Reply With Quote
You better amp up the incoherence. Your grasp of the obvious is beginning to slip.
What pass? You seem to have forgotten that I am the one criticizing Obama's policies in this thread, and you are the one defending them.
You better amp up the incoherence. Your grasp of the obvious is beginning to slip.
FDR Nominee and Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson:
Presidents have, at various times in history, acted in ways that were extra-cons utional because they honestly and sincerely believed they were acting in the best interests of the American People and, to varying degrees of success, those actions have been challenged.The Cons ution isn't a suicide pact.
In court.
Personally, I'm satisfied that both Obama and Bush took great pains to arrive at the legal opinions, (granted, their legal counsels), to commit an act they knew would be controversial.
Let's get these questions into the courts and quit bellyaching, already.
You see, this is the kind of insult that doesn't really advance the conversation.
You seem to have forgotten, I'm not talking about you but, the greater liberal masses outside this forum. The ones that were condemning Bush and Yoo for the very same thing over which they now remain silent.
You feel insulted?
I'm not taking up a shield for them. My criticism has been consistent. Whoever bends with the political winds deserves the flames.
Okay, fine. Then I'm not talking to you, am I?
It was an insult, regardless of whether or not it offended.
I'll disregard the comment about masturbation then, since you weren't talking to me.
Well, it wasn't intended as one. Your posts are often incoherent and your grasp of the obvious is notably weak, particularly when your passion reaches a high pitch.
Okay, it wasn't a personal characterization anyway but, a description of what I perceived you were turning this thread into. You seem pretty intent on making this about you and me.
Disregard it if you like.
Can we get back to the topic now?
That's your characterization and points directly to my earlier statement that you want to tell others what to believe about my posts.
Sure. You have something more to say? A minute ago you suggested this conversation was useless/fruitless, and that you were done with it.
Change your tune much?
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-09-2011 at 01:35 PM.
I comment. People can believe whatever they want.
I thought you wanted to go back on topic. Change your tune much?
What's incoherent in the two positions I've forwarded in this thread?
1) I agree with the Obama administration's killing of al Awlaki and believe they did due diligence in justifying the action, and;
2) I see inconsistency in the liberal left's failure to condemn this action with the same fervor with which they condemn a nearly identical action by the previous administration.
Just as with this post, I was politely responding to your post. Now, do you want to return to the topic? I've reopened the door in my last post.
I never said those two positions were inconsistent. They aren't.
You can pretend those are the only two remarks you've made in the thread, but I doubt anyone who reads through will be fooled.
Those are the only two germane to the thread conversation.
Do you just like to argue?
What was incoherent?
Then, what's your beef with me?
Comma splices and unnecessary semicolons mainly.
If you will tell me what comments you found unclear, I'll be happy to clarify them if I can.
Seriously? With all the grammatical crimes this forum commits, that's your beef?
Well, alrighty then.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
