RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (Full Version)

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



Message

pahunkboy -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 4:45:38 PM)

Neither does vulgarity-  from 3 of the posts in this thread. 



Moonhead -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 4:49:26 PM)

This is the internet, honeypie: vulgarity is a given.



Real0ne -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 4:50:38 PM)

certain people are blind and cannot read very well.  My only other alternative would be to label them disinfo agents and I hate to do that.  I would rather stomp on they hayds!

gotta love the way the court spelled it out though and that is all on the congressional record as well that the resident shithouse lawyer dismisses out of hand.



Real0ne -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 4:54:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Posting something in a bigger font size doesn't make it any truthier, sweetie.


well for his purposes coming from the supreme court should make it truthier since that IS what he was looking for.

since he refuses to wear his glasses the larger print and purty colors should help keep his attention long enough to understand what he is reading.



Moonhead -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 4:57:36 PM)

So, that's personal abuse rather than any reason for the typography, then.
Figures, coming from you.



Real0ne -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 5:04:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So, that's personal abuse rather than any reason for the typography, then.
Figures, coming from you.


is it personal abuse?

got a case cite for your claim?

I think you are bullshitting me.


CALLISTER, J., concurs in the result.
HENRIOD, J., concurs in the result and reasoning.
CROCKETT, Chief Justice (concurring in the result)





Moonhead -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 5:08:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
since he refuses to wear his glasses the larger print and purty colors should help keep his attention long enough to understand what he is reading.


Doubtless you have an explanation of how this is not personal abuse?



Real0ne -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 5:15:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
since he refuses to wear his glasses the larger print and purty colors should help keep his attention long enough to understand what he is reading.


Doubtless you have an explanation of how this is not personal abuse?


would you rather he was labeled a disinfo provocatuer? 

When people clip quotes to the point they do not reflect or in this case reflect the precise opposite of what was being said what conclusion would anyone come to?

It was his choice to present it in that manner and disregard even the evidence that the court itself used to make its decision and you would fault me for posting the corrections and assessing the matter in the true light?

Its precisely that kind of ideology that forces people like ron paul to run in the first place.



Moonhead -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 5:20:02 PM)

You miss my point: alleging that somebody is blind and stupid is personal abuse.



Real0ne -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 5:23:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

You miss my point: alleging that somebody is blind and stupid is personal abuse.


disinfo has nothing to do with stupid and I did not say that.  that is your conclusion.   Blind?  Well that is obvious is it not?  Since it waS not properly quoted after all.



Moonhead -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 5:25:35 PM)

As I said, personal abuse.
Sick to "disinfo provocateur" in future.



Real0ne -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 5:31:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

As I said, personal abuse.
Sick to "disinfo provocateur" in future.


yes that is the definition of someone who willfully promulgates incorrect information.   Since I quoted the full text which gives credence to precisely the opposite of what he was trying to put out it is or should be perfectly clear that the information he promulgated was disinformation.   Hence the conclusion disinfo provocateur, it means someone who willfully promulgates trash to misinform and misinformation misdirects the readers.   You do not hesitate to label a murderer a murder do you?  Is that too personal abuse?

Oh was that supposed to say "stick to"?  remember I told you I did not conclude he was stupid YOU DID.






FullCircle -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 5:34:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
My only other alternative would be to label them disinfo agents and I hate to do that.

With this speak of disinfo I've just labelled you as a member of the Illiterati.



Real0ne -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 5:38:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
My only other alternative would be to label them disinfo agents and I hate to do that.

I've just labelled you as a member of the Iliterati.




and you are more than welcome to make your case for that.  go for it, but make a new thread and you all can take turns but dont go away crying when you get a bloody nose.



FullCircle -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 5:49:47 PM)

Am I suddenly going to feel the urge to stick a pen up my nose upon reading your responses?



Real0ne -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America 7 (5/13/2011 6:03:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The only case I have referred to   is McCulloch v. Maryland although Marbury v. Madison and Gibbon v. Ogden are also peripherally concerned with the non-enumerated issue. 


in the McCulloch v. Maryland which is the only one I will take the time to address since I am sure they all reference one another.  The court invoked the necessity clause to create law by fiat.  That clause does not give them authority to create law by fiat which IS outside the normal channels of congress.  For that matter neither does it allow them to interpret "intent" if you wanna split hairs.  They can only legitimately that is if you want to go strict constitution interpret in accordance with the written word, hence they are constrained by law necessity clause or not to stay within the boundaries of their granted enumerated authority.  It is a common error that people make assuming that any clause grants them authority outside of th4 controlling clauses without express enumeration.  Otherwise why have a constitution at all... it would be self defeating.



Moonhead -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/13/2011 6:03:50 PM)

Bibble bibble.



Musicmystery -> RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candidacy Friday Morning on ABC Good Morning America (5/14/2011 6:23:32 AM)

quote:

Its not beside the point. You are claiming that the numbers are invalid because they are too short term. Im telling you that they arent too short term, they will hold up. And there is downward pressure on energy, so youve got an advantage in my proposal.

I didnt expect you to have the courage to back up your post, but bookmark this thread and we'll revisit it in February.


Again, beside the point. If the GDP deflator is 8-10% in a year, to stay, then you've got something.

The rest is silliness, and we aren't on the playground.




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 8 [9]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875