Bush And The Constitution

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 21:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 27 February 2004 - 21:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I was merely attempting to assay your intent by delineating it myself; apparently I failed to do so to your liking.

You should have been honest and started that sentence with "I was merely attempting to misrepresent your intent...".

[/b][/quote]
Okay, lefty-

You must go OT to do this, but please try to find any malicious intent in my post and re-iterate your post so that we all might once again gaze upon it&#39;s clarity with the awe and wonder it deserves.

I really wish I knew how it is that you take offense at nothing, or insist on taking offense in lieu of others.

This would indicate you are used to being wrong, and, being presumptive and argumentative to your very core, you feel you must compensate by obfuscation.

Now, if you feel compelled to respond to this post, please try not to imagine I have insulted you, because I have not done so.

My post is merely a diagnosis of your problem, and I took proper care to render it as clinically as possible.

Nonetheless, feel free to report this post if you feel I have given genuine offense.



BTW-Have you developed a crush on Busyman, too?

[leftism]

I wouldnt feel so mortally wounded by my accusation that you intentionally tried to twist my words. You see I could only come up with 2 explanations as to why you would produce an analysis of my argument which was completely wrong.

1. You are so stupid that you could not understand what I was saying and got confused

2. You knew what I was saying and decided to twist my words round.

So you see I am actually crediting you with a little intelligence by going for explanation 2.

However you seem determined to argue that you werent intentionally twisting my words so explanation number 1 looks more promising than before.

Unless... you can quote my words and show how you arrived at the conclusion that I was suggesting;

a. "alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you
b. "Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions"
c. "a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony"

If you cant do this, (and you wont be able to because i never suggested any of these things) then your left with explanation 1 or 2. Which would you prefer?

As for the rest... a quick re-arrangement of your post...

Originally posted by section1+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (section1)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I really wish I knew how it is that you take offense at nothing, or insist on taking offense in lieu of others.[/b]

Originally posted by j2k4
Now, if you feel compelled to respond to this post, please try not to imagine I have insulted you, because I have not done so.

[/b]

Ok your arguing that your not trying to insult me...

Originally posted by j2k4
You must go OT to do this, but please try to find any malicious intent in my post and re-iterate your post so that we all might once again gaze upon it&#39;s clarity with the awe and wonder it deserves.

Then quickly move onto sarcasm and condescension...

Originally posted by j2k4
My post is merely a diagnosis of your problem, and I took proper care to render it as clinically as possible.

more condescension...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
This would indicate you are used to being wrong, and, being presumptive and argumentative to your very core, you feel you must compensate by obfuscation.[/quote]

more condescension and another typical cowardly baseless accusation which I&#39;ve come to expect from you.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
BTW-Have you developed a crush on Busyman, too?[/quote]

a quick playground taunt and your done&#33;

No, of course your not trying to insult me j2k4

Is this your idea of a "cunning plan"?

Its ironic that I mentioned forthrightness in my last post. You obviously dont know the meaning of the word. Let me help you out.

Forthrightness: Direct and without evasion

I dont see what satisfaction these little &#39;games&#39; bring you, but as they say, simple things please simple minds...

An interesting choice here isnt it j2k4? You can either stay on topic and admit you are so stupid you didnt understand any of my posts (explanation 1), or admit that you were twisting my words (explanation 2) or come up with some quotes from me that explain how you arrived at your incorrect analysis (impossible)..

You could ignore all that and go 100% off topic with more of your "playground games" and ambiguous cowardly accusations. Not much of a choice is it?

Based on past experience I reckon you&#39;ll go for the "playground games" option with a double helping of obfuscation and evasion. Its the only way you&#39;ll be getting out of the corner I&#39;ve backed you into.

Enjoy

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 February 2004 - 23:44
yes, but the rule is you must avoid the topic at all costs and never reply when you realise someone elses point might be detrimental to your own view

With you, thanks.

[j2k4]

For clarity&#39;s sake, lefty, I reiterate your post (in response to Busyman) which led to my confusion.

Herewith:

QUOTE: leftism

I was talking about civil unions in principle.

The current proposals are not set in stone. They could easily be amended to include heterosexual couples and, assuming Bush doesnt get his own way and civil unions are allowed, I suspect they will.

What, exactly, you mean by "current proposals" is not absolutely clear, but your statement about amending them to include heterosexual couples is, insofar as it applies to the general subject; i.e., alternative legal unions referred to, for purposes here, as "Other-than-Marriage", or OTM.

I don&#39;t believe, at this point, Bush is pursuing or suggesting anything other than a Federally constituted DOMA.

I expect that, rather than incorporate language expressly in aid of including heterosexual couples, they would be able to avail themselves of such a union by virtue of no exclusionary language, that is to say, the law/amendment/statute would, to this end, not be written as a "gay-only" law.

To do this any other way would be, as you allude, discriminatory against heterosexuals.

In fact if civil unions are legalised it will HAVE to happen to avoid being unconstitional.

Agreed.

We here know our constitution almost as well as you think you do.

Very few laws ever get passed in the same form they were introduced, its how your system works.

Really?

Hmmm....

Us ignint &#39;merkans din&#39; no dat&#33;

You see you havent been arguing about this specific implementation of civil unions being wrong. You have been arguing that civil unions are wrong in principle no matter what the implementation. Big difference.

[i]I think you just twisted Busyman&#39;s words&#33;

For shame, lefty&#33;

Trying to make out that your only against the specifics of civil unions as they currently stand and not the principle of them is more than a little disingenious. What happened to those religious reasons you were talking about in the other thread, eh?

How could he be against the "specifics of...and not the principle of..." something that doesn&#39;t yet exist in any form worth commenting on, given that it is "...not set in stone...", as you say?

What&#39;s more, how can you comment on it with such assuredness?

If we were to take you at face value, you actually agree with civil unions in principle yet you&#39;ve never said that before. Very strange...

More twisting&#33;

Where do you come off assigning to someone else&#39;s post a "face value" that exists only in your mind?

PS where did I "bash America"? Or is that another question your never going to answer?

Unless I miss my guess, his comment may come in response to the unremitting, presumptive and altogether off-putting contempt you continually express for America and also any member of this board or his/her opinions.

Now, as to your last post, I immediately was able to determine that no such "corner" as you described indeed existed, or at least, I was not in the vicinity of same.

You will also note that, while I admit to showering you (rather liberally, at that&#33 with sarcasm and scorn, I have not called you "stupid". nor "cowardly", nor resorted to anything resembling an out-and-out insult.

BTW-Where is your buddy 1234?

Carrying someone else&#39;s water these days?

Weren&#39;t you two here to "run me off this board" or leave me in need of a cyber-"ambulance", or some such nonsense?

Now, I&#39;m done with you-any more/further off topic is your doing, lefty.

EDIT: Clarity

[leftism]

j2k4... what are we going to do with you eh?

1st, you have failed to show how you came to the conclusion that I was suggesting:

a. "alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you
b. "Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions"
c. "a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony"

I expected this and you did not fail to come up with the goods. Thank you

2nd, you&#39;ve gone straight back to your playground games.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>BTW-Where is your buddy 1234?

Carrying someone else&#39;s water these days?

Weren&#39;t you two here to "run me off this board" or leave me in need of a cyber-"ambulance", or some such nonsense?[/b]

Thanks again

1234 is not my buddy, nor is 56789 or 20/5 for that matter. I dont have a clue what your referring to about "running you off the board" or "cyber ambulances".

All I can see is that your floundering

Now... lets deal with that your chaotic mess which purports to be a post.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What, exactly, you mean by "current proposals" is not absolutely clear, but your statement about amending them to include heterosexual couples is, insofar as it applies to the general subject; i.e., alternative legal unions referred to, for purposes here, as "Other-than-Marriage", or OTM.[/b]

WHAT???? Could someone translate this from gobbledygook into English for me?


(Im glad I didnt see that sentence before you edited it for "clarity"&#33; What a mess&#33

You appear to be saying that "My statement about amending the current proposals" (subject of sentence) is..... "Other than marriage"???????

Good strategy though Write &#39;sentences&#39; that are painful to read, long winded and dont make any sense.

This serves the double purpose of making them impossible to answer and provides more opportunity for playground games, such as "HA&#33; You didnt understand that?? You must be dumb&#33; HA&#33;".

Cunning... your as sharp as a spoon j2k4

I cant be bothered to deal with the rest of your inane questions. What I will say is that they show you havent been following this thread at all.

Originally posted by j2k4
Unless I miss my guess, his comment may come in response to the unremitting, presumptive and altogether off-putting contempt you continually express for America and also any member of this board or his/her opinions.

More ambiguous non-specific, cowardly, yes thats right COWARDLY accusations.

If you had provided an example of my "off-putting contempt for America" you would not be a coward. As usual however you prefer to hide behind non-specific accusations that cant be answered due to their ambiguity.

Thats your choice j2k4, I&#39;ve re-iterated multiple times what you must do to avoid this appearance of being a coward, but I cant make you do it. You make your own bed, you lie in it. Its got nothing to do with me .

Originally posted by j2k4
Now, as to your last post, I immediately was able to determine that no such "corner" as you described indeed existed, or at least, I was not in the vicinity of same.

"not in vicinity of same". "insofar as it applies to the general subject"..

I can only be thankful that we are not using dead trees to conduct this &#39;debate&#39;. Your obsession with unnecessary phrases, long windedness and pompousness would have devoured half of Brazil by now.

At least lawyers get paid by the page, they have an excuse for this kind of posturing.

The "corner" was quote my words that caused your confusion, with regards to, insofar much as to be or not to be, vis a vis , referred to, for purposes here, as not in the vicinity of same, Mr Spoon, Button Moon, intent&#33; (dramatic pause)

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
You will also note that, while I admit to showering you (rather liberally, at that&#33 with sarcasm and scorn, I have not called you "stupid". nor "cowardly", nor resorted to anything resembling an out-and-out insult.[/quote]

I called you cowardly because you are. You have shown this to be the case, yet again, in this post. I did not call you stupid however, I just pointed out that there are only 2 explanations (which I consider feasible) as to why you misprepresented my case.

1. You are so stupid that you could not understand what I was saying and got confused

2. You knew what I was saying and decided to twist my words round.

The 3rd option (which I consider completely unfeasible) would be to: "show how you arrived at the conclusion that I was suggesting;

a. "alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you
b. "Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions"
c. "a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony""

You have failed to provide an explanation to satisfy option 3 so I stand by my original decision, option 2.

So fear not, I dont think your stupid, I just think your a cowardly, disingenious , hypocritical individual who is desperate to be perceived as an intellectual and who enjoys causing trouble online, safe in the knowledge that you will not be held to account for your actions in real life.

PS

Having trouble with the quotes facility? Its not that hard , as you yourself are so fond of pointing out....

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Hate also has problems with the quote function, elementary as it is.[/quote]

hehe, you didnt think I was going to accuse you of hypocrisy without offering at least 1 example did you? I leave such cowardly behaviour in your capable hands

PPS

I&#39;ll add "clarity" to the list of words you dont understand, just after "forthrightness"

[j2k4]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 February 2004 - 19:01
Now, I&#39;m done with you-any more/further off topic is your doing, lefty.

Apparently you missed the part I added (for clarity?)

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
Apparently you missed the part I added (for clarity?)

No. I &#39;caught&#39; it. I just translated it as "please dont reply, pleeeease" and chose to ignore it.

btw I thought you were "done with me"? Apparently not...

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by leftism+28 February 2004 - 23:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 28 February 2004 - 23:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>j2k4... what are we going to do with you eh?&nbsp;

1st, you have failed to show how you came to the conclusion that I was suggesting:

a. "alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you
b. "Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions"
c. "a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony"

I expected this and you did not fail to come up with the goods. Thank you

2nd, you&#39;ve gone straight back to your playground games.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>BTW-Where is your buddy 1234?

Carrying someone else&#39;s water these days?

Weren&#39;t you two here to "run me off this board" or leave me in need of a cyber-"ambulance", or some such nonsense?[/b]

Thanks again

1234 is not my buddy, nor is 56789 or 20/5 for that matter. I dont have a clue what your referring to about "running you off the board" or "cyber ambulances".

All I can see is that your floundering

Now... lets deal with that your chaotic mess which purports to be a post.

Originally posted by j2k4
What, exactly, you mean by "current proposals" is not absolutely clear, but your statement about amending them to include heterosexual couples is, insofar as it applies to the general subject; i.e., alternative legal unions referred to, for purposes here, as "Other-than-Marriage", or OTM.

WHAT???? Could someone translate this from gobbledygook into English for me?


(Im glad I didnt see that sentence before you edited it for "clarity"&#33; What a mess&#33

You appear to be saying that "My statement about amending the current proposals" (subject of sentence) is..... "Other than marriage"???????

Good strategy though Write &#39;sentences&#39; that are painful to read, long winded and dont make any sense.

This serves the double purpose of making them impossible to answer and provides more opportunity for playground games, such as "HA&#33; You didnt understand that?? You must be dumb&#33; HA&#33;".

Cunning... your as sharp as a spoon j2k4

I cant be bothered to deal with the rest of your inane questions. What I will say is that they show you havent been following this thread at all.

Originally posted by j2k4
Unless I miss my guess, his comment may come in response to the unremitting, presumptive and altogether off-putting contempt you continually express for America and also any member of this board or his/her opinions.

More ambiguous non-specific, cowardly, yes thats right COWARDLY accusations.

If you had provided an example of my "off-putting contempt for America" you would not be a coward. As usual however you prefer to hide behind non-specific accusations that cant be answered due to their ambiguity.

Thats your choice j2k4, I&#39;ve re-iterated multiple times what you must do to avoid this appearance of being a coward, but I cant make you do it. You make your own bed, you lie in it. Its got nothing to do with me .

Originally posted by j2k4
Now, as to your last post, I immediately was able to determine that no such "corner" as you described indeed existed, or at least, I was not in the vicinity of same.

"not in vicinity of same". "insofar as it applies to the general subject"..

I can only be thankful that we are not using dead trees to conduct this &#39;debate&#39;. Your obsession with unnecessary phrases, long windedness and pompousness would have devoured half of Brazil by now.

At least lawyers get paid by the page, they have an excuse for this kind of posturing.

The "corner" was quote my words that caused your confusion, with regards to, insofar much as to be or not to be, vis a vis , referred to, for purposes here, as not in the vicinity of same, Mr Spoon, Button Moon, intent&#33; (dramatic pause)

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
You will also note that, while I admit to showering you (rather liberally, at that&#33 with sarcasm and scorn, I have not called you "stupid". nor "cowardly", nor resorted to anything resembling an out-and-out insult.

I called you cowardly because you are. You have shown this to be the case, yet again, in this post. I did not call you stupid however, I just pointed out that there are only 2 explanations (which I consider feasible) as to why you misprepresented my case.

1. You are so stupid that you could not understand what I was saying and got confused

2. You knew what I was saying and decided to twist my words round.

The 3rd option (which I consider completely unfeasible) would be to: "show how you arrived at the conclusion that I was suggesting;

a. "alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you
b. "Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions"
c. "a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony""

You have failed to provide an explanation to satisfy option 3 so I stand by my original decision, option 2.

So fear not, I dont think your stupid, I just think your a cowardly, disingenious , hypocritical individual who is desperate to be perceived as an intellectual and who enjoys causing trouble online, safe in the knowledge that you will not be held to account for your actions in real life.

PS

Having trouble with the quotes facility? Its not that hard , as you yourself are so fond of pointing out....

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Hate also has problems with the quote function, elementary as it is.[/quote]

hehe, you didnt think I was going to accuse you of hypocrisy without offering at least 1 example did you? I leave such cowardly behaviour in your capable hands

PPS

I&#39;ll add "clarity" to the list of words you dont understand, just after "forthrightness" [/b][/quote]

Leftism

That is the biggest load of self satisfied shite I have read in years. You really should get someone to read these things before you post them, they do you no credit. With apologies to hobbes for my plagiarism, even if it wasn&#39;t him I was "plagurizing"

[leftism]

Originally posted by agrajag
Leftism

That is the biggest load of self satisfied shite I have read in years. You really should get someone to read these things before you post them, they do you no credit. With apologies to hobbes for my plagiarism, even if it wasn&#39;t him I was "plagurizing"

Yet again.. we must agree to disagree

A couple of points though.. you have an eagle as part of your sig, you also make ambiguous accusations which lack specifics.

Are you... could you be.... j2k4 in disguise????



(cue stabbing violins ala psycho style)

:helpsmile:

[clocker]

Leftism,
Resorting to ominous, emotive music to enhance your posts is a tactic unworthy of you.

More my style, really.