Dude, I win lots of factual points arguing with you, I'm quite sure. Furthermore, I've quoted you accurately, and believe I've given a very honest POV concerning your writing what I could well quote accurately again right now. You were called for your statement, and you failed to respond to the charge, apparently not caring. My impression of your words is/was honest, stated to you, and long ignored by you. I believe that makes you less than credible in your denials.
I hope you hold your breath for your dream. If you can hold it three or so, you won't die, but you will be uncomfortable along the way, I suspect.
By the by, your final "the removal by force has begun" comment is a contrary remark, as "force" is considered as contrary to the intent of "People Power, that is congress, voters and/or the judicial branch." That stuff is set up to allow peaceful change NOT involving the use of force as it is commonly understood (but I'm sure you'll emphasize the acceptability of your loose use of the word). And as I've accurately noted, you did not speak of any of these peaceful methods for the removal the President and the Vice President, you merely said "by force if necessary," leaving the issue wide open, and refusing for TOO long to add your caveats, though given the chance.
Yes, you should not bother posting to me again, even here. You'll just repeat yourself, and I'll just accurately quote you and post everything which in fact backs up what I've said concerning this.
Dan B. |
