Thanks

And, honestly, I can’t believe anyone still reads RHF. I think I started scrolling by my first day here, over a year ago.

Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Seslikent
SesliChat
SesliSohbet

Prognosis negative…

(guess all the emnity from the slapfight thread after my last post there doesn’t count, eh? Funny how that works, Mr. ‘Manners Advocate.’)

—
8:29AM….

Not to mention the fact that I was also busy answering your other question of clarification on state secrets.

Yeah, it is since your post was condescending, provocative and presumptuous. The ‘rancor’ bit was meant to be patronizing.

There was more than ‘attempt,’ I listed several. It doesn’t seem to occur to the ‘Ralph clique’ and his fauxgressives that if you start throwing sh¡t and being a condescending prick you should expect to get slapped around.

Oh ho, that’s rich.

Your long worded reply was beat by my posting if you’ll notice the timestamp, so at the time, you hadn’t responded, so no apology necessary.

But thanks for adding to the list. I’m going out for a bit, but I’ll update what I have, with what you’ve provided, shortly. Thanks for at least making the attempt.

I’ll take that retraction now….not holding breath here either…

Not what I meant. “Invoked state secrets to foil lawsuits.” Should be the overarching charge, with the others such as rendition as subheadings to the overarching charge.

Not necessarily. The issues I bring to the fore also involve his choice of cases to defend. He invoked state secrets to block the bush emails lawsuit and again to foil the rendition lawsuits. Yes, I’m doing this from memory so semantics is not my chief concern, but the variety and choice of blocks due to state secrets is a big issue; particularly in light of the specific but fading promise of “transparency.”

And you still haven’t listed a positive, one that I haven’t already listed. You wouldn’t want us to think you’re so blinded by rancor that you can’t find one, do you?

barfly, I can list more than you can, so quit being a patronizing @sshole. I’ve had to babysit Ralph the Wonder Liar. Knock off the condescension.

Positives:

Credit Card Bill of Rights

Loan Programs for small business

SCHIP

Cuba rights

Women’s pay discrimination

Get his kids a puppy

Stem cell research restrictions.

1. Promised to close Gitmo – is in process of transferring prisoners out;

2. Transitioning troops from Iraq – is moving troops out at a moderated pace;

3. Healthcare reform that includes a public option is still being pushed by the administration, and with the backing of democrats in the House;

4. Enacts plan to save struggling homeowners, with limited success;

5. Pushes congress to increase unemployment benefits, congress complies.

6. Orders DOJ to de-emphasise marijuana prosecutions, in states with medical marijuana laws.

Negative decisions/acts:

1. Promised to end FISA abuses – Fisa abuses given retroactive immunity;

2. Promised to hold accountable those who approved of torture, later backtracked;

3. DODT still in force;

4. Doma still defended by Obama DOJ;

5. Continues Bush era faith-based initiatives;

6. AIG bailout, complete with executive bonuses intact;

7. Promises to restore habeus corpus – habeus still not restored;

8. Invokes state secrets in ways that defeat his claims to transparency; (I’ve combined a few that were of the same logical grouping.): a. rendition; b. torture photos; c. …

9. Continues with Bush-era “preventative detentions;” (Although to be fair, he is slowly moving out the detainees.)

I’ve changed negative 8, to reflect the subheading change.

Doesn’t matter why you decided to be a sarcastic prick. You opened that door then cried when you got slapped around. You started it Ralph, and in typical cowardly fashion, you write a windy post to try to exonerate yourself rather than admit the damning evidence.

I posted issues, you decided to be a petulant dou(hebag based on nothing.

I know it suits your purpose to assume that it’s because I didn’t want to “engage in a discussion of the posted issues” but I think most people here recognize I don’t shy away from such discussions.

Again, you didn’t attempt to engage to find out, you acted on an asinine presumption, indulged your weakness and rancor, then try to make some lame-ass case that it’s somehow my fault that you acted like a sarcastic prick.

In truth, my response was a sarcastic take on what I saw as your overheated rhetoric. At the point I joined the discussion, it really didn’t seem like the issues were going to be discussed in a reasonable manner.

So, you’re at fault. Doesn’t matter whether you believed the discussion was going to be reasonable or not, you jumped in, started antagonizing, along with stinkbug and whats-her-name, and then tried to blame me for fully and deservedly slapping you around.

You really are a coward.