Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 13, 2009 Author Posted December 13, 2009 No. Prove she did. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 I can't prove it, because I don't understand the Constitution, so I'm just going to keep repeating myself and think it makes me sound erudite. Fixed it for you.
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 I know Donald is right but I can't appear weak in front of John Adams. Fixed
Alaska Darin Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Fixed Your parrotism obviously knows no boundaries. Pathetic.
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 My parrotism obviously knows no boundaries. Pathetic. Fixed.
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Fixed Oh, I'm pretty sure JA, as an attorney, is perfectly capable on his own of figuring out who the idiot is in this conversation.
Alaska Darin Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Fixed. Bwaaaaaaaaack! Donnie found a new technique. It's like the special foil mommy used to give him to play with when he was a kid.
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 Just like DC Tom when I'm intellectually over matched I resort to childish name calling. Fixed
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 Oh, I'm pretty sure JA, as an attorney, is perfectly capable on his own of figuring out who the idiot is in this conversation. Yeah, he's figured out that you are the idiot. Thats why you two get along so well. Feeble minds think alike.
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Yeah, he's figured out that you are the idiot. Thats why you two get along so well. Feeble minds think alike. You are MORE than welcome to explain to both of us Articles I and III of the Constitution and how they apply to this particular topic. Doubt you will, though. Or can, for that matter.
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 You are MORE than welcome to explain to both of us Articles I and III of the Constitution and how they apply to this particular topic. Doubt you will, though. Or can, for that matter. I asked you first, and this lame deflection has only confirmed my suspicion that you are wholly ignorant of the Constitution.
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I asked you first, and this lame deflection has only confirmed my suspicion that you are wholly ignorant of the Constitution. "I asked you first." What's next, "You mother wears army boots"? You're the one that said she violated Articles I and III of the Constitution. You made the affirmative statement. Now prove it.
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 "I asked you first." What's next, "You mother wears army boots"? You're the one that said she violated Articles I and III of the Constitution. You made the affirmative statement. Now prove it. Checkmate. You're not deflecting your way out of this one.
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Checkmate. You're not deflecting your way out of this one. I'm not defelcting. I'm asking our newest Constitutional Scholar to demonstrate how enforcing the constitutional restriction on bills of attainder is an example of "judicial activism" that violates Articles I and III of the Constitution. But you can't, can you?
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 I'm not defelcting. Whats "defelcting"?
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 Now who's deflecting? You are. I bet your just running out the clock until John Adams throws you a life preserver. "defelcting", lol.
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 You are. I bet your just running out the clock until John Adams throws you a life preserver. "defelcting", lol. Actually, I just gave an explanation a few posts ago. As I figured, you were just too damned dense to understand that the explanation was even there, never mind comprehend it. But keep focusing on the typo. That'll make you look smart.
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 Actually, I just gave an explanation a few posts ago. As I figured, you were just too damned dense to understand that the explanation was even there, never mind comprehend it. But keep focusing on the typo. That'll make you look smart. So that passes as an "explanation" in the DC Tom world? Just admit that I caught your hand in the cookie jar of Pseudo-Constitutional knowledge. And... How bout that play Jairus Byrd made on that pass "defelction" yesterday! lol
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 So that passes as an "explanation" in the DC Tom world? Just admit that I caught your hand in the cookie jar of Pseudo-Constitutional knowledge. A judge's authority under Article III of the Constitution to rule a congressional decision as unconstitutional under Article I of the Constitution does usually pass as an "explanation", yes. Still can't disagree, can you? Need help with all the big words?
Recommended Posts