Ctrl300????

[monza gorilla 1]

I had 2 very nice King Edward's last night. One of them I had with gravy, the other one I set fire to.

[monza gorilla 1]

Apropos the previous post from Jay: I think you should get out more, Jay.

[pumpdoc 2]

I had 2 very nice King Edward's last night. One of them I had with gravy, the other one I set fire to.

Russ, I'm not going to even ask, well yes dammit I am going to ask........gravy?

[monza gorilla 1]

As well as a cigar, a King Edward is also a type of potato. I know, I know, it was a bit lame..........but it just popped into my head. I obviously need a beer.

[pumpdoc 2]

As well as a cigar, a King Edward is also a type of potato. I know, I know, it was a bit lame..........but it just popped into my head. I obviously need a beer.

Whew, I thought for a moment you were going "Clinton"

[monza gorilla 1]

[pabloh20 1]

No you don't

Sorry, check the other thread to unerstand this joke. As you can see everybody is having the time of their lives, despite "the heavy hand of the mods".

Deleted at least 3 replies to your post, each one longer than the other but I am having a bad day at work and I don't want to spill my bitterness on you. Just let it go and enjoy the good people that conforms this forum.

Ohhhhhhh, yes you do!

Oh for crying out loud, I gotta stop this!

You know this forum runs pretty smooth most times, out of all the members there are probably less than a handful that need watching over, and really only another handfull that shout fire at any little thing. Remarkable.

Sounds like you're having it far too easy, Bruce - I think I'm going to have to cause more trouble!! FIRE!!!

[Autumnpuma 0]

I had 2 very nice King Edward's last night. One of them I had with gravy, the other one I set fire to.

Avo for me. The Cibao valley in the DR makes for very good leaves. That said, I'm more of a pipe than a cigar man.

Bruce, hope you don't mind the stink of either as I plan on bringing the pipe or cigar to Vegas (of course I won't be smoking anywhere near the cars! Not that they'd even let me if I wanted to!).

[pumpdoc 2]

Ya never know, I might just fire one up also..........as long as I'm hammered enough.

I think in my party we have 4 confirmed with a fith possable.............

[jaq 0]

On the contary, popular vote/majority has to rule, take any real life situation, majority 99% of the time wins, USA(no offense just citinng an egample) went to war on iraq. I am sure there were minority political parties who did not want the war, but since Bush controlled the majority(who were electted by the citizens of USA), they went to war, the consequences is whatever, but the fact is in this world majority decides.

However the main point you have to answer is he violated the terms and conditions of the website (the thingy which we ussually just click accept and move along.) Please read that and if he violates it(personal remarks/ rascist comments) he can and should be chucked by the moderators(repeat offenses obviously) . and with majority vote they chucked him out.

So by accpeting it, he has agreed not to make defamatory, abusive, vulgarm hateful, harassing comments. which as pumpdoc said earlier he was given a afair chance of enough warnings but he kept coming back and made more of the same remarks. Even in court your case does not old much weight, (mainly due to the ToS)

I know you were only using G.W as an example, but he used deception and half truths to manipulate the U.S. congress as well as the United Nations. So having the power to do what one wants, the moderators were correct in how it handled the ctrl issue, but at the same time they have also shown bias towards others who have been banned. As it stands now the congress is trying to revoke it's authorization it gave G.W to go to war in Iraq

[Autumnpuma 0]

I know you were only using G.W as an example, but he used deception and half truths to manipulate the U.S. congress as well as the United Nations. So having the power to do what one wants, the moderators were correct in how it handled the ctrl issue, but at the same time they have also shown bias towards others who have been banned. As it stands now the congress is trying to revoke it's authorization it gave G.W to go to war in Iraq

The authorization, or revoking of said authorization, doesn't matter. As I understand it, there was no official declaration of war for congress to approve or deny. This remains a 'police action' sort of deployment that is fully under the control of the President (in his capacity of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces). The only substantial thing congress can do is to cut funding. Congress has no other power over military deployments.

[jaq 0]

The authorization, or revoking of said authorization, doesn't matter. As I understand it, there was no official declaration of war for congress to approve or deny. This remains a 'police action' sort of deployment that is fully under the control of the President (in his capacity of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces). The only substantial thing congress can do is to cut funding. Congress has no other power over military deployments.

This was by no means a police action. This was in G.W.'s mind a war on terrorism. G.W. through his speech to congress, Cheny's speech to the Veterans Association, and Powell's speech to the United Nations tried to link Iraq and Al-qeada. This is a war. G.W. stated in his debates in 2000 that the United States doesn't do policing.He also said it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to police other countries or their policies. He also said when the U.S. goes into war, it goes into war to win and that it's the responsibility of the United Nations to do the policing. I suggest you read Plan Of Attack by Bob Woodward to understand the facts of G.W.'s mind set leading up to his little war. Congress can also limit the forces that the president can send and congress also said that they would never attempt to put their forces in jeopardy by reducing funding required to protect them.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I'm not getting into a debate with you, just pointing out that Congress can do very little aside from limiting funding. Despite his use of the word 'war' there hasn't been an official declaration of war, so Congress' powers are limited. If there is not an official declaration of war, then it's considered a 'police action' of sorts.

My comments stand.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/...in2414077.shtml

[jaq 0]

I'm not getting into a debate with you, just pointing out that Congress can do very little aside from limiting funding. Despite his use of the word 'war' there hasn't been an official declaration of war, so Congress' powers are limited. If there is not an official declaration of war, then it's considered a 'police action' of sorts.

My comments stand.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/...in2414077.shtml

Because your knowledge is limited to the facts of G.W.'s war and what strength the congress has,I would say that your comments have no merit. It would be an interesting read for you to hear what all the principles view points were at the time before and just after the war on Iraq began, so before you make an opinion it is best you know what you're talking about. You are also wrong about the abilities of what congress can do, the congress as a whole has much more strength than the president has, and i hope that through further investigations that G.W. is impeached for his abuse of power, and my arguement is all about how the moderators use their power, not G.W.'s.

[goferrarigo 0]

i think i used a bad example in good intensions

[narain fan 0]

i think i used a bad example in good intensions

i agree that the example was bad. but whether the intentions were good is debatable. i cant get convinced that someone who implies that the minority voice should be crushed can have good intentions .....

[Autumnpuma 0]

Because your knowledge is limited to the facts of G.W.'s war and what strength the congress has,I would say that your comments have no merit. It would be an interesting read for you to hear what all the principles view points were at the time before and just after the war on Iraq began, so before you make an opinion it is best you know what you're talking about.

You are broadening my comment. I was limiting my comment, rather obviously, to the President's legal power and Congress' legal options. Any other statement you are extrapolating from that is pure fantasy on your part.

You are also wrong about the abilities of what congress can do, the congress as a whole has much more strength than the president has

Please list how I am wrong. This should be interesting.

, and i hope that through further investigations that G.W. is impeached for his abuse of power, and my arguement is all about how the moderators use their power, not G.W.'s.

Abuse of power? Again, please list what American laws he has broken in the execution of his duties, for that is the only criteria for impeachment. Your parallel between the moderator's and the President's abuse of power may be apt, from your personal point-of-view, but neither is against any rules governing their behaviour.

[Quiet One 15]

You are broadening my comment. I was limiting my comment, rather obviously, to the President's legal power and Congress' legal options. Any other statement you are extrapolating from that is pure fantasy on your part.

Please list how I am wrong. This should be interesting.

Abuse of power? Again, please list what American laws he has broken in the execution of his duties, for that is the only criteria for impeachment. Your parallel between the moderator's and the President's abuse of power may be apt, from your personal point-of-view, but neither is against any rules governing their behaviour.

I admire your equanimity in your reply.

[pumpdoc 2]

Because your knowledge is limited to the facts of G.W.'s war and what strength the congress has,I would say that your comments have no merit. It would be an interesting read for you to hear what all the principles view points were at the time before and just after the war on Iraq began, so before you make an opinion it is best you know what you're talking about. You are also wrong about the abilities of what congress can do, the congress as a whole has much more strength than the president has, and i hope that through further investigations that G.W. is impeached for his abuse of power, and my arguement is all about how the moderators use their power, not G.W.'s.

What the hell are you on? If you are an American I dare say you must've flunked social studies and history and if you are not American you need to do some more research...............

[jaq 0]

What the hell are you on? If you are an American I dare say you must've flunked social studies and history and if you are not American you need to do some more research...............

I would say you need to review the facts. As i mentioned earlier, read Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward. It's a very interesting read.