Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With his latest statement against the Supreme Court, Obama is sure putting himself off in a corner on his own pedestal. Congress doesn't do what he wants and he does it anyway and now the Supreme Court isn't doing what he wants.
Three branches of Government and the President is bashing the other 2 for not "doing what he wants". Congress are a bunch of pansies for letting him get away with it (Libya) but the Supreme Court isn't.
Every time I quote somebody, in any way, on anything, I always make sure their name appears prominently at the top of the quote.
Without exception.
Then I like to stand back and laugh at the poor, snivelling simps who try so desperately to change the subject to "Who said this" rather than "What it says", as though their question hadn't already been thoroughly answered before they asked it.
The exact same posts have also appeared on Hannity's forum. Maybe that is the reference.
Also, someone aboe asked if Little Acorn is the author of those two long posts, which was never answered.
No, IMO, those remarks about the supreme court were not intended by Obama to start any "mob rule".....I agree with you in your other thread that it's about the upcoming campaign.
It was the same poster, a tree embryo, on Hannity.
Every time I quote somebody, in any way, on anything, I always make sure their name appears prominently at the top of the quote.
Without exception.
Then I like to stand back and laugh at the poor, snivelling simps who try so desperately to change the subject to "Who said this" rather than "What it says", as though their question hadn't already been thoroughly answered before they asked it.
You side-stepped the question. Why not just give a simple, direct answer, like, yes, that is my original work/writing?
So basically you're just saying that you think Obama made the remarks about the supreme court in order to start riots, violence, or whatever, in order to implement "mob rule"?????? Yet you decided to go into a long writing about FDR, etc? And as you put it, "acted upon later, by his willing dupes who are in pain and don't know any better." "Willing dupes who are in pain and don't know any better." Impressive writing indeed / sarcasm on.
As bob asked for the "sort version," maybe you could condense what you said a little bit to get straight to the point? No need for little words and short sentences, just concise concepts, please.
Last edited by Betina92811; 04-06-2012 at 05:05 PM..
You side-stepped the question. Why not just give a simple, direct answer, like, yes, that is my original work/writing?
(Laughing some more!)
Quote:
So basically you're just saying that you think Obama made the remarks about the supreme court in order to start riots, violence, or whatever
Rather than guessing, see the OP to figure out what "whatever" is.
Quote:
, in order to implement "mob rule"??????
Mmm hmm.
Quote:
Yet you decided to go into a long writing about FDR, etc?
Nothing gets by you, does it?
Quote:
And as you put it, "acted upon later, by his willing dupes who are in pain and don't know any better." "Willing dupes who are in pain and don't know any better."
Very good!
Quote:
As bob asked for the "sort version," maybe you could condense what you said a little bit to get straight to the point?
And maybe I couldn't, and still make the points I made as well.
Since you seem far more interested in how I wrote it, than in what I wrote (which you occasionally quote but carefully make no other comment on), do you intend to open a new thread, about people's writing techniques?
Quote:
No need for little words and short sentences
That's right, which is why I didn't use any.
Quote:
, just concise concepts, please.
They'r right there, in the OP.
What I can't do, is relieve you of the responsibility of reading them and thinking about them yourself.
Now that you've proven yourself capable of reading what I wrote in the OP, and even repeating small parts of it back to me, perhaps you'd next like to move to the next level, and actually say what you think about it?
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 04-06-2012 at 05:47 PM..
Rather than guessing, see the OP to figure out what "whatever" is.
Mmm hmm.
Nothing gets by you, does it?
Very good!
And maybe I couldn't, and still make the points I made as well.
Since you seem far more interested in how I wrote it, than in what I wrote (which you occasionally quote but carefully make no other comment on), do you intend to open a new thread, about people's writing techniques?
That's right, which is why I didn't use any.
They'r right there, in the OP.
What I can't do, is relieve you of the responsibility of reading them and thinking about them yourself.
Now that you've proven yourself capable of reading what I wrote in the OP, and even repeating small parts of it back to me, perhaps you'd next like to move the the next level, and actually say what you think about it?
I did. Obviously you're preaching to the choir as well as playing comedian to the choir. Maybe they didn't know your version of history re FDR.
Again, I did say what I thought about your piece, but I'll say it again. Very verbose way of saying that you think "far leftists" (FDR/Obama...btw, Obama is not in any way a far leftist and it makes me laugh every time I see conservatives go down that path) will try to use the supreme court to eventually create a socialist country yada, yada, yada.
Also, if I had written the post, I wouldn't take credit for it either.
I did. Obviously you're preaching to the choir as well as playing comedian to the choir. Maybe they didn't know your version of history re FDR.
Again, I did say what I thought about your piece, but I'll say it again. Very verbose way of saying that you think "far leftists" (FDR/Obama...btw, Obama is not in any way a far leftist and it makes me laugh every time I see conservatives go down that path) will try to use the supreme court to eventually create a socialist country yada, yada, yada.
Also, if I had written the post, I wouldn't take credit for it either.
He was regurgitating FDR's conflict with the SC that has virtually no resemblace to the current issue. Well, other than "the President" and "Supreme Court", beyond those 2 entities, no relevance. Without relevance, hard to condense the assertion.
Again, I did say what I thought about your piece, but I'll say it again. Very verbose way of saying that you think "far leftists" ... will try to use the supreme court to eventually create a socialist country yada, yada, yada.
Not even close to what I said. Care to try again?
Quote:
Also, if I had written the post, I wouldn't take credit for it either.
If I had written something as silly as what you seem to think it said, I'd be embarrassed too.
He was regurgitating FDR's conflict with the SC that has virtually no resemblace to the current issue. Well, other than "the President" and "Supreme Court", beyond those 2 entities, no relevance. Without relevance, hard to condense the assertion.
Now I see why florida.bob wanted the short words and sentences. The long ones went completely over his head.
My sympathies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The long ones went completely over his head.
