Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    News from 8 years ago relevant and giving context to recent events, so yeah, news at 11.
    Disgraced X making a sensational story about a public figure was once viewed with more skepticism. It's just too thinly sourced. It comes down to whether you basically believe the "controversial figure" who was arrested for thrusting a human fetus towards Bill Clinton, on his own hearsay. The rest of the story is fluff in the public record.

    Hence, anything that a rational reader could glean is already covered by "have already been published in outlets such as Politico and Rolling Stone," and astute readers know enough to doubt the revelation from the character giving it and the lack of independent corroboration. I have some stories about Obama to sell you if you really dig these turncoats-years-later-secret-information-come-to-light.

    I wager the excitement over impeaching the credibility of the court is overruling very basic notions of how to process stories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    More like: news from 8 years ago gives a strong indication that this summer's "leak" was anything but.
    Same response. Let's have the former pro-choice people come 8 years later saying how strongly pro-abort justices actually just wanted to kill babies, and they had communicated in letters to the justices prior to their vote on the infanticide-driven agenda. Use some common sense here. If it regards a public figure, don't just assume allegations are proof. Especially when the story is sensational, and there isn't something like other witnesses, or documented invited-speaker and mutual correspondence. Hell, even then you're basically doing a McCarthy Act saying you were seen with prominent communists.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I wager the excitement over impeaching the credibility of the court is overruling very basic notions of how to process stories.
    You say this as if the court has much credibility left which...based on polling and complaints from Roberts and others.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/...toric-low.aspx

    25% have confidence in the court. This is the doing of Republicans and Roberts himself.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    You say this as if the court has much credibility left which...based on polling and complaints from Roberts and others.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/...toric-low.aspx

    25% have confidence in the court. This is the doing of Republicans and Roberts himself.
    If you have a better explanation for why people are adopting the editorial standards of Fox News to score points, then I'm listening. Tucker's standards are worthy of revilement, not something to copy. And switch a couple names and accusations around and this would be first up on Tucker or Hannity.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If you have a better explanation for why people are adopting the editorial standards of Fox News to score points, then I'm listening. Tucker's standards are worthy of revilement, not something to copy. And switch a couple names and accusations around and this would be first up on Tucker or Hannity.
    No one is. Literally no one is spouting open conspiracies and saying they are "just asking questions" like Tucker does with his qtard conspiracies and white nationalism. He should have been removed from the air when he won that ignorant lawsuit, but Fox News doesn't have any journalistic integrity, nor do they care to even try. They don't have anyone left that even cares about the truth anymore.

  5. #25
    The Supreme Court, as it stands, has less credibility than my used toilet paper at this point.

    A supermajority of it is made up of nominations from people the nation voted against and not for, either Barret or Gorsuch has no place on it depending on how you want to phrase it one of them is a stolen seat with Kavanaugh having a host of disqualifications on top of his perjury and I say it in that way because we have video evidence of something like 5 of them all committing perjury during their hearings.

    These are people committing crimes during their interviews for a spot on the highest court in the land. I have no respect for the people or their rulings when the judges themselves have no respect for their office and lie, cheat, and steal to get it just so they can abuse and weaponize it.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  6. #26
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,595
    You know something is fundamentally wrong when it is more important for us to treat them with respect than it is for them to act in a way worthy of respect. When they openly flaunt the codes of conduct that everyone else in the legal profession throughout the country are sworn to, it puts not only the Supreme Court into disrepute, but also reflects poorly on the entire system from top to bottom.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    You know something is fundamentally wrong when it is more important for us to treat them with respect than it is for them to act in a way worthy of respect. When they openly flaunt the codes of conduct that everyone else in the legal profession throughout the country are sworn to, it puts not only the Supreme Court into disrepute, but also reflects poorly on the entire system from top to bottom.
    There is a reason why Republicans blocked the ethics reforms for the Supreme Courts.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  8. #28
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    19,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    The Supreme Court, as it stands, has less credibility than my used toilet paper at this point.

    A supermajority of it is made up of nominations from people the nation voted against and not for, either Barret or Gorsuch has no place on it depending on how you want to phrase it one of them is a stolen seat with Kavanaugh having a host of disqualifications on top of his perjury and I say it in that way because we have video evidence of something like 5 of them all committing perjury during their hearings.

    These are people committing crimes during their interviews for a spot on the highest court in the land. I have no respect for the people or their rulings when the judges themselves have no respect for their office and lie, cheat, and steal to get it just so they can abuse and weaponize it.
    People act as if the court being shitty is new. Its always been shitty. They literally gave Bush the election ffs.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  9. #29
    It's just politics. Trump disrupted Washington in 2016, McConnell held his resolve on withholding advice and consent under the rules of the Senate. That pissed a bunch of lefties off, so they invent absurd reasons to delegitimize the court. It's much better for the ego than admitting loss. If you press lefties, they go back to 2000 election trutherism. Hence, politics. The result is endless poorly sourced scandals about every justice that doesn't act like they wish, no willingness to apply these invented standards to followers of their ideology (bye Kagan), and the left side of the aisle sows distrust in the system and reaps their reward.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Trump disrupted Washington in 2016
    This is like saying I disrupted the bathroom by taking a shit in the sink.

    It's technically true, but missing some key details.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    McConnell held his resolve on withholding advice and consent under the rules of the Senate.
    You mean acted hypocritically, in bad faith, purely in the interest of his own party and not the nation as a whole?

    That's another way of saying that.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    That pissed a bunch of lefties off, so they invent absurd reasons to delegitimize the court.
    Actually, no. This has been the result of a decades-long effort by Republicans. It was just fully realized under McConnell and Trump, and the Roberts court.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    It's much better for the ego than admitting loss.
    In which you continue to give up the partisan game that the SCOTUS is some political tool to be controlled by parties that one "wins or loses", which is exactly the kind of thinking that started this decades-long Republican effort to corrupt the courts and impugn their integrity.

    And you seem wholly unaware of this.

  11. #31
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    McConnell's entire excuse as to why Obama shouldn't be able to get his supreme court nominee through was that the supreme court wasn't supposed to be partisan. Every republicant echoed that sentiment as if it was some kind of legitimate excuse to delay the SCOTUS nomination til after the election. Now @tehdang you're telling me that it's just fine for the court to be partisan because the naked truth is that Republicans were being partisan all along?

    So what you're telling me is that Republicans are liars and frauds?
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    McConnell's entire excuse as to why Obama shouldn't be able to get his supreme court nominee through was that the supreme court wasn't supposed to be partisan.
    Ooh not even close, try again. He did give statements on it, so maybe provide a quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    This is like saying I disrupted the bathroom by taking a shit in the sink.

    It's technically true, but missing some key details.
    Granted, the targets of protest always characterize the act as taking a shit.

    You mean acted hypocritically, in bad faith, purely in the interest of his own party and not the nation as a whole?

    That's another way of saying that.
    Critics of the system dislike the products of the system. News at 11. If you make everything partisan, and dislike partisanship after losing the Senate, then win the Senate. I don't expect disarmament (stopping the attacks).

    Actually, no. This has been the result of a decades-long effort by Republicans. It was just fully realized under McConnell and Trump, and the Roberts court.
    Yeah, the result of a lot of lawyers and civic-conscious individuals getting a little pissed at the Judiciary inventing for itself a legislative role. It took decades because these things take time. Justices are appointed for life. Again, if you actually wanted legislation, I would suggest passing legislation through Congress, not relying on the Supreme Court to do your dirty work. One day, it might change composition and return legislative authority to the elected branches.

    In which you continue to give up the partisan game that the SCOTUS is some political tool to be controlled by parties that one "wins or loses", which is exactly the kind of thinking that started this decades-long Republican effort to corrupt the courts and impugn their integrity.

    And you seem wholly unaware of this.
    The attacks on the justices have been pathetically weak. You've apparently missed that. Partisanship hides it. Anger at the consequences of elections misplaces the focus. So I don't expect an admission that this whole enterprise is foolhardy and destructive to the constitutional system. But maybe in time you'll realize this is all just sour grapes. The Supreme Court is returning to deciding on cases based on the law, not writing new laws that Congress neglected to pass. Maybe reckon with that fact a little more than 1) attacking justices 2) delegitimizing the court 3) crying foul when this gets pointed out and 4) blaming Republicans. Just for once. If you admit it took decades for conservatives to reform the Supreme Court (return it to its proper function), then don't waste the first decade after your loss just petulantly lashing out at the justices themselves.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Granted, the targets of protest always characterize the act as taking a shit.
    No, this is me mocking you calling Trump "disruptive", because while he technically was "disruptive", it wasn't in the way you're attempting to imply.

    Again, it was more akin to saying, "I disrupted the bathroom by shitting in the sink." Technically a disruption, but hardly a beneficial one or one with any particular goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Critics of the system dislike the products of the system. News at 11. If you make everything partisan, and dislike partisanship after losing the Senate, then win the Senate. I don't expect disarmament (stopping the attacks).
    Please, tell us how McConnell refusing to even entertain a nominee in the final year of one president and then rushing through a nominee in the final month of a second president is acting honestly or in good faith?

    This is your argument here, I'm just asking you to elaborate on it if it's what you truly believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Yeah, the result of a lot of lawyers and civic-conscious individuals getting a little pissed at the Judiciary inventing for itself a legislative role.
    In which, hilariously, you accuse prior courts of doing what the current conservative Roberts court is literally doing. There was no precident for this until the Trump presidency, btw.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Again, if you actually wanted legislation, I would suggest passing legislation through Congress, not relying on the Supreme Court to do your dirty work. One day, it might change composition and return legislative authority to the elected branches.
    Once again, projection.

    I long for a return to the discourse between the SCOTUS and Legislature, with the SCOTUS regularly sending rulings back essentially saying, "If the Legislature disagrees, they're welcome to make the law more explicit." and then they'd do that.

    Something which has disappeared as partisan Republicans largely refuse to work with Democrats on anything, even when it's often in their shared interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The attacks on the justices have been pathetically weak.
    You mean Alito and other Justices lying during their confirmation hearings?

    You mean Thomas and his massive conflict of interest with his wifes work? A conflict that would not be allowed in any lower court as it would violate the ethical rules they, though not the SCOTUS, are obliged to follow. Rules that, as you've actually pointed out, other Justices like Justice Brown, and also Barrett and Kavanaugh, have abided by in recusing themselves when they have cases where their past history or current standing my prejudice them.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Anger at the consequences of elections misplaces the focus.
    More projection is hilarious.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The Supreme Court is returning to deciding on cases based on the law, not writing new laws that Congress neglected to pass.
    The recent abnormally high use of the shadow docket to deliver one conservative win after another, without explanation via actual ruling, is just a weird coincidence and all. Totally irrelevant actually, please don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If you admit it took decades for conservatives to reform the Supreme Court (return it to its proper function)
    Take over with dishonest partisans groomed through the Federalist Society to be activist conservative judges*

    I'm just dealing with the bullshit you're spewing out and correcting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    don't waste the first decade after your loss just petulantly lashing out at the justices themselves.
    I'm not, and you're still projecting.

    I, much like the majority of Americans, have lost faith in the current court thanks to Republican ratfuckery. Now you can say the majority of America is out of touch, or that maybe Republicans have done damage to a core institution over the years in their quest for power over all.

    Either way, we'll be dealing with facts while you're still focusing on your feelings.

  14. #34
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Ooh not even close, try again. He did give statements on it, so maybe provide a quote.
    Like this one?



    Or should I say these two.

    So Republicans are liars and frauds?
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    No, this is me mocking you calling Trump "disruptive", because while he technically was "disruptive", it wasn't in the way you're attempting to imply.
    I know. I'm telling you why this instance of mocking is pretty hilarious. It's the rich banker wondering why the rabble is outside protesting. Compares their protests to taking a shit. Good times.

    Again, it was more akin to saying, "I disrupted the bathroom by shitting in the sink." Technically a disruption, but hardly a beneficial one or one with any particular goal.
    Hard disagree. But since I already let you know...

    Please, tell us how McConnell refusing to even entertain a nominee in the final year of one president and then rushing through a nominee in the final month of a second president is acting honestly or in good faith?

    This is your argument here, I'm just asking you to elaborate on it if it's what you truly believe.
    Rules of the Senate. His was the Senate Majority Leader and this was his chosen mode of withholding the advice and consent on behalf of the majority. I'll take it as a compliment when you move to "acting honestly or in good faith" when you prefer ginning up rape accusations as your mode of acting in good faith.

    In which, hilariously, you accuse prior courts of doing what the current conservative Roberts court is literally doing. There was no precident for this until the Trump presidency, btw.
    Absolute projection from you. Libs held the court for years and made activist rulings usurping law. Now you get a few years of the deserved backlash and you want to wipe history clean. No dice. Try passing legislation next time.

    I long for a return to the discourse between the SCOTUS and Legislature, with the SCOTUS regularly sending rulings back essentially saying, "If the Legislature disagrees, they're welcome to make the law more explicit." and then they'd do that.

    Something which has disappeared as partisan Republicans largely refuse to work with Democrats on anything, even when it's often in their shared interest.
    Stop the lying. Your Democrats lacked the votes and persuasion to pass legislation you wanted, and you're busy re-characterizing their failure as something on Republicans. So come off it. Republicans came back after only two years of Obama's unified control precisely because Democrats' solutions were opposed, and the people elected were empowered to put a stop to it. Democrats refused to give anything important up in compromise (as is their right as elected representatives), but don't try to paint that as the fault of Republicans.

    You mean Alito and other Justices lying during their confirmation hearings?
    Hardly. As before, this would put Kagan as liar too.

    You mean Thomas and his massive conflict of interest with his wifes work? A conflict that would not be allowed in any lower court as it would violate the ethical rules they, though not the SCOTUS, are obliged to follow. Rules that, as you've actually pointed out, other Justices like Justice Brown, and also Barrett and Kavanaugh, have abided by in recusing themselves when they have cases where their past history or current standing my prejudice them.
    Thomas doesn't own his wife's political opinions or activism. Please adopt more feminism in your ideological outlook.

    More projection is hilarious.
    You couldn't handle the election of Trump and the consequences, so I guess you're kind of stuck refusing to admit to the loss. It resulted in the Supreme Court being highly reconstituted. You can either learn to accept that, or keep petulantly attacking justices for all kinds of misinformed and contrived reasons.

    The recent abnormally high use of the shadow docket to deliver one conservative win after another, without explanation via actual ruling, is just a weird coincidence and all. Totally irrelevant actually, please don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
    Many of the shadow docket opinions are such obvious decisions that only political partisans are left wondering why they were made. But you'd have to explain more which ones you're mad about in this case.

    Take over with dishonest partisans groomed through the Federalist Society to be activist conservative judges*

    I'm just dealing with the bullshit you're spewing out and correcting it.
    Federalist Society worked to correct the usurpation of power practiced in the years following the Roe vs Wade decision. If you weren't in the business of spewing out bullshit, you'd be thanking them for this change and the ability to actually argue abortion before legislatures instead of judges. A fair playing field benefits all parties, not just mine. (Unless of course, you're intent on losing legislative battles and blaming the system or lack of compromise)

    I'm not, and you're still projecting.

    I, much like the majority of Americans, have lost faith in the current court thanks to Republican ratfuckery. Now you can say the majority of America is out of touch, or that maybe Republicans have done damage to a core institution over the years in their quest for power over all.

    Either way, we'll be dealing with facts while you're still focusing on your feelings.
    I have already characterized this opinion as a petulant lashing-out, and I have nothing further to add. If you had more cogent and forceful arguments to make about the court, I suggest you raise those ones instead of the previous ones. "They lied" (disinformation, applicable to people like Kagan as well) and "I don't like how the Senate withdrew consent" (weak, juvenile) aren't as persuasive as they appear to be to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Like this one?

    Just go a tiny bit farther. He literally explained the "why" in terms of divided Executive and Senate multiple times, and printing one-sentence statements of the "what" doesn't excuse ignoring the why.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2022-11-21 at 08:45 PM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Rules of the Senate. His was the Senate Majority Leader and this was his chosen mode of withholding the advice and consent on behalf of the majority. I'll take it as a compliment when you move to "acting honestly or in good faith" when you prefer ginning up rape accusations as your mode of acting in good faith.
    Again, you pretending this is normal behavior and not rank, partisan hypocrisy weaponizing the SCOTUS for pure partisan gain, you can do it.

    Nobody will believe you and it will mean we'll treat everything else you say as an abject lie while pretending to be "reasonable", but you can do it.

  17. #37
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Thomas doesn't own his wife's political opinions or activism. Please adopt more feminism in your ideological outlook.
    Just in case anyone was in any doubt as to what a dishonest shill this poster is, here's their take on familial conflict of interest when the person in question isn't someone they politically agree with:

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The emails are real, they came from an abandoned laptop from Hunter Biden, and no significant challenges have been made to the repair shop source or the owner's blindness (just little gibes, as you repeat here).
    Whoops.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Just go a tiny bit farther. He literally explained the "why" in terms of divided Executive and Senate multiple times, and printing one-sentence statements of the "what" doesn't excuse ignoring the why.
    The division is purely irrelevant here unless you can point to some line in the Constitution or elsewhere that specifies that it matters.

    It's a bullshit excuse that was never relevant before and still ain't relevant, but here you care, repeating the lie as if it's the Gospel truth.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Just in case anyone was in any doubt as to what a dishonest shill this poster is, here's their take on familial conflict of interest when the subject in question isn't someone they politically agree with:
    No you see, he can weaponize "the lefts" criticism against "the left" as long as you completely ignore anything and everything about the situation and simply just make shit up.

    It's so easy to accuse others of what your people are doing when you just make shit up, incredibly easy!

  19. #39
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    No you see, he can weaponize "the lefts" criticism against "the left" as long as you completely ignore anything and everything about the situation and simply just make shit up.

    It's so easy to accuse others of what your people are doing when you just make shit up, incredibly easy!
    Yeah personally I can't wait for January 3rd to roll around and see Mister "familial conflicts of interest aren't a thing" immediately switch tack and harp about the latest nothingburger smear campaign that gets sharted out by House Republicans.

    Sartre put it best:

    “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Again, you pretending this is normal behavior and not rank, partisan hypocrisy weaponizing the SCOTUS for pure partisan gain, you can do it.

    Nobody will believe you and it will mean we'll treat everything else you say as an abject lie while pretending to be "reasonable", but you can do it.
    Right back at you. Pretending this particular thing is worth singling out is playing partisan games. It's no different than every other time legislation is not brought up for a vote by both parties. The bottom line is the Senate withdrew its advice and consent pursuant to the rules of the Senate. You can blather about partisan hypocrisy, but uniqueness is not proof of dastardly or despicable acts. You're relying on the fallacies of appeal to the people ("nobody will believe you") is similarly unpersuasive. I don't find your argument reasonable or logical at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    The division is purely irrelevant here unless you can ...
    Excuse me, but you're responding to my response to another poster. He fallaciously asserted reasons for an action, and failed to determine the truth of the matter when called out on it. You failed to take up the subject matter, so I'm not entertaining digressions to whatever you feel this is really about.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •