I make no apology for the length of the following, nor for the length of time it took to edit out enough of the assonance to fit the character count limit.
Seriati:
You write like a literary student using words rather than substance to make your case. I take issue with that.
I object--on your honor: you issued the substance of this complaint using literally naught but words. But have your way, Master: we will play the foolish Student as you script your play…
Pray Teacher, say: what issue have you with the way a literary Pupil words his say? You see no substance in the subtext wordwrights write under the page? Profess, professed Professor: issue us instructions in this issue with which you issue take.
Go on, Teach: crack this unruly case--corner a class Fool, raise your rule, beat a black black blue. Run red ink across my page.
Lol.
:lol:
(I miss the laughing emoji--the Smiley face which I like to imagine will still be bouncing up and down with laughter through the eternity of the ether... The rumor around parenthetical parts of the underground is that Mod Almighty anathematized that thematic ideogram during the Great Migration, ‘cause of a cacophony of complaints that came in claiming it was being abused by cackling crows with immoderacy unto a degree that was deemed obscene. Thus was lost Laughter, by Moderate Decree. The crows convened, considered the consternation of the Mods, and conspired to a common cause: caw caw caw caw caw! Seriesly though, I’m glad I’ve got you laughing--that’s almost the entire substance of the subtext in my Ornery interactivity. In truth, I’m too terse of tongue to type out half of a fraction of my whole response to the things I’ve seen you say, but if you could imagine this text:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
...only
doubled up, time and time again, just
rolling all the way down the page, it might give you some sense of the fully sincere appreciation I’m inclined to express to my
dying breath at the way you sometimes say your sway. Seriesly: if you’ll read the above text aloud, aspirating each H and vocalizing each assonant A, while picturing a crazy man who's staring at a screen in an otherwise empty room, seizing with laughter, for days--just hooting and cackling away--then you may get an idea of how happy it makes me to hear that you’re laughing too…lol.)
You clearly know little about law.
Caw caw caw.
We concurse: what I know is so sleightly versed, it might be
contra legemA public claim can not be evidence of collusion.
Oh, no? So--in your esteemed judgment--nothing said in public can be used against criminal conspirators in a court of law?
What an arresting claim.
Wouldn’t that make it impossible to convict a conspirator of committing collusion on the basis of evidence in the form of a public confession?
I get that District court judges have so ruled, an interesting Precedent - in my view unlikely to hold, may even be reversed by the liberal 9th Circuit. And why? Cause the flip side of it risks every the left holds dear, empowering everyone of the district judges to overrule facially legal rules because of what a politician once said exposes everything.
Think about it, Texas court bans all payments - Nationwide - to Planned Parenthood because of what a politician said in writing the bill that funds them and inputs that the bill was to fund abortion (illegal) despite that it doesn't do so facially.
Lol! That’s some Seriesly sophisticated reasoning. One almost cannot contend but that you prove your point, so adroitly have you considered both sides of things--this is nigh undeniably Principled Print dripping off of your pen, start to end.
Then again: take a second look at the sophistically-worded way you sort of sidestepped from the substance in this case (the stated fact of present precedent in Rule of Law in the question of whether the court will consider the campaign statements of the present President as evidence of what is evident), to a confabulate a far-fetched forecast of a fictive future in which the facts are more favorable to your favored point of view than they happen to be in present reality.
Id est, it is noted that when the present state of facts doesn’t support your case, you just conjure up alternative facts to speculate into the conjectural record, to proclaim your point will prevail, as soon as your pretext takes shape.
Rejoicing in a nonsense standard that has district court judges replace the President's decision making with their own personal opinions is directly contrary to the rule of law,
Lol. Lookit--I’m sure your Ornery record shows that you’ve been an uncompromisingly consistent supporter of the unjudgeable, uninfringeable right of a President to rule by Executive Actions, across the years, Ser.
But please do note that you shifted the subject here from the original substance--the question of what will constitute evidence of our present President’s motives in the eyes of the courts--to a separate argument in which you appear to be defending the idea of federal government privileges over state rights (nowadays, for the present case, anyways). I’m not inclined to comment on my perception of any internal consistency I may or may not see in the new line of argument you conjecture, but I will observe that your answer has nearly nothing to do with the substance of the point to which you were responding. Regardless of whether or not (in the end) your team gets to abuse the power of the executive pen the way it has been getting abused by recent presidents, the precedent of using anything a criminal says against him in court is likely to remain established law.
In other words: you can deny that a man means what he said he meant until you’re literarily red in the face, but what a man says that he means will still be read in as evidence of what the man meant, by anyone not seeing too red to read what I mean.
Ahh... so it's foulest treachery when the Russian's hack the DNC or Hillary and reveal that they have been lying to the American population and directly manipulating the Presidential election
Nah...the foulest treachery is committed by biased partisans who pretend to have principles while they bend their ethics one way to catch crooks who aren’t on their team, and then bend their ethics the other way defending crooks who are on their side.
Holding however, the Trump admin responsible to a political standard, while exculpating the Clinton campaign on a legal standard is rank hypocrisy. Colluding with CNN to influence an election is FAR more likely to have an impact than colluding with the Russians would. Whether Russian hackers, US hackers or some poor kid working for the DNC who mysteriously ended up murdered in a robbery where nothing was stolen, revealed a secret shouldn't make a bit of difference to your level of outrage, yet it only matters to the Dems if the Russians did it.
I’m sorry--you were pointing out my partisan hypocrisy, and you lost me in your haste to get to your party: remind me where I exculpated Clinton of anything?
What makes you think that was a personal comment?
Mostly the fact that your script was responsive of my cited text...but I also read the second person possessive pronoun you slipped in toward the end of the part I quoted as a hint...
(I don’t take offence, though, because I know I’m known to overstep the boundary--I’m just noting that you seem to be just as guilty of a libelously liberal use of the literary “ye” as me. Dost see?)
At any rate, whatever your aim, do note that your blindside is ever the same. Tell me: how goes the deluded propaganda campaign partisan hypocrites like Hannity are slandering all over Seth Rich’s grave?
If--nine years ago--Obama had publicly asked Cuba to commit espionage against McCain while on the campaign trail, and then Wikileaks released a load of stolen internal communications from the Republican campaign,...
If that had occurred, we'd still, nine years later be seeing new stories in the MSM detrimental to the Republicans from either direct quotes in the email or "meta analysis" proving some version of the Republicans are racist...
Nah. Republicans proved themselves racist way back when--in reality--they pushed a paranoid conspiracy narrative that the last President was born in Africa (with no reasonable cause excepting for the fact that the color of his skin raised racist Republican suspicions that he was a Manchurian Muslim Nigerian).
I’m sure you right-minded Republicans are all over the record vehemently defending Obama against that racist Republican hoax, though (just like I believe you when you say you would have been defending Obama from liars on the conservative Fake News airways, had he sold American foreign policy promises to Cuba in exchange for a little espionage to help him beat McCain, in the hypothetical case).
Did I miss where McCain actually committed a federal crime and the Bush administration refused to prosecute? Where there was a secret meeting between two planes on a tarmac where the head of the Justice Department met secretly with McCain's wife
I’m fine with you fitting such script into my analogy, if you feel you need it there to follow along without froth at your lip (believe it or not, I initially banged out something sorta similar to your exact bit, but I bit it back in the edit, with a boatload of bombast, because it browbeat the issue til the beat didn’t fit…)
In such a case--to be honest--I confess I suspect I would probably find it hard to find McCain guilty of high crimes--even if there were evidence that he intentionally subverted national security protocols, and then obstructed attempts to investigate the evidence...mostly because he’s John *censored*ing McCain, and his history of service gives him patriotism credit in my book which I don’t extend to the rest of these popularity clowns. (As for the rest, the gist of my jest suggests that the guillotine is the only machine in history made just to measure off the height of Treachery in the High Crimes of any King or Queen--but I’d be fine here if we slightly spite the legacy of Liberty, and just lock ‘em both up, and throw away the key. As I understand it, the latter is lately established ornery American political idiomese.)
In any case, you do get that your bias is showing when you can’t follow the rhetorical direction of an analogy for fixating on subsidiary substance in a purely partisan way? Why is it that you Orangey Americans are so intent on maligning McCain, anyways?
and then our National Security apparatus publicly announced that Cuba had been behind the leak in an act of espionage specifically targeting Republicans in order to influence our election…
And then failed to ever put forward actual proof of the fact, while actual questions about whether their claim was politically motivated in the first place persist?
By these “actual questions” I assume you mean <treasonously partisan> queries which were openly questioning whether the US national security apparatus were the real enemy of America, not “Cuba,” in such a case?
Such red herring queries--hypothetically--would probably just be Partisanship unto Treachery, Seriati--no matter what you Orange-Kool-Aid-drinking partisans may have non-hypothetically convinced yourselves (and most of the purple sheep, apparently) an alternative reality might be...
Unless, of course, such hypothetical questions came along with some substance of evidence that individuals in our national security agencies really were criminally conspiring to deceive the American people on such an issue, for purely political purposes. Feel free to script that “analogy” for me.
In other words, Teach: put some substance into these treasonous conspiracies of all your allusively worded speech! The posture of your print presumes that your political opponents must proffer proof in an arrangement conforming to the proper pattern of a prosecutorial arraignment, lest what they say be used against them to convict on counts of Bias, Partisanship, and Hypocrisy in your book of judgment, but then you turn right around and postulate purely partisan paranoid propaganda that our national security agents went rogue and conspired to commit mysterious crimes against America--all on the basis of pretty much nothing but what you presumably read in your alt-right/KGB-troll-factory Fake News feed.
What is the composition of this Orange Kool Aid?
If you want to play this game, play it straight, cause throwing down a pre-judged version of nonsense that doesn't matched what happened just proves a bias on your part to me.
:lol:
Let me straighten you out, Ser, it seems you’ve mistaken our game. The part that we play remains ever the same, it’s every fool’s favorite, this script even is named--we fools call this folly: The Hypocrisy Game. You should know: you called this roll call, wrote our roles, and rolled curtain on our play...
We’ve been reading the way you’ve been writing blame--typing out terms like “bias” “partisan” and holy “hypocrisy,” as if you weren’t the hypocritest cat to scratch out slant always the same. You claim I’ve proved my bias, eh? And Seriesly: you want me to spit a straight game?
(Caw caw caw! Hear me clear my craw, don’t you know Imma crow?)
Straight up then (since we’re saying, you know?)--here’s what your proven
part is on the level I’m reading you, yo:
Your book reads so red, it’s clear you’ve never read what you write right, cuz you can’t start a sentence straight--you’ve always left off reading right before you even get to the left half of the page! You’re so biased toward recto, you pen that part onto paper like it makes you erect, yo, and you’re literally averse to verso: I heard from the birds you “take issue” with subtext because you see that it’s what’s left underneath the partisan part of print you read every time you turn a page! Everybody knows the way you write is: never not right--only always in the wrong way!
You’ve proven yourself so slanted, when people tell you to get bent, their intent is only to set you straight! You sound so
partisan, you’re like that guy who always
parties on so hard that he talks sideways and clearly can’t see straight! Seriesly, you look more biased than the backside of Siamese twins who are joined at the hip--you partisan-parted double-wide hip o’ crit’ writ!
(Why you even step, child? You’re such a redhead, you’re bound catch a beatdown! Don’t be sore, you’re just ginger--ya know?)
Don’t get me wrong, Seriesly: I’m just trying to follow the substance of your lecture the way I’m reading it. The way I see it, you’re so blatantly right, you’re unusually welcome Ornery.
Show Posts
