Thread: Lou Dobbs: No Impeachment

You are Strother Martin, or at least that is the username you are most commonly known as posting under, though your usernames are many. You may imagine that you are sufficiently clever that your specific style of writing and trolling is not instantly recognizable, but you imagine wrongly. Feign dismay until the cows come home if you like, you have tipped your hand and you identity is known. The only question is which of the several typical directions your trolling will take you from here.

If you want to perpetuate your personal attack, such as your blatantly accusatory claim that my posts are "almost universally wrong," go ahead. It simply further exposes who and what you are. But don't pretend that your own nonsense has not been refuted, as above where I provide a clear exposition of the role of duress in declaring a contract unconscionable that contradicts your empty and unsubstantiated claim. Go back and look at the other holes shot through your uninformed claims on your own time.

Oh, and thanks again for precipitating that discussion on executive agreements versus treaties. We'll call that a silk purse made from a sow's ear.

Unbelievable the conversation between Bama & Crocket. Is this a contest who can use the most difficult words in a sentence ?? Hmm, just thinking, I still have home made cake in the kitchen, and some orange soda. Ok, give me 1 minute.

Counting - 1,2,3,4.... 60 seconds.

I'm back guys, ok continue your show

Originally Posted by cassie

Unbelievable the conversation between Bama & Crocket. Is this a contest who can use the most difficult words in a sentence ?? Hmm, just thinking, I still have home made cake in the kitchen, and some orange soda. Ok, give me 1 minute.

Counting - 1,2,3,4.... 60 seconds.

I'm back guys, ok continue your show

How unexpected! "Cassie" has interjected "herself" into this discussion. Who would have expected that?

Are you guys getting all of this?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

Unbelievable the conversation between Bama & Crocket. Is this a contest who can use the most difficult words in a sentence ?? Hmm, just thinking, I still have home made cake in the kitchen, and some orange soda. Ok, give me 1 minute.

Counting - 1,2,3,4.... 60 seconds.

I'm back guys, ok continue your show

How unexpected! "Cassie" has interjected "herself" into this discussion. Who would have expected that?

Are you guys getting all of this?

It's just funny to read your conversation. I know I talk a litle more about politics instead of illegal immigration, but you two are talking about,.... a lot but not too much on illegal immigration. Bama a little when Alipac asked him/her. This is the other issue thread so can't we talk about anything here ??

My stance on illegal immigration should be clear to anyone by now.

Close the border, build the fence, fine employers that hire illegals, etc.
What to do with the illegals already here ? amnesty, midway solution or deportation ?? No opinion.
And why I don't have an opinion for the illegals already here is that whatever we do it will have advantages and disadvantages.
Just make sure they don't get any penny of my tax money, and get rid of their benefits.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

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.

Still waiting. . ..

Bama
This is a bit disturbing and I might add, strange that a person who's so learned in the law would have written this:

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.

And how does such a learned person who resides a mere 20 min from a HUGE meatpacking plant stay so, shall we say, protected from reality until a 'bust' occurrs? That seems hardly likely and that there is certainly a few pieces of the puzzle missing in your discourse.

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.

Mexican people?
Are you ONLY interested in mexican ILLEGAL ALIENS or are you concerned about ALL Illegal Aliens breaking the law?

For someone who is so learned, it is rare to hear the word PROBABLY being used to describe public situations where there are a miriad of stats and examples from which to draw educated conclusions. You surprise me, Bama.

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.

WASPS? Racists?
Are you telling us that in your community ALL the WASPS are RACISTS?
Again, from such a learned legal mind, I've never heard such all inclusive
speech. It's baffling to me.

MEXICANS?
Are you not concerned about possible terrorists using either of the borders -- both of which are open to those who prefer to sneak into our country without following the LAW set forth by the U.S. Congress?

Are you only focused on MEXICANS for some particular reason that you have not shared with us yet?

What's your gig, BAMA, with the mexicans? With the whites? With Wasp racists?

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

CASSIE
where are you from?

Originally the same city as my twin sister
City of Angels, not living there anymore.
Moved to Sac few years ago.
My husband and I will be moving to Ga this year due to his work.

How old are your little ones?

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Bama
This is a bit disturbing and I might add, strange that a person who's so learned in the law would have written this:

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.

And how does such a learned person who resides a mere 20 min from a HUGE meatpacking plant stay so, shall we say, protected from reality until a 'bust' occurrs? That seems hardly likely and that there is certainly a few pieces of the puzzle missing in your discourse.

[quote:d6xmounk]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.

Mexican people?
Are you ONLY interested in mexican ILLEGAL ALIENS or are you concerned about ALL Illegal Aliens breaking the law?

For someone who is so learned, it is rare to hear the word PROBABLY being used to describe public situations where there are a miriad of stats and examples from which to draw educated conclusions. You surprise me, Bama.

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.

WASPS? Racists?
Are you telling us that in your community ALL the WASPS are RACISTS?
Again, from such a learned legal mind, I've never heard such all inclusive
speech. It's baffling to me.

MEXICANS?
Are you not concerned about possible terrorists using either of the borders -- both of which are open to those who prefer to sneak into our country without following the LAW set forth by the U.S. Congress?

Are you only focused on MEXICANS for some particular reason that you have not shared with us yet?

What's your gig, BAMA, with the mexicans? With the whites? With Wasp racists?[/quote:d6xmounk]

"Disturbing" and "strange?"

Sorry to have troubled you so.

One reason I was largely unaware of the illegal immigration problem at this meat packing plant is that it's a town across the state border, which we get very little news coverage about, and which I almost never travel to or through.

Another reason, indicating how little I know about this town, is that I was wrong on the distance. Just now checking an online mileage conversion site, I see that it's not about 20 minutes away, but rather, "approximately 57.3 miles (92.2 km)."

We don't go there; they don't come here.

As for the WASP issue, the answer is no, I'm not saying all WASPs are racist, nor did I say it. And your wonderment and inference is not my implicaton.

And no, I'm not much concerned with terrorism as the danger posed by the illegal immigration problem. Dedicated terrorists will get here regardless of our immigration laws. It's just that it seems to me that most of the millions of illegal immigrants coming into the country are Mexicans. That's all.

You'll have to define "gig" for me.

And my goodness you sure seem cranky.

And no, I'm not much concerned with terrorism as the danger posed by the illegal immigration problem. Dedicated terrorists will get here regardless of our immigration laws. It's just that it seems to me that most of the millions of illegal immigrants coming into the country are Mexicans. That's all.

Apparently, from your statement, you are in desperate need of more information. Please use our site, which is one of the largest archives on the net, to help round out your knowledge base. That would be a very productive use of your time.

Again, I find it quite amazing that anyone would knowingly be unruffled by making it a cake-walk for terrorists to do their dirty deeds.

You'll have to define "gig" for me.

Do you have a dictionary at your disposal?

And my goodness you sure seem cranky.

Why would you be under that impression?

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

CASSIE
where are you from?

Originally the same city as my twin sister
City of Angels, not living there anymore.
Moved to Sac few years ago.
My husband and I will be moving to Ga this year due to his work.

How old are your little ones?

My sister and I ?
We're 29, the number in my e-mail and my sis' e - mail is not referring to a year of birth.
The 1970 in my mail, and the 1983 in my sis' mail has a different meaning.
Or did you mean my kids, how old they are ? 3 & 5

What is it what you do ???
How old are you ?
Why is your nickname referring to the 2nd amendment ?
What made you to come to alipac ??
I've been asked and have answered this question several times, and it's only fair if I ask it too