RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 1:30:59 PM)



again it doesnt change the fact that my response to his post was:

original fake?

How can the original be a fake? 


no amount of ducking and dodging will score you any points.  lol







mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 1:34:16 PM)

so, now that you have had your afternoon medication, read how an original can be a fake.

It is so very fundamental, it will escape you, as all truth does.   




Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 2:46:42 PM)



I am the one who wrote the shit and you think you can tell me what I meant even after it was explained to you ad homenim LOL

take a break




mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 3:02:26 PM)

yup, no disagreement there, shit......nothing but shit.  now, since I am tutoring you lets see what you have learned.  when are ad hominem attacks allowably reasoned responses in argumentaion? 





Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 3:30:08 PM)


they are allowed whenever ron backs his ass into a corner he cannot get out of and needs to make a fool out of himself repeatedly before he comes back around to consciousness goes away with his tail between his legs.

try sticking to the point rather than creating your own twist and wrongfully claiming it is your opponents and you will save yourself exposure and a red face every time.




mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 3:39:17 PM)

oh, no, I am sorry the correct question is why is 0 absolutely wrong as always?

here is a hint:  0 est non compos mentis (latin and legal term)




thornhappy -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 6:42:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The problem you have is the only place the term forgery was used was in a court therefore you need to produce that as in a legal sense not from "words R us.com" or lets tack on any possible usage by any idiot throughout the history of man

Forgery's been used in the art world (>2000 years), and in literature.  For instance, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a forgery.




FirmhandKY -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 8:03:47 PM)

FR:

Please, everyone ...  either get back on topic, or let the thread die.

Real0ne, you can start your own damn thread about what is a "fake" and then defend whatever frigging fantasy you want.

How about getting your crap out of mine, though?

Firm




Jeffff -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 8:05:06 PM)

The Jews made him do it.




Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 10:57:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

FR:

Please, everyone ...  either get back on topic, or let the thread die.

Real0ne, you can start your own damn thread about what is a "fake" and then defend whatever frigging fantasy you want.

How about getting your crap out of mine, though?

Firm



My Crap?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The thing that I always find hilarious about the fact that the American right's lunatic fringe being the only people who still take the Protocols Of The Informed Elders Of Zion seriously, is that it was a Russian manuscript Henry Ford paid to have translated and published.
Russian! Obviously commie propaganda! They'll be out to collectivise the Kulaks next...



Why dont you blame the poster who first tok the thread off topic with their ignorant statement way back in post 52, and the shit house lawyer and their half assed research who do not know the difference between a pile of shit and chocolate bar instead of me. 

Like I said I have no fucking interest in this topic and I still have no fucking interest in this topic but the losers always play the propaganda card when their asses are backed into a corner and look like fools on the main topic when they get their bullshit stuffed down their throat.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
unless its a flag fringe, lotta fucking fringies in you.


. ...ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags. . .the use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulations, No. 260-10." (See 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483 & 485)

By Army Regulation 260-10, the gold fringe may be used only on regimental "colors," the President's flag, for military courts martial, and the flags used at military recruiting centers.

The gold-fringed flag only stands inside military courts that sit in summary court martial proceedings against civilians and such courts are governed in part by local rules, but more especially by "The Manual of Courts Martial", U.S., 1994 Ed., at Art. 99, (c)(1)(b), pg. IV-34, PIN 030567-0000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C. The details of the crimes that civilians can commit, that are classed as 'Acts of War,' cover 125 pages in the Manual of Courts Martial.

Army Regulations, (AR 840-10, Oct. 1, 1979.) "the Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 1/2 inches wide," and that, "such flags are flown indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms." And that the Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations."

The adornments (FINIAL) on the top of the flag pole are for military use only. The gold eagle is for the use of the President of the United States only, and only in time of war. The gold spear ball is for military recruiting centers only. The gold acorn is for military parades only. (Army
Regulation 840-10, chapter 8).



Regardless if you understnad or not, you do have the right to be in D'Nile.



There now its back before it drifted.

you are welcome.




FirmhandKY -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 11:08:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

FR:

Please, everyone ...  either get back on topic, or let the thread die.

Real0ne, you can start your own damn thread about what is a "fake" and then defend whatever frigging fantasy you want.

How about getting your crap out of mine, though?


My Crap?


Yes.  Your crap.

While I sympathize with some of your intent, your arguments are not only ineffective, they are counterproductive to your stated goals.

Please take your crap elsewhere.

Firm




Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/20/2010 12:44:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

FR:

Please, everyone ...  either get back on topic, or let the thread die.

Real0ne, you can start your own damn thread about what is a "fake" and then defend whatever frigging fantasy you want.

How about getting your crap out of mine, though?


My Crap?


Yes.  Your crap.

While I sympathize with some of your intent, your arguments are not only ineffective, they are counterproductive to your stated goals.

Please take your crap elsewhere.

Firm




Well FWIW stopped another sherrifs sale of a home TODAY and the family is in their home as I type this.

Your assessment may be correct but speaks more to the inability of the recipient crowd to break the leftee rightee mold of eternally spinning their wheels and getting nowhere than the correctness of my positions on matters.

I do not post to coddle or patronize peoples ignorance.

Likewise I sympathize with what you are trying accomplish.

So how is voting the bums out been working for ya?




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125