PDA

View Full Version : Byrd: School Isn't Too Cool for Constitution


mlyonsd
08-16-2005, 03:28 PM
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif

WASHINGTON — Tucked away in the 2005 appropriations bill is a little-noticed rider that is aimed at compelling students to spend every Sept. 17 learning about the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution and Citizenship Day provision was added with little fanfare into the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress last December. It is the brainchild of Sen. Robert Byrd, considered by many of his peers to be the Senate's most learned student of the nation's founding documents.

"One will not protect what one does not value. And one cannot value what one does not understand," Byrd, D-W.Va., said when he introduced the provision, explaining that if students understood the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they would do more to protect and defend them.

"Through our schools, we can help to ensure that each new generation of Americans understands what is at stake," Byrd said.
Starting this fall, Byrd's provision will require all schools that receive federal assistance — that includes most public institutions and many private ones, too — to offer a "Constitution Day" program commemorating the signing of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787.
The measure also requires that all new federal government employees receive educational materials on the Constitution at the time of hiring. All federal workers will also be offered some form of program each Sept. 17.

"It's just common sense that on the day the document was ratified we spend a little time thinking about what it is and what it means and how it affects our everyday lives," said Tom Gavin, Byrd's spokesman, who added that the legislation was left purposefully open so that schools could create their own programs.

Supporters of Byrd's amendment point to a 2004 University of Connecticut survey to highlight the need for the yearly reminder. The survey of more than 100,000 students found that one in three high school students thinks the First Amendment goes "too far" in guaranteeing free speech to all Americans. It also found that only half said they thought newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval.

In addition, three in four students surveyed wrongly believed that flag burning is illegal and about half wrongly thought the government has the right to restrict indecent material legally posted on the Internet.
Martha Bouyer, a social studies supervisor for Jefferson County schools in Birmingham, Ala., said she supports the new requirements, although she has been teaching the Constitution in her classroom for years.
"We need to know more about our government and Constitution and how it functions. It's like what we don't know will come back to haunt us," Bouyer said. "We're trying to focus on it, but we can easily do more. I think it will restore a sense of patriotism."

Al Frascella, spokesman for the Council for the Social Studies (http://www.ncss.org/), said teaching the Constitution as well as civics and social studies courses has been on the decline for decades. Nonetheless, he doesn't know how effective Constitution Day will be.

"Sen. Byrd has good intentions, but he's only setting aside one day, and that means you're taking a day out of the regular curriculum," said Frascella, who praised Byrd for his past support for social studies funding. "Unless you are making it meaningful to the person listening, you are going to be wasting a lot of time."

Other education experts said they agree that teaching the Constitution is essential, but recognize that not everyone wants the federal government dictating local school districts' curricula.

"This is a really friendly-sounding goal but I would be opposed absolutely and completely on the grounds of federalism," said Mike Krempasky, a conservative activist and a founder of the Web log RedState.org (http://www.redstate.org/).
"[When] you have someone of higher authority telling you what to do, there is general resistance," said Daniel Gregg, a social studies coordinator for the Connecticut Department of Education. However, "this is not the kind of thing that people are going to get upset about because of the nature of what it is."

Gregg pointed out that Connecticut may be ahead of the federal law since it is the "Constitution State."

"It's the law, but at the same time, it's not something that schools in Connecticut would find inconsistent with the curriculum of our state. We already do this," he said.

John Phillips, superintendent of the Muscogee County school district in Columbus, Ga., concurred.

"People may say that it might be a local decision, but this is America, particularly in times of terrorism and breaches of security and freedom being jeopardized. ... We think this is vitally important," he said.
Charles Haynes, education director for the First Amendment Center (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/), which is part of the Newseum in Washington, D.C., said more than a day is needed to teach the principles behind the nation's foundation.
"I think sometimes political leaders and some schools use a quick fix," Haynes said. "They really need to look at the real problem, which is a lack of understanding of our Constitution."

But Richard Stengel, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center (http://www.constitutioncenter.org/) in Philadelphia, said Byrd's idea "is great."
"It's a Band-aid, but I think what Byrd was thinking was, you have to start somewhere, and one day is better than zero days a year," he said.
Gavin said the legislation does not dictate any particular curriculum, nor does it detail any enforcement guidelines or penalties if schools don't comply, he said.

Frascella said reaction has been mixed to the new law. "I talk to teachers all over the nation and there are those who say it's the law and they will do it." Others, who are overwhelmed with other responsibilities like improving test scores, know no enforcement mechanism exists. "They say … it's not going to impact me, so I'm not going to do it," he said.

Marshall Manson, spokesman for the Center for Individual Freedom (http://www.cfif.org/) in Virginia, said the lack of an imposed curriculum or enforcement makes the legislation largely benign.

"I think that's why it passes the reasonable test," he said. "It shouldn't give anyone a headache."

Manson added that he is heartened by the bill's motivations.
"It's really unfortunate that teaching the Constitution has become passé in our public schools," Manson said. "Certainly, anything that can get the Constitution back into America's schools is a step in the right direction."

Brock
08-16-2005, 03:32 PM
The old klukker actually has a good idea.

mlyonsd
08-16-2005, 03:34 PM
Yea I thought the same thing.

Uatu
08-16-2005, 03:55 PM
I wonder if "sheets" still wants the kids to be taught that some ethnic groups are 2/3 of a human being.

|Zach|
08-16-2005, 04:03 PM
Great idea.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 05:49 PM
I wonder if "sheets" still wants the kids to be taught that some ethnic groups are 2/3 of a human being.

That's actually one of the most commonly misunderstood chapters of American political history.

Those who wanted to abolish slavery actually favored the three-fifths clause. It was the slaveholders who wanted to count slaves as a full vote. Under the voting rules of the time, the slaves didn't get to vote at all. Instead, the slaveowners got an extra vote for every slave they owned. That's why the abolitionists wanted to decrease the value of the slaves as it pertained to a vote.

That said, Byrd's a dirty Klansman. Once a Klansman, always a Klansman. It's okay, though. He's a Democrat, so nobody calls him on it.

Lynched anyone? Drowned anyone? Raped anyone? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you could be the next Democratic superstar.

Uatu
08-16-2005, 06:29 PM
Those who wanted to abolish slavery actually favored the three-fifths clause. It was the slaveholders who wanted to count slaves as a full vote. Under the voting rules of the time, the slaves didn't get to vote at all. Instead, the slaveowners got an extra vote for every slave they owned. That's why the abolitionists wanted to decrease the value of the slaves as it pertained to a vote.


You're correct, I had the fraction wrong. But actually, since blacks couldn't vote until 100 years later, it mostly had to do with the distribution of power in the House and electoral college, which is done by state population in the census.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 06:53 PM
True, true. It's still nice to know that Byrd's taken some time away from his busy Klan recruiting.

Uatu
08-16-2005, 06:58 PM
True, true. It's still nice to know that Byrd's taken some time away from his busy Klan recruiting.

Hasn't Byrd denounced his former beliefs? I'm not sure. If so, lots of people have made mistakes and repented for them and should be granted some quarter for that.

But what's good for the goose didn't seem to be good for the gander, with regards to Trent Lott, re: saying that Strom Thurmond the segregationist would have made a good president.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 09:07 PM
Hasn't Byrd denounced his former beliefs? I'm not sure. If so, lots of people have made mistakes and repented for them and should be granted some quarter for that.

But what's good for the goose didn't seem to be good for the gander, with regards to Trent Lott, re: saying that Strom Thurmond the segregationist would have made a good president.

He's denounced his beliefs, and that's all fine and dandy.

It's just amazingly hypocritical that Dems comb Republicans for every possible skeleton that could ever be in their closets to the extreme of investigating John Robert's adoption of his children. Meanwhile you've got a Senate full of Democrats with some of the most heinous pasts that are never addressed. At least Byrd, unlike Kennedy, has owned up to his past.

Henry
08-16-2005, 09:13 PM
He's denounced his beliefs, and that's all fine and dandy.



But you just implied he was still recruiting for the Klan.

Which of your statements was a lie?

Henry
08-16-2005, 09:15 PM
It's just amazingly hypocritical that Dems comb Republicans for every possible skeleton that could ever be in their closets to the extreme of investigating John Robert's adoption of his children.

Not really. Strom Thurmond reformed himself, and was given a pass on it. Trent Lott, on the other hand, wasn't so smart.

And the GOP has NO moral authority when it comes to talking about investigating people's private lives.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 09:17 PM
Hey, it's Mister "Gitmo is worse than the Japanese internment during WWII."

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 09:19 PM
But you just implied he was still recruiting for the Klan.

Which of your statements was a lie?


I can only assume that he's not currently recruiting for the Klan. Then again, I will say that he's the only Senator I've ever heard call people the "N" word multiple times in an interview, so it's really hard to be sure what's rattling around in that old SOB's head.

Henry
08-16-2005, 09:26 PM
Hey, it's Mister "Gitmo is worse than the Japanese internment during WWII."

Why, hello, Mister "I hate the rule of law and the US constitution". How ya doing?

Henry
08-16-2005, 09:27 PM
I can only assume that he's not currently recruiting for the Klan. Then again, I will say that he's the only Senator I've ever heard call people the "N" word multiple times in an interview, so it's really hard to be sure what's rattling around in that old SOB's head.

So, in short, you just made stuff up again.

Thanks.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 09:32 PM
Why, hello, Mister "I hate the rule of law and the US constitution". How ya doing?

I can quote you calling Gitmo worse than the Japanese internment. You've got to make up pejoratives about me. You and VLib are a couple of idiotic old men. I hope for your safety and mine that your kids don't let you drive.
Do me this one favor...Don't private me like VLib and accuse me of being someone I've never even heard of while using obscenities. I may not respect your political opinions, but I don't have any disrespect for you as a person. I've crossed that line with VLib.

Henry
08-16-2005, 09:43 PM
I can quote you calling Gitmo worse than the Japanese internment. You've got to make up pejoratives about me. You and VLib are a couple of idiotic old men. I hope for your safety and mine that your kids don't let you drive.
Do me this one favor...Don't private me like VLib and accuse me of being someone I've never even heard of while using obscenities. I may not respect your political opinions, but I don't have any disrespect for you as a person. I've crossed that line with VLib.

I have no urge to "private" you, whatever that is.

As for your "respect", or lack thereof, I find that to be of rather little importance, given that you constantly disrespect every single person that dares disagree with "your" opinions (which seem to be 100% spoon fed to you by Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter).

For example, "You and VLib are a couple of idiotic old men. I hope for your safety and mine that your kids don't let you drive."

It's a good thing YOU will never grow old, eh, sonny? That only happens to other people.
ROFL

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 10:06 PM
I have no urge to "private" you, whatever that is.

As for your "respect", or lack thereof, I find that to be of rather little importance, given that you constantly disrespect every single person that dares disagree with "your" opinions (which seem to be 100% spoon fed to you by Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter).

For example, "You and VLib are a couple of idiotic old men. I hope for your safety and mine that your kids don't let you drive."

It's a good thing YOU will never grow old, eh, sonny? That only happens to other people.
ROFL

Private messaging is like this forum's private e-mail system. VLib used it to call me out for being someone named "Jamie" and proceeded to swear at me.

As far as your not feeling compelled to treat me with respect because you feel that I haven't afforded you the same courtesy, why don't you practice what you preach? You earlier contended that, even though the terrorists behead their prisoners, we should treat them with kid gloves because we're better than them. Even if I treat you poorly, you should be better than me.

I'm just pulling your chain with the old idiot stuff. If you think I'm genuinely trying to be disrespectful, I'll knock it off.

That said, your opinions have zero credibility with me. I don't know how old you are, but if you're old enough to remember the internment of the Japanese under FDR and still consider that to be acceptable (and you ascerted as much when describing how elegantly FDR handled the situation) while condemning Bush's locking up terrorists, you're so far my intellectual my inferior that it serves me no purpose to discuss with you anything of more significance than the weather.

The best response you have for my arguments is that my opinions are spoonfed to me by right wing pundits. You must love that line as often as you've used it. I'll let you in on a little secret here. I don't have any of them here at my computer telling me what to type. I'm a highly educated and highly opinionated man. I'd wager that I'm one of the most educated posters on this forum.

I could just as easily accuse you of parroting Franken, Springer, and Garofalo. Maybe you're one of their army of dozens of faithful listeners.

I have nothing against the elderly. I aspire to be one someday, the alternative being what it is. If, in my later years, I have lost my faculties to the extent that I condemn the detainment of terrorists as being worse that the internment of an entire ethnic group, I hope that I have family take me in or turn me over to Jack Kevorkian III.

Henry
08-16-2005, 10:25 PM
As far as your not feeling compelled to treat me with respect because you feel that I haven't afforded you the same courtesy, why don't you practice what you preach? You earlier contended that, even though the terrorists behead their prisoners, we should treat them with kid gloves because we're better than them.

Whoops...there you go, making things up again. I said they should be handled according to a ratified treaty, which carries the same weight as federal law.

Unless you can link me to a post in which I say we should "treat them with kid gloves".

I have nothing against the elderly. I aspire to be one someday, the alternative being what it is. If, in my later years, I have lost my faculties to the extent that I condemn the detainment of terrorists as being worse that the internment of an entire ethnic group, I hope that I have family take me in or turn me over to Jack Kevorkian III.

So, you think that people who disagree with you should be euthanized?

Ugh. You really are a nasty little specimen, aren't you?

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 10:35 PM
Whoops...there you go, making things up again. I said they should be handled according to a ratified treaty, which carries the same weight as federal law.

Unless you can link me to a post in which I say we should "treat them with kid gloves".



So, you think that people who disagree with you should be euthanized?

Ugh. You really are a nasty little specimen, aren't you?


I love the way you completely and intentionally mischaracterize what I've said while demanding accuracy when I quote you. I, incidentally, afford you that accuracy.

I never said that people who disagree with me should be euthanized, nor did I imply it. It's my feeling that, if I am ever reduced to a babbling, disheveled shell of my former self, I would want to be afforded the same care a family pet would be. If I have nobody to take care of me, well, "Dr. K...Paging Dr. K."


Your quote holding someone who isn't you to an absolute moral standard: "Do you wish to use some scumbag terrorist's morals as our guidelines?"

Your quote absolving yourself from using that same moral standard: "As for your "respect", or lack thereof, I find that to be of rather little importance, given that you constantly disrespect every single person that dares disagree with "your" opinions"

Sorry pops. You're a hypocritical liberal, but I repeat myself.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 10:39 PM
So, in short, you just made stuff up again.

Thanks.


I didn't make anything up. He has spent a good portion of his life recruiting members to join the Klan. He has taken time off of doing so and is now recommending teaching the Constitution. Based on his liberal use of racial epithets on national television recently, I submit that you can not prove that he does not intend to return to his past ways. You can take the man out of the Klan, but you can't take the Klan out of the man.

Henry
08-16-2005, 10:42 PM
I didn't make anything up. He has spent a good portion of his life recruiting members to join the Klan.


You implied that he still was.

Do you have a link, or would you just prefer to admit that you lied?

Henry
08-16-2005, 10:44 PM
I love the way you completely and intentionally mischaracterize what I've said while demanding accuracy when I quote you.

You implied that old people with the wrong opinions should be euthanized.

Where is the mischaracterization?

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 10:47 PM
You implied that he still was.

Do you have a link, or would you just prefer to admit that you lied?

I implied nothing. He did it in the past. He isn't doing it at this moment insofar as I know. He may or may not do it in the future. It's much the same as Ted Kennedy's driving his car into a body of water and leaving the passenger to drown. He hasn't done it in a while but, given the fact that he doens't appear to have slowed down the booze any, I certainly can't rule out a repeat performance. It's also quite similar to your accusing me of regurgitating Rush, Hannity, etc. You aren't doing it right this moment, but it's reasonable to assume that you may do it again.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 10:49 PM
You implied that old people with the wrong opinions should be euthanized.

Where is the mischaracterization?

If I said that then just quote it for me. Otherwise your time would be better spent emulating the President you hold in such high esteem by rounding up an entire ethnic group and putting them into internment camps. Don't do Japanese and other assorted Asians this time, though. Mix it up a little.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 10:51 PM
By the way, if you quote me, use the entire quote. I've noticed that you like to splice my quotes in order to discredit me.

Henry
08-16-2005, 10:58 PM
I implied nothing.


Okay.

True, true. It's still nice to know that Byrd's taken some time away from his busy Klan recruiting.

And, yes, that was the whole post.

Henry
08-16-2005, 10:59 PM
If I said that then just quote it for me.

Okay. Here is the relevant paragraph. If you feel that a paragraph in that same post changes the context, please point it out.

I have nothing against the elderly. I aspire to be one someday, the alternative being what it is. If, in my later years, I have lost my faculties to the extent that I condemn the detainment of terrorists as being worse that the internment of an entire ethnic group, I hope that I have family take me in or turn me over to Jack Kevorkian III.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 11:03 PM
Okay. Here is the relevant paragraph. If you feel that a paragraph in that same post changes the context, please point it out.

I'm referring to my personal wishes. You're the one projecting that upon everyone who disagrees with me.

I might also say, "If I have a bad day at work, I would want to go home and have sex with my girlfriend." That is not to say that, if you have a bad day at work, I would encourage you to go home and have sex with my girlfriend.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 11:04 PM
Okay.



And, yes, that was the whole post.


You're about 3 posts too late. I just broke it down for you in post 25.

Henry
08-16-2005, 11:06 PM
You're about 3 posts too late. I just broke it down for you in post 25.


So...First you said it, and then you didn't.

Flippity-flop, flippity-flop.

You SURE you didn't vote for Kerry? ROFL ROFL

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 11:07 PM
So...First you said it, and then you didn't.

Flippity-flop, flippity-flop.

You SURE you didn't vote for Kerry? ROFL ROFL

You're babbling again, pops. What in the world are you talking about?

Henry
08-16-2005, 11:08 PM
I'm referring to my personal wishes. You're the one projecting that upon everyone who disagrees with me.

I might also say, "If I have a bad day at work, I would want to go home and have sex with my girlfriend." That is not to say that, if you have a bad day at work, I would encourage you to go home and have sex with my girlfriend.

No, I would take it as advice that I go home and have sex with MY girlfriend. Just like you implied that anyone (presumably elderly) that disagrees with you should be euthanized, rather than have YOU euthanized.

Henry
08-16-2005, 11:09 PM
You're babbling again, pops. What in the world are you talking about?

So, now you deny that you said what you plainly DID say:

Originally Posted by Saul Good
True, true. It's still nice to know that Byrd's taken some time away from his busy Klan recruiting.

Sonny, you've really got to stop sniffing glue.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 11:15 PM
No, I would take it as advice that I go home and have sex with MY girlfriend. Just like you implied that anyone (presumably elderly) that disagrees with you should be euthanized, rather than have YOU euthanized.

Where did I imply that anyone else should do any such thing? It's just not there. If I say, "When I'm bored I argue with fools on the internet," I'm not encouraging anyone else to do so. If I were to say, "When people are bored, they should argue with fools on the internet," that would be a different story.

You have this habit of attributing opinions to me and then arguing against the straw man you've created. That doesn't fly on a forum like this when there's a record of everything said.

I could follow your lead and selectively quote you to produce the following:

I urge to



spoo o n




YOU
g o o d, sonny

ROFL

That doesn't mean that you ever made such a point, but that's one of your favorite little tricks. Rather than refute what I actually said, you refute what you think I should have said.

Henry
08-16-2005, 11:18 PM
Where did I imply that anyone else should do any such thing? It's just not there. If I say, "When I'm bored I argue with fools on the internet," I'm not encouraging anyone else to do so. If I were to say, "When people are bored, they should argue with fools on the internet," that would be a different story.

You have this habit of attributing opinions to me and then arguing against the straw man you've created. That doesn't fly on a forum like this when there's a record of everything said.

I could follow your lead and selectively quote you to produce the following:



That doesn't mean that you ever made such a point, but that's one of your favorite little tricks. Rather than refute what I actually said, you refute what you think I should have said.


Please point out where I did that to the paragraph in question, or to the Byrd quote.

Oh, that's right, I didn't. You really DID say those things, and now you wish you hadn't.

Like I said, sonny, lay off sniffing the glue. It kills brain cells, I hear.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 11:20 PM
So, now you deny that you said what you plainly DID say:

Quote:Originally Posted by Saul Good
True, true. It's still nice to know that Byrd's taken some time away from his busy Klan recruiting.

Sonny, you've really got to stop sniffing glue.

Yep, that's what I said. He's done it extensively in the past. He's continued to use racial slurs, on national television no less. He may or may not do it again.

I would bet you've spent a good deal of your life asleep. You aren't currently asleep. I have no way of knowing for sure that you will ever go to sleep again, but I can, based on your past behavior, assume that you might go to sleep again in your life. It's a perfectly reasonable assumtion that you may do so.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 11:23 PM
Please point out where I did that to the paragraph in question, or to the Byrd quote.

Oh, that's right, I didn't. You really DID say those things, and now you wish you hadn't.

Like I said, sonny, lay off sniffing the glue. It kills brain cells, I hear.


I said you've done it in the past, not that you did it in this thread. I did it pre-emptively, as you've established a clear pattern of this behavior.

AGAIN. I didn't say you did it in those posts. I'm saying that you've spliced my quotes before. Are you insane? Note that I didn't say, "You are insane", "Old people are insane", "People who disagree with me are insane", or "Robert Byrd is actively recruiting Klan members."

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 11:25 PM
Here's the quote you're talking about, by the way. I like using direct quotes. Of course, I know what I'm talking about so the quotes back up my points.

"By the way, if you quote me, use the entire quote. I've noticed that you like to splice my quotes in order to discredit me."

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 11:26 PM
Notice that I didn't say, "You've spliced my quotes on this thread."

Henry
08-16-2005, 11:26 PM
I said you've done it in the past, not that you did it in this thread. I did it pre-emptively, as you've established a clear pattern of this behavior.

AGAIN. I didn't say you did it in those posts. I'm saying that you've spliced my quotes before. Are you insane? Note that I didn't say, "You are insane", "Old people are insane", "People who disagree with me are insane", or "Robert Byrd is actively recruiting Klan members."

Um, so you DID or DID NOT actually say the things you said in this thread?

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 11:36 PM
YET AGAIN:

Here's what I said.

"By the way, if you quote me, use the entire quote. I've noticed that you like to splice my quotes in order to discredit me."

Notice that I said "you like" to do it as opposed to "you have done it on this thread." Had you done it on this thread, I would have pointed it out specifically.

Explain to me where I accused you of misquoting me ON THIS THREAD. You've done it many times in the past on other threads.

Now, you've accused me on this particular thread of the following:

1. Hating rule of law
2. Hating the Constitution
3. Saying that old people should be killed
4. Lying about the fact that Robert Byrd was a paid recruiter for the Klan, continues to use racial slurs on national television, and has as of this exact moment in time, taken a break from doing so
5. Implying that people with wrong opinions should be euthanized
6. Sniffing glue

Anything else you'd like to add, or are you done being an idiot?

Henry
08-16-2005, 11:53 PM
YET AGAIN:

Here's what I said.

"By the way, if you quote me, use the entire quote. I've noticed that you like to splice my quotes in order to discredit me."

Notice that I said "you like" to do it as opposed to "you have done it on this thread." Had you done it on this thread, I would have pointed it out specifically.



That isn't what I asked. What I asked is if you now deny posting what you obviously DID post.

Saul Good
08-16-2005, 11:57 PM
That isn't what I asked. What I asked is if you now deny posting what you obviously DID post.

What are you asking? I stand behind everything I've posted. What have I denied posting? I've posted several things that you've intentionally bastardized. I've posted things about myself which you have taken the liberty of interpreting the word "me" to mean "old people" and "people I disagree with." That makes you wrong, not me.

Henry
08-17-2005, 12:05 AM
What are you asking? I stand behind everything I've posted. What have I denied posting? I've posted several things that you've intentionally bastardized. I've posted things about myself which you have taken the liberty of interpreting the word "me" to mean "old people" and "people I disagree with." That makes you wrong, not me.

So, you stand behind your implication that Byrd still recruits for the Klan?

After all, if he wasn't, there would be nothing to "take a break from", now, would there?

Saul Good
08-17-2005, 12:21 AM
So, you stand behind your implication that Byrd still recruits for the Klan?

After all, if he wasn't, there would be nothing to "take a break from", now, would there?

Actually you've got it backwards. He has taken a break. Now if I had said that he TOOK a break, that would imply that he did it in the past, stopped, and has since resumed the activity.

I didn't imply that he still recruits for the Klan. I said he was taking a break. He has stopped doing it for the moment. Whether or not he returns from his break, I have no way of knowing. If I get tired of posting on this board and decide to take a break from doing so, there is no assurance that I will ever return and post again. All that a break implies is that it was done in the past and that it is not being done at the present.

By the way, don't you have anything better to do than hijack yet another thread (yes, I mean this one) and parse words with someone who is obviously being facetious? This is the second time (that I'm aware of) in as many days that you've stepped into a discussion between posters discussing a topic and hijacked it in order to parse words.

I'm done humoring you while you comb through pages and pages of posts trying in vain to find an inaccurate statement. Why don't you do something worthwhile with your abundant spare time and come the phone book for typos?

Henry
08-17-2005, 12:29 AM
Actually you've got it backwards. He has taken a break. Now if I had said that he TOOK a break, that would imply that he did it in the past, stopped, and has since resumed the activity.



I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is, right? ROFL

Logical
08-17-2005, 01:50 AM
I can quote you calling Gitmo worse than the Japanese internment. You've got to make up pejoratives about me. You and VLib are a couple of idiotic old men. I hope for your safety and mine that your kids don't let you drive.
Do me this one favor...Don't private me like VLib and accuse me of being someone I've never even heard of while using obscenities. I may not respect your political opinions, but I don't have any disrespect for you as a person. I've crossed that line with VLib.

ROFL. I certainly did suggest you might be Jamie, but I certainly did not use obscenities against you. Feel free to go back and check that PM again. Being a long timer on this BB I doubt you are going to convince anyone I used obscentities against you.

Logical
08-17-2005, 01:53 AM
....If I get tired of posting on this board and decide to take a break from doing so, there is no assurance that I will ever return and post again.
...We all, conservatives and liberals alike, could only be so lucky. Your constant stupidity gives conservatives a bad image.

Saul Good
08-17-2005, 01:57 PM
ROFL. I certainly did suggest you might be Jamie, but I certainly did not use obscenities against you. Feel free to go back and check that PM again. Being a long timer on this BB I doubt you are going to convince anyone I used obscentities against you.

You most certainly did use obscenity in the private message. You also did not "suggest I might be Jamie."

"So you want to have a false ID like Kotter

Fine Jamie,"

Then you went into a profane rant against my posts. Consider yourself ignored.

Henry
08-17-2005, 08:21 PM
Consider yourself ignored.

HEY! How come HE gets to be ignored! I've been doing all the work around here!