Text 29275, 134 rader
Skriven 2006-05-11 10:46:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av PHILIP LOZIER
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
-=> Quoting Philip Lozier to Frank Scheidt <=-

 FS>> Thousands, unfortunately.
 
 PL>> Very unfortunate, yes, that so many thousands upon thousands, upon
 PL>> thousands have died "in the line of duty" during peace time, since the
 PL>> USA "wasn't at war".
 FS>
 FS> So?  Far more have been killed in auto accidents.  Again, so??

 PL> You REALLY have to be kidding with that! Are you? Please tell me you
 PL> are! 

You are not even aware of the thousands of traffic deaths here 
each year?  Wow!  That explains your general lack of knowledge of 
current events ...

 PL>>> After you tally the numbers try and consider just how you would tell
 PL>>> the families of all those people how their loved ones didn't die in a
 FS>
 FS>> Fortunately, I don't have to face those unfortunate families ...
 
 PL>> Yes... I would say it's very fortunate for you.
 
 FS> You've got *that* right ...

 PL> I knew that already.  Yes I *do* have that right.  And YOU know *that*
 PL> too. 

*Sure* you did ... heh heh heh ...

 PL>> No, oh foolish one.  Absolutely not.  I do say that our own government
 PL>> has been allowing the constitution to be continually trampled upon
 PL>> though.  Congress has trampled upon the constitution by -allowing- a
 PL>> WAR to be executed by the president -without- a formal declaration,
 PL>> and congress has been doing this ever since the conclusion of WWII.
 
 FS> You're partly right at least.  You *do* now admit the
 FS> Constitution gives the power to declare war *only* to the
 FS> Congress.  Since the Congress declared the end of WWII in
 FS> September 1945 (as I recall) and has *not* declared war since you
 FS> finally realize we are *not* at war in the formal sense.  The
 FS> "war" on terrorism is not really a war.

 PL> Note your word "formal", and I need not say more, as you have already
 PL> backstepped and attempted to come out of it without looking like a
 PL> jackass. 

Interesting observation on your part.  Care to explain it?

 PL> Note that congress only has the power to declare war yet CEO Bush is
 PL> engaged in one without the declaration of war by congress and you may
 PL> even see the principles you served for as an airframe or powerplant
 PL> mechanic in the US services as a constitutionaly aware citizen as a
 PL> waste of time, as your efforts were only a service to the abolishment
 PL> of the US Constitution in later days.
 
"War"?  *What* war?  It has ended, Philip.  The last war we were 
in ended in September, 1945 ... *really* ... you can stop hiding 
now ... heh heh heh ...

 PL>> Congress has also seriously shaken the integrity of our governments
 PL>> practices of engaging in war by giving the president a free hand like
 PL>> that for all this time.
 
 FS> No argument there ...

 PL> That fog keeps coming off you in every post you make lately. What
 PL> happened? Did I make you THINK? If I did, no need to thank me now.  The
 PL> thanks will come when you say "NOW I SEE!".
 
"Thanks" for *what*?!?!

 PL>> You are right only about one thing... congress has not declared
 PL>> "war"... yet a WAR exists, as acts of war are being executed.
 
 FS> Finally, you accept that!  Good.

 PL> ME! ME?  *I* accept it?  You, again, are kidding, right?
 
No.  I'm grateful that you *do*, finally, seem to be 
understanding some of my simpler teachings.

 PL>> I have been waiting for you to, (and you disapoint me by not doing
 PL>> so), to start rattling about the "War Powers Act". :(
 
 FS> The "War Powers Act", since its inception, has largely been
 FS> ignored so why bring *that* up?

 PL> Wellllll... it was an "ACT" (as in the title) of congress, the
 PL> decisions and actions of congress you hold so authoritive to your
 PL> claims of that we are not at war.  While flawed at a basic level of
 PL> constitutionality it would have at least given you some ammunition to
 PL> support your "we're not at war" idea while giving me the opportunity to
 PL> tear it apart based on constitutionality.  It's after your time I guess
 PL> (1973) and your bias and age shows by not being up to the task of
 PL> trying to use it to your advantage.  Ah well... it could've been...
 PL> fun. 

If the War Powers Acts makes you happy, Philip, I'm glad ... 
[sigh] ...

 PL> BTW... later mention will get ridicule from me.  I grew up with it.
 PL> Your google searches for witty comments later are not welcomed, nor
 PL> acknowledged. You don't know what it is, or you would have used it in
 PL> your arguments... but don't feel alone as although many points of
 PL> people could have been attempted to be countered with that, not a
 PL> SINGLE one brought it up.  Bunch of smart whips we have here, don't we?

I haven't seen any ... where are they??  

 PL> ROTFLMAO!!!

Don't go hysterical on us now, Philip ...
 
 PL>> Wanna shake it up a bit?  What say ye about the War Powers Act?
 
 FS> See above ...

 PL> There is no above to look at for me!  I am in a position where I can
 PL> only see downward to the poor unfortunates in mind and spirit. WOE unto
 PL> my soul. It bothers me that there are so many who claim to be so smart
 PL> yet their stupidity allows them to miss the basics. Oh, WOE! PITY upon
 PL> them. 

 PL> ROTFLMAO!!!

Hysteria, Philip!   Hysteria!  Get help!  

... For $1,000,000 free, call 1-800-627-%âéûŸïäýö+NO CARRIER

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)