RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted

RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 11:43:56 AM)
quote: So, I guess what you are really saying is, What I am really saying is EXACTLY what I posted. There is no need for you to translate for anyone. There is no need for you to attempt to incite an argument by pretending not to understand clearly written language. I've noticed your use of that strategy, as when you recast a query about a QUESTION to a completely different context about PEOPLE.

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 11:45:53 AM)
quote: Elizabeth de la Vega? I don't doubt I'd find some interesting facts about her, if I cared enough to research her. Ex Federal Prosecutor. And I noticed that you didn't dispute any of the Facts in Evidence about the fraud. That's what's so great about this case. Martha Stewart went to prison on less evidence than exists for this charge against Bush, Cheney, Rice, et. al...

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 11:53:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Firm, You forgot one other condition to monitor with the new congress. When you don't like the rules - change them. For example, it used to take a 3/5ths majority to raise taxes. Here's one you'll never see talked about very much ... Leadership Tries to Restrain Fiefs in New Congress The New York Times By CARL HULSE Published: January 7, 2007 During four decades of Democratic rule ending in 1994, committee chairmen amassed almost unchallenged authority, often becoming more feared and influential than the elected leadership. They were nearly impossible to budge from their perches, and the concept of term limits was unimaginable. In a move that caught some new Democratic chairmen by surprise, House rules pushed through by the Democrats this week retained the six-year limit on chairmen imposed by Republicans, but the leadership reassured lawmakers they would revisit the restrictions *when there was less attention focused on the dawn of the Democratic era.* So, they are going to wait until the dumb American people aren't paying attention, and change the rules back to the way they ran the Congress before the Republicans took over in 1994 ... Hypocrisy, anyone? Sounds like an indictable offense to me. Got any lawyers here, who are willing to make up another fantasy indictment? [:D] FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 12:05:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: So, I guess what you are really saying is, What I am really saying is EXACTLY what I posted. There is no need for you to translate for anyone. There is no need for you to attempt to incite an argument by pretending not to understand clearly written language. I've noticed your use of that strategy, as when you recast a query about a QUESTION to a completely different context about PEOPLE. I clarified, and stated that I understood the difference you were making between the question being "retarded" and the people being "dumb". Didn't you understand the plain English of my words? And I beg to differ, in your posts not needing a translation. Or at least having your position clarified, and made plain, which is why I asked you to detail several things. What I often find, is a common thread in people such as youself, who seem to hold a certain belief system. It seems that there are some people who "just know" better than everyone else. They know "what's best" for all other people, and when you disagree with them, it's because you are: 1. Dumb (uneducated, stupid, etc) 2. Mentally unbalanced (insane, psychotic etc), or 3. Evil (criminal). This is a trait that I find both unsettling, and indicative of the very sort of person that I'd prefer not get anywhere near the levers of power. I'm kinda waiting for you to start telling me that I'm just crazy. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 12:20:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I'm kinda waiting for you to start telling me that I'm just crazy. FirmKY Nah, it's just sad that you would apparently choose to allow the deaths of thousands of people rather than hold Bush, Cheney, et. al. responsible for their actions in a court of law. After all, if they didn't do anything wrong, what do they have to fear from a Grand Jury?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 12:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Elizabeth de la Vega? I don't doubt I'd find some interesting facts about her, if I cared enough to research her. Ex Federal Prosecutor. And I noticed that you didn't dispute any of the Facts in Evidence about the fraud. That's what's so great about this case. Martha Stewart went to prison on less evidence than exists for this charge against Bush, Cheney, Rice, et. al... Just because something was said that you disagree with, isn't a prima facie case of either "conspiracy" or "intent to deceive" in a legalistic sense (or even a common one). In other words, you are assuming guilt first and then projecting your belief onto all the actions and statements made by any of the principles cited. Not "innocent" until proven guilty. Not even open-minded. And I did read enough to know that Vega was an "Ex Federal Prosecutor". What I don't know, is all the pertinent information that wasn't said, and it seems a bit unusual that it's missing - such as her political affiliation, the dates she was a prosecutor, and why she is now an "Ex" prosecutor. Logical fallacy: attribution to authority. But, even worse: what is her actual authority and expertise? Unknown. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 12:24:52 PM)
quote: such as her political affiliation, the dates she was a prosecutor, and why she is now an "Ex" prosecutor. Those do not relate to the material facts in evidence in the model indictment, do they? No. Rather than providing evidence to counter the claims in the model indictment, you persist in just saying that I don't agree with what was said by the Administration, as if that had any effect on what Cheney is on record saying.

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 12:29:47 PM)
quote: Logical fallacy: attribution to authority. What authority? Who needs any authorities in interperting the law? Can't you read and understand the model indictment yourself?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 12:34:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Nah, it's just sad that you would apparently choose to allow the deaths of thousands of people rather than hold Bush, Cheney, et. al. responsible for their actions in a court of law. After all, if they didn't do anything wrong, what do they have to fear from a Grand Jury? The criminalization of political disagreement is what I have a problem with. I didn't like it when it was done to Bill Clinton, and I don't like it now. I think it is a process and a system that should be rooted out, and eviscerated. If you've never been involved with the legal system, your assumption that "you have nothing to fear if you have done no wrong" is not quite on the mark. Even if completely innocent, the money, time and anxiety you will expend is simply incredible. The more onerous and difficult and dangerous you make public service, and disagreements between political opponents, the less likely you are to get people to serve, who don't have either 1) a lot of money or 2) a lot of time, or 3) nefarious interests in providing that service. That what you want? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Those do not relate to the material facts in evidence in the model indictment, do they? No. Not true, especially in politically related proceeding, but really, in any case. Credibility of the "complaining witness" has a strong impact on whether or not there is a prosecution, or even an arrest. Go talk to the Duke Lacross team, if you want more details about what happens when it's not taken into account. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 12:41:28 PM)
quote: The criminalization of political disagreement is what I have a problem with. I'm sure it's convenient for you to cast it that way, but unfortunately, it's not the case. We have a Law: 18 USC 371. It has elements which must be met for a prosecution. The Model Indictment provides facts which meet those elements. The politics is irrelevent. This is either a Nation of Laws for ALL MEN, or it's NOTHING.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 12:55:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The politics is irrelevent. This is either a Nation of Laws for ALL MEN, or it's NOTHING. farglebargle, Please reconcile the above position to your position concerning the illegal alien problem. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why the hell is everyone SO SCARED of people whose PAPERS might not be in perfect order? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle My point is the ATTITUDES promoted and exploited by "The Man" regarding "Undocumented Aliens" is EXACTLY the same set of ATTITUDES promoted and exploited by "National Socialists" regarding Jews. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Your irrational paranoia about undocumented illegals is just as bad as the Germans irrational paranoia about Jews. Begging the question is whether your selective desire for law enforcement is due to a political agenda or hypocrisy? Or are you on the side that changes the question to avoid answering to saying that the underlying law is wrong? Would you accept and be satisfied with a similar answer to your point?

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:08:42 PM)
quote: Begging the question is whether your selective desire for law enforcement is due to a political agenda or hypocrisy? Or are you on the side that changes the question to avoid answering to saying that the underlying law is wrong? Would you accept and be satisfied with a similar answer to your point? What selective desire for law enforcement? I never expressed a desire for selective law enforcement, and the quotes so indicate. Nowhere is the suggestion than an undocumented alien shouldn't experience the legal consequences of their choices, just that the people freaking out over it weren't justified, and their anxiety provides a lever for them to be used, just like Hitler used in the 30s.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:13:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Begging the question is whether your selective desire for law enforcement is due to a political agenda or hypocrisy? Or are you on the side that changes the question to avoid answering to saying that the underlying law is wrong? Would you accept and be satisfied with a similar answer to your point? Nowhere in my assertions of individual baseless paranoia against aliens was suggested that they shouldn't experience the legal consequences of their choices. Nice attempt to spin the argument, that really comes out of left field. I thought you would choose to change the focus. What "paranoia"? You addressed law the people are here AGAINST the existing laws. What happened to your statement... *"This is either a Nation of Laws for ALL MEN, or it's NOTHING."* Selectively edited out when you had to back down from it? Glad I quoted it prior to you not standing up for it and deleting it. Are you a fraud or just fearful and unable to stand behind your words? VERY weak!

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:15:16 PM)
TRY to keep focused here.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle TRY to keep focused here. Sure - to make it easy, why not just list the laws that in your world require enforcement and which don't? Or is it easier to simply disclose your agenda?

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:16:53 PM)
quote: What happened to your statement... "This is either a Nation of Laws for ALL MEN, or it's NOTHING." It's still in the original message. WTF are you babbling about? TRY to stay focused here. I don't know why you think it's NOT in the message.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:18:01 PM)
Damn! He did edit it, didn't he! Thanks for catching that, merc. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:19:52 PM)
I never edited that statement from Message 170, where I originally made it. Now, I don't know why trimming it from a follow up post would be relevent, unless you have no response to the allegations of fact establishing the elements of a felony committed by Bush, Cheney, Rice, et. al.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:20:52 PM)
edited .. for clarity. [:D]

farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 1:21:49 PM)
Catching what? That my original statement stands in msg 170, and that it was trimmed from a reply? What's the issue with trimming included quotes in a reply, if it doesn't change the meaning, especially with the original quote on the same page.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875