Thread: Lou Dobbs: No Impeachment

And what has Hillary to do with the constitution ?

Okay I've gained control. This IS a spoof right?
If not then ... well I best not say it, I am known for not suffering fools gladly.


POOOF and outta here I need fresh air.

ooops ps good thing the door didn't hit me in the behind.. I saw your post Crocket GOOD ONE! I think I glazed over at the first page and spazzed out.

now I'll pooof

Originally Posted by xanadu

And what has Hillary to do with the constitution ?

Okay I've gained control. This IS a spoof right?
If not then ... well I best not say it, I am known for not suffering fools gladly.


POOOF and outta here I need fresh air.

ooops ps good thing the door didn't hit me in the behind.. I saw your post Crocket GOOD ONE! I think I glazed over at the first page and spazzed out.

now I'll pooof

Which one, Xanadu? My new stalker has driven me to get more involved than usual, but his challenges have moved into the realm of the absurd. I'm sure that you know enough about the subject to understand the nature of his misdirection and obfuscation. Some people...

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by xanadu

And what has Hillary to do with the constitution ?

Okay I've gained control. This IS a spoof right?
If not then ... well I best not say it, I am known for not suffering fools gladly.


POOOF and outta here I need fresh air.

ooops ps good thing the door didn't hit me in the behind.. I saw your post Crocket GOOD ONE! I think I glazed over at the first page and spazzed out.

now I'll pooof

My new stalker has driven me to get more involved than usual, but his challenges have moved into the realm of the absurd.

First, your serially errant posts which I correct doesn't make me your stalker.

Just post accurately, and I have nothing to rebut.

Second, foremost among my "challenges" has been for you to provide a single cite, to a single court case, federal or state, from anywhere in the nation, at any time in the nation's history, to support your absurd claim that the UCC applies AT ALL to a sweepstakes in general and that the UCC governs the rights and liabilities of the illegal immigrant lady who'd won the sweepstakes prize in question.

You've provided nothing.

Even though I've also posited that a law review article would be acceptable, from ANY of the 180 ABA-accredited law schools, published at any time in each of their centuries'-worth of history, with many if not most law schools having multiple law review boards, with EACH OF THEM publishing dozens of articles, casenotes, and comments per issue, each of which issues are released in volumes released three times per year, all across the land, year after year after year. The stacks are FILLED with law reveiw commentary on every topic imaginable. Except yours.

I'd also take a cite to a legal treatise, like any of the five series of ALRS, the two series' worth of AmJurs and CJSs, or any of the hornbooks.

Or, if you can otherwise find a respected jurist who says what you say, produce that.

Yet you've provided absolutely nothing but the letters typed by your fingers.

Typing's cheap.

Stalker, YOU have provided nothing. All you have offered is your demonstrably errant interpretations of codes you clearly do not understand, as I have demonstrated. And you forget that I am familiar with your song and dance, Strother. Your standard MO is to make endless demands of proof even as you make naked assertions and intentionally misquote and obfuscate code, as you demonstrably did in the case of the UCC title section. Your ploy is transparent. And yes, indeed typing's cheap, as you demonstrate on every site you infest.

Ta ta.

Bamajdphd,

While I hate to get in the middle of this lively discussion, would you mind sharing with us some of your views on illegal immigration and the current political situation on this issue in America?

After all, the purpose of this website is to address the issue of illegal immigration and many of the posts Ive seen from you are about legal matters, citations, and confrontations.

Many of us would like to know where you stand on the issue of illegal immigration.

W

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Bamajdphd,

While I hate to get in the middle of this lively discussion, would you mind sharing with us some of your views on illegal immigration and the current political situation on this issue in America?

After all, the purpose of this website is to address the issue of illegal immigration and many of the posts Ive seen from you are about legal matters, citations, and confrontations.

Many of us would like to know where you stand on the issue of illegal immigration.

W

My PM function's disabled, I guess.

But my first inclination was to politely decline your invitation of me to share my political views on this issue. And, to be perfectly honest, I'm kind of still wondering whether I'll tell you now as I type. It seems like a litmus test and I'm generally averse to any sort of compelled statements of fidelity to any one thing, entity, or person.

However.

I do see your point. This is a topical discussion board for the most part, which is why I came here in the first place, which I intend to address shortly, and you'd prefer to keep it that way. Understood. It is also obvious to me that you're wondering, as I would were I in your shoes, whether Ghost's stultifying accusations of "stalking," and, evidently, prior familiarity are true. I have never encountered Ghost before this board in my life, and I deny that, completely. I would ask you to read the threads in question and see his naked ploy for what it is: he's getting walloped on the facts, embarrassingly so, and he's resorting to this stalking nonsense as a distraction, in the fashion of wag the dog.

Because I think you've given me the opportunity to state my case, I'm not so rankled by my concerns with a litmus test.

The reason I came here is that my mind is not made up on the issue beyond the rather obvious notion that I wish there weren't illegal immigration at all.

Where I live we don't have much problem at all with illegal immigration. We're pretty white. So I hadn't much occasion to get caught up in the issue. I knew it was out there, but, like many issues, it seemed too remote for me.

But, about 20 minutes from my city, is a rather smallish-town, maybe 20,000 people, MAYBE, with a huge meatpacking plant, Hormel's, I think. This town made the news about five weeks ago, because of all the busted illegal immigrants working there.

I've got nothing against Mexican people. But I do think they should abide by our laws. Coming here illegally is not right. It probably takes jobs from Americans, probably keeps the wage rate low, and probably impacts crime and other matters like healthcare costs and ER availability. I'm still learning on the subject. The issue's complicated for me because I am concerned about the welfare, a term so despised but I'll use it anyway, of the children left in the lurch.

Further compounding it, I see two breeds of empowered interests at odds with each other: on the one hand are the racists, who simply don't like the Mexicans, I live among plenty of these WASPS and despise their bigotry but see that they're absolutely right in saying Mexicans just can't come into this country with impunity; we need to protect our borders; others aren't so racist as they are hyper-capitalist and want Mexicans to come into the country, laws against it bedamned, because it's good for the shareholder's pocket book.

I don't explain myself to you thinking this is anything new to you.

It's just relatively new to me. I'm still trying to make up my mind, but you asked, and those are my thoughts, pedestrian though they may be to you.

I'd hardly got to this site when I saw Ghost's cogent posts (by my lights) regarding the border patrol agents' convictions for shooting the illegal immigrant. I think my first post was one to give substance to a challenge by another poster regarding what appeared to that person as an anomaly in the judge forcing the jury to deliberate. It's done all the time and I posted it as such: it's called an Allen charge, after its namesake case.

Ghost thanked me. And so I noticed him. He's an enviably clear writer and very very very prolific. So I couldn't help but notice him.

Then I learned, setting aside completely the bizarreness of some of his views, I probably have some of those, too, but read about his proclamations about the law. I saw somebody tonight even state that he's the FIRST person they'd go to regarding issues related to illegal immigration.

The thing is, Ghost has a remarkable talent for clearly expressing matters that he has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I know this because if there's one thing I know, it's the law. And when he expounds on the law, it's embarrassingly wrong and often something beyond absurd. So I've spent so much time correcting him and his continued obfuscations and accusations that I somehow know who he is that it's detracted me from an opportunity to learn more about illegal immigration here, but, to the people who read this admittedly esoteric topic we're discussing, I'm doing a service to the board by providing the truth.

In sum, my mind is not made up on illegal immigration. A wall. Amnesty. Corporate crackdown. I'm as puzzled by the solution as I am by the inertia of abject inactivity, of any sort, by the federal government on this issue.

One thing I know for sure: the UCC does not apply in the least to the propriety of the illegal immigrant lady's sweepstakes issue or to sweepstakes at all!

I'm not here to cause trouble, Ghost's delusional claims notwithstanding. I have no idea who he is or why he thinks he knows me; but I do think he's making his accusations as a distraction, playing the victim card, when the facts I've laid down have doomed him. It's an ego thing, probably.

And, if I can say this, I think I've made a modest contribution to the excellence you seek on your board by correcting the amazing misinformation set forth by Ghost.

Strange. A guy comes to a website about illegal immigration and yet his only interest, to which he has expended considerable energy over the last several days, is to attack a single poster on subjects unrelated to illegal immigration. Said poster states that this is because if he knows anything, he knows the law, yet I have been able to demonstrate glaringly errant proclamations and, unlike this poster, have actually substantiated the errancy of his proclamations with actual definitions from code or commentary from legal sites. Hmmm... Does that sound more like a concerned legal expert or a stalking troll?

Pray tell, how was his stated purpose of "correcting" what he alleges are misstatements of the law served when he posted snide commentary elsewhere on this site in response to either my posts or other people's exchanges with me specifically, all the while ignoring other questions put to him by other posters?



I think we can all figure this out.

Nice try, Strother.

But I will say that we owe Strother here a debt of gratitiude, because the important discussion of the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement under domestic law and the LACK of a difference between a treaty and an executive agreement under international law would not have been posted if his needling had not steered 2ndamendsis down that path.

Regarding the PM system.

ALIPAC has made an anouncement at the following location.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=52771

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Strange. A guy comes to a website about illegal immigration and yet his only interest, to which he has expended considerable energy over the last several days, is to attack a single poster on subjects unrelated to illegal immigration. Said poster states that this is because if he knows anything, he knows the law, yet I have been able to demonstrate glaringly errant proclamations and, unlike this poster, have actually substantiated the errancy of his proclamations with actual definitions from code or commentary from legal sites. Hmmm... Does that sound more like a concerned legal expert or a stalking troll?

Pray tell, how was his stated purpose of "correcting" what he alleges are misstatements of the law served when he posted snide commentary elsewhere on this site in response to either my posts or other people's exchanges with me specifically, all the while ignoring other questions put to him by other posters?



I think we can all figure this out.

Nice try, Strother.

But I will say that we owe Strother here a debt of gratitiude, because the important discussion of the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement under domestic law and the LACK of a difference between a treaty and an executive agreement under international law would not have been posted if his needling had not steered 2ndamendsis down that path.

I was tempted to let this little outburst speak for itself, but I may indeed owe you an apology, Ghost.

You say:

I have been able to demonstrate glaringly errant proclamations and, unlike this poster, have actually substantiated the errancy of his proclamations with actual definitions from code or commentary from legal sites.

Perhaps I missed them and my calls for your failure to cite to a court case or law review article or legal treatise or respected jurist were misplaced. If you'd kindly direct me to the thread wherein you so substantiated your claims, I'll apologize.

I'd also disagree that all I've done is attack a single poster. I took Alberto Gonzales to task, posting a John Dean article and responding to a couple of other posters. But I will confess that with your prolific postings on issues, and getting them almost universally wrong, has taken some of my time. I really wish you'd get them right, I do. It is not my desire to see you post so errantly. But, as just one man's little input here, I do strive to serve truth when I can. And your posts have required much of my service that way.

Like it or not, and I'm thinking your vote is probably not, I am a legal expert. Sorry to rain on your parade.

Edited to add: what is this Strother nonsense? I honestly don't know why you almost obsessively repeat it. Should I honor it, or s it like your posted crop circles theories, or what? Please explain.

matters that he has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.

Bama.,

Maybe it is time you start learing something from CrocketsGhost, since you admit that you are lacking in knowledge about illegal immigration and it has been said about CG, "that he's the FIRST person they'd go to regarding issues related to illegal immigration. "

I think your time on this forum would be less disruptive to all members and better served learing about illegal immigration, from those of us like CG that have a lot of knowledge regarding this matter. I'm sure there is a forum on the Internet, called somethig like ask a lawyer, which I'm sure would be more than willing to entertain your knowledge of the law.

Dixie