I would respectfully suggest that you do more reading on the role of the Supreme Court in the USA.

I know that some people feel that the law is slow to act. But I do not think that the law of fanatic Islamo-Fascits who cut off heads two or three days after capturing enemies is a good substitute.



__________________________________________________________

I hope you would not be aggrieved, sir, if I pointed out that you would receive an F in your first course in law if you wrote "Bush has pretty much violated the law"

First of all, "pretty much" is an unacceptable measure when speaking in legal terms. Secondly, it would be refreshing if you could give a link or, at the very least, a quote from a court which ruled that Bush "pretty much" violated the law.

Thank you, sir!!!

The cat mortician was more fun when he didn't sound like a nerd.

You remember Andy Kaufman's character, Latka Gravas? That's what this maroon's posts remind me of.....

My dear, most esteemed, BernardR,
You wrote :


I begin to understand one of your many problems. You apparently do not have the ability to understand colloquial English. Whether that is because you are learning English as a second language, as it appears, or are, as is more likely and less pleasantly, merely being deprecating, I do not know for certain, but it is obvious that you are oblivious when in comes to common conversation. You have much to learn.

For example: Parados did not say you said "Clinton and cutting off heads." Did he? No, he did not. He was listing the two oddly unrelated subjects of your post and clearly indicating, at least to a native speaker of English, that you were avoiding the subject at hand.

Perhaps you should go to your tutors and have them work with you on giving other person's posts honest appraisals and removing the stilted and arcane rhythms from your own writings. That, we can only hope, will clarify your own thoughts and avoid the appearance of you being in an ESL medium level course. If in fact you are purposely being as obtuse as it seems, you ought to pursue other hobbies. Try pretending to be a tourist on one of your city streets, you'd be good at pretending to be lost.

Joe(Is it to who am I speaking or to whom?)Nation

But c'mon, Joe - doesn't it sound like foreign man?

He most certainly does.

Joe(like the way he refers to you as Mr. Snood.)Nation

I'm thinking a steel cage death match FOREIGNMAN versus BLACKMAN....
I will negotiate the pay for view rights....Joe can ref... okie and Brandon can sit at the annoucers table making silly remarks....Roxxanne will be costume girl.... man, we'll make a fortune.

Anyone who wants in on the side betting come see me...

N-O-O-OOOOOOO CONTEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is clear that you are mistaken, Mr. Nation.

Here is what Parados said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton and cutting off of heads..

ANYTHING but talking about how the courts have said Bush has pretty much violated the law.
_________________________________________________________
He did not say that I said "Clinton and cutting off of heads, according to you. What he did say after that line--
ANYTHING BUT TALKING ABOUT HOW THE COURTS HAVE SAID BUSH HAS PRETTY MUCH VIOLATED THE LAW.

It is clear to me that ANYTHING refers to "Clinton and cutting off of heads"

____________________________________________________________

But I appreciate your critique of my use of English. It is reasonable to say that one who cannot express himself adequately would not be able to frame coherent or logical arguments.

Therefore, Mr. Nation, it is clear that your Ad Hominem arguments and the blurbs laid down by subsequent posts do nothing to destroy my arguments but merely prove that the only thing left for some on these threads is name calling.

_________________________________________________________

I ask Mr. Parados again:

Sir, you said that Bush has the courts have said that Bush has "pretty much" violated the law.

Please be so good as to list court decisions which hold that Bush has "Pretty much" violated the law. Lower court decisions which are on appeal, of course, have no bearing until they are properly and fully adjudicated.

I like my Eddie Haskell characterization. Maybe if we could find a Beaver for him to hang out with, he wouldn't be so chronic here.

Having a troll constantly muck up every thread becomes annoying after awhile. Watching this clown get pummelled was entertaining for awhile but now It is getting old.

What I do find comical is that someone continues to address me after I continue to ignore him, her or it.

Does anyone else find that last post overly ironic?

Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag, tuppence a bag..


Do I have to highlight WHERE you mentioned Clinton and cutting off heads in your post which preceded mine. There were no intervening posts. It should be clear to anyone with half a brain based on your post and my response what I was referring to.


Damn, there goes another tuppence. Franklin was right. I should just hang on to my pennies.