Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by UncleBob lol. I learned from the best, DD.

And who might that be? You were pulling this kinda shit long before I even joined this forum.

So, you admit to doing it? That's awesome.

Boys, boys, there's enough partisan dick to go around.

Originally Posted by UncleBob So, you admit to doing it? That's awesome.

Not even close. But knowing you, this is just a mere distraction because you can't defend your positions.

Breaking down an argument into it's component points and then summarizing is different from taking a couple lines out of 20 to franken-quote it into something that supports your point. There's a huge difference between what I do and what you do. Only an imbecile or outright troll would argue that it's the same thing.

I demand that all Christians apologize for this numbskull.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...162845760.html

Organizers say it's not a cross-burning, but rather sacred Christian cross lighting.

You know, if you're gonna burn crosses, just say you're burning crosses.

I Googled "Christian cross lighting," and the first link was to a KKK website...

The cross lighting ceremony is another example of how the national media distorts the Klan image.

Originally Posted by dohdough Breaking down an argument into it's component points and then summarizing

Your idea of breaking down and summarizing is 'lolz republicans'. So, yay!

Do tell, though, DD - Do you believe that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of something, then it is Constitutional?

Originally Posted by UncleBob Do you believe that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of something, then it is Constitutional?

Yes.

By definition, if SCotUS declares a law constitutional, then the law *is* constitutional.

I stress the word "is" being that in the instant state of being, the law "is" constitutional. There is, however, no guarantee that said law "will always be" constitutional.

But I'm sure that's a concept everyone here can grasp.

I'll respond, but I'm waiting for DD to reply...

Originally Posted by UncleBob I'll respond, but I'm waiting for DD to reply...

I already did. If you weren't such a pea-brained pedant, you would've noticed.

Originally Posted by dohdough I already did. If you weren't such a pea-brained pedant, you would've noticed.

Really?

Every post you've made in this thread since the subject came up...

Originally Posted by dohdough How could I have ever been so wrong! Bob is the TRUE FIGHTER of racial equality here and I'm just a raging racially racist racister. Between this and his defense of brown people, I have been shown the errors of my ways!

Originally Posted by dohdough lolz

Originally Posted by dohdough Free book rentals are an infringement on the free market and puts bookstores out of business because who can compete with free? Oh, and it's also communism. Suck IT LIEberal scum! Seriously though, they pulled that shit in Boston too, although, it was a local decision and not a state one. It boggles the ing mind. edit: Probably. He wanted to change his user name, but it didn't happen. Or maybe he finally got banned, but mods generally completely scrub the person's posts history as if they never existed. I'm putting my money on the former and that he'll be back.

Originally Posted by dohdough This is a complete mischaracterization of sentiment on the issue. When asked in polls, you're mostly correct about how people feel about the bill, but when asked about individual aspects of the bill or if it was called something different, people are overwhelmingly in favor of it. Nice try though.

Originally Posted by dohdough But you're not and you didn't despite being pressed to give a deeper explanation several times. Nice to see you try and take credit for it though. And by "nice," I mean it's pathetic. The point that you think you're making isn't the one you are making. Harping on the unconstitutionality of any legislation is like tilting at windmills when you don't understand the purpose of government beyond nebulous proclamations like FREEDUMZ and LIBERTEES.

Originally Posted by dohdough It doesn't make sense to you because you seem to think that you're making and made the same point, but you're not making it now and you didn't make it before. Doing a hack job on ID2006's post to make it seem that way doesn't make it true. I know you love to hack and twist people's posts out of context, but you're getting pretty ing ridiculous. You're making a semantic argument(your m.o.) and ID2006 is making a point about the process. This is why you're hung up on what to call everything without really addressing how it works. This is why, despite using similar language, your points are incongruent.

Originally Posted by dohdough And who might that be? You were pulling this kinda shit long before I even joined this forum.

Originally Posted by dohdough Not even close. But knowing you, this is just a mere distraction because you can't defend your positions. Breaking down an argument into it's component points and then summarizing is different from taking a couple lines out of 20 to franken-quote it into something that supports your point. There's a huge difference between what I do and what you do. Only an imbecile or outright troll would argue that it's the same thing.

Not sure which one of those you're claiming answers the question.

Let me fake some surprise at your lack of an ability to answer a straightforward question.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Really? Every post you've made in this thread since the subject came up... Not sure which one of those you're claiming answers the question. Let me fake some surprise at your lack of an ability to answer a straightforward question.

el oh el

So you're admitting that you're a pea-brained pedant? Funny how your childish bullshit works both ways innit?

We all know that none of your "simple" questions are looking for a "straightforward" answer and you already made your point about your obsession with the semantics of any legislation being "constitutional" while implying the immutability of constitutional framework. If you have a relevant point to make, just make it instead of acting like a wad JAQ-off.

Either way, hostyl1 quoted you; not me. Now read all of my posts again and see if you can find the answer that you didn't really look for to begin with.

You're pathetic, DD. Just plain pathetic.

So, lets just say this is more than republican governors blowing hot air, what would happen?

Originally Posted by Clak So, lets just say this is more than republican governors blowing hot air, what would happen?

At least when he was running for prez he couldn't act like such a douche

Hey, everyone, it's the nullification crisis of 2012!

Originally Posted by mykevermin Hey, everyone, it's the nullification crisis of 2012!

I think I said this before but we are at the "second time as farce" stage already.

Anyone see this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1651809.html

Out of touch rich white republican tells

When a voter went up to Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) on Tuesday and asked him whether he supported raising the minimum wage, the congressman had a simple -- and irrelevant -- bit of advice for the young man: Get a job. "Jesse Jackson Jr. is passing a bill around to increase the minimum wage to 10 bucks an hour. Would you support that?" said the voter. The exchange was first highlighted by FLDemocracy. "Probably not," replied Young, adding, "How about getting a job?" The young man has a job, as he told the congressman: "I do have one." He said he makes $8.50 an hour. "Well then, why do you want that benefit? Get a job," reiterated Young.

On the subject of irrelevant replies, this article has some gems.
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-th...-politics.html

"If, for instance, you own shares in Renault or Fiat, you still have to disclose that in the United States," Romney said. "So, you know, I understand the president's going to try to do anything he can to divert attention from the fact that his jobs record is weak and he has no plan to make things better."

Nice segue...

a better segue would lead to: And here's my plan on how to change that.

But no, no plan, just "he's not doing well enough"

If Mitt ever had an idea he wouldn't know what to do with it...