|
|
| Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court (952661) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (952886) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 14:19:07 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Dave on Mon Jun 25 13:47:34 2012. D&C is a procedure for endrometrial renewal. It is not an abortive procedure exclusively (it was used for first trimester termination originally but is not exclusively done for that purpose), nor can it be done in a late term pregnancy, when the endometrium is dormant.You haven't a clue what is being discussed here. Please stay out of it. |
|
|
| (952887) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 14:19:24 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Dave on Mon Jun 25 13:48:44 2012. Ok...accepted. |
|
|
| (952992) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jun 25 20:31:45 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 13:55:53 2012. Somalia does have a government, it had a president who was a black guy from NY, it has a higher growth rate than your rathole too.I don't know why you are so anti-africa. I mean, you only support and praise groups that killed 90million Africans. Good luck. Buy your own damned insurance chisler. |
|
|
| (952993) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jun 25 20:32:20 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 25 13:57:24 2012. Not an atheist, and yes. |
|
|
| (952998) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jun 25 20:39:04 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by DaNd124 on Mon Jun 25 13:51:04 2012. All that news you read, you never saw the hearings Obama ran in IL on abortion?You didn't see the numbers of people this weekend of people who will not be covered under any health insurance on Obama care? You aren't reading this thread and following along, you gotta ask me to tutor you on the subject/main idea of this thread? It's two sentences and a few clicks back! I'm blushing dude. But I ain't that way. And no Dan, the country does know about 9/11 not just me. so don't try that post again. |
|
|
| (953003) | |
More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 25 20:51:51 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:02:29 2012. In his own words.Is this prick a judge or a politician? Originalist my ass. -------------------------- In Arizona dissent, Scalia blasts Obama’s deportation stay, immigration policies By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 5 hrs ago In a stinging, 22-page dissent to Monday's decision striking down most of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized President Barack Obama's announcement earlier this month that he would stay the deportation of young illegal immigrants and suggested that the federal government does not want to enforce its immigration laws. "The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress's failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act," Scalia, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dissent. "Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind." Scalia went on to write: Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona's estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment." Scalia also repeatedly referenced Obama's policy of prosecutorial discretion, which directs Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to prioritize deporting the illegal immigrants who are frequent border crossers, have committed crimes, or recently entered the country illegally. The Obama administration has deported a record number of illegal immigrants, but its prosecutorial discretion policy still draws the ire of illegal immigration hawks. Scalia directly referred to Obama's immigration enforcement policy as "lax" at one point. "Must Arizona's ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the executive's unwise targeting of that funding?" Scalia asked. Later, he added: "What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that 'federal policies' of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration." The federal government "does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude," Scalia alleged. Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is "entitled" to make its own immigration policy. At one point, he cites the fact that before the Civil War, Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders to support the idea that states should be able to set their own immigration policies. [despicable....like the Civil War never happened-SMAZ] The majority of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that most of Arizona's law is unconstitutional, save for the provision that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. |
|
|
| (953004) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 25 20:53:33 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 24 19:27:01 2012. DC v Heller didn't break any precedent. |
|
|
| (953005) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 20:53:49 2012, in response to More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 25 20:51:51 2012. Do you have any idea what a Supreme Court dissention actually is? |
|
|
| (953007) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 20:58:23 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jun 25 20:31:45 2012. The reason that Somalia is mentioned as your destination of choice is that it's a RW paradise where the government does nothing and everyone is heavily armed. That's what RWers want. IT's there.You obviously know nothing about me, so don't draw conclusions that I'm somehow anti-Africa. I am far from that. You, on the other hand continuously demonstrate that you are. Especially when Somalia is the perfect place for mindsets like yours.Don't think for a minute that they are being or are deserving of praise from me. That's the opposite of the truth. Doesn't change the fact that you'd fit in well over there. |
|
|
| (953008) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Mon Jun 25 21:00:11 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 20:53:49 2012. In this case it should be grounds for a treason charge. Nazis who donn't want to pay taxes should have all they own forfeited to the Government. |
|
|
| (953012) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 25 21:06:52 2012, in response to More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 25 20:51:51 2012. Activist judges are perfectly OK as long as they're theirs. :( |
|
|
| (953014) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 21:09:48 2012, in response to More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 25 20:51:51 2012. Scalia is as addled as his sponsor was. |
|
|
| (953018) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jun 25 21:15:46 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 20:53:49 2012. It's supposed to be an explanation of why the majority interpreted the law incorrectly. Not a rant about how the plaintiff or defendant is going to have a hard time because of the decision.I wouldn't say that only Scalia is guilty of this, but it is an example of an ideological opinion rather than a legal opinion. |
|
|
| (953021) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 25 21:19:25 2012, in response to More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 25 20:51:51 2012. I think that what o'bummer has done (regardless of the Supreme Court Decision) sets a very dangerous precedent. Now that he's decided not to enforce a segment of the immigration law, what is to stop him from deciding not to enforce a portion of the tax code? He can just as arbitrarily say that effective immediately, people of a given group will hence be exempt from paying income tax. In my opinion, he has set fire to the separation of powers principle that our notion was built on. |
|
|
| (953033) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 21:35:45 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by AlM on Mon Jun 25 21:15:46 2012. Which serves the assertion that this court is the most ideological, politically driven court in over a generation. Maybe ever. |
|
|
| (953040) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 25 21:48:33 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 20:53:49 2012. Yes, it's supposed to be a legal opinion. This was a rant.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (953051) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 25 22:09:58 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 25 21:48:33 2012. Exactly.Scalia's hysteria sounds like the ideological rant of a politician on the House or Senate floor who was on the losing side of a vote. That would be completely legitimate because those are political bodies and that's what their members are supposed to do in dissent. Court dissents are to be issued on points of caselaw and precedent, just like majority decisions and not on personal ideology. Scalia e' una vergogna. Un disgraziato. |
|
|
| (953058) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 25 22:15:15 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 25 22:09:58 2012. I found this piece interesting:http://www.salon.com/2012/06/24/scalias_scary_thinking/singleton/ your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (953059) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 25 22:15:22 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 25 21:19:25 2012. Any law enforcement agency has wide discretion in what to prioritize and what not to.ICE through a memo issued by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has decided that undocumented persons suspected of violent activities or gang membership shall be prioritized for aggressive deportation while those who came here before age 16 and have been here for 5 or more years and conducted themselves well will be subjected to deferred action. Law enforcement agencies, police chiefs,sheriffs and regulatory agencies all over the country make these kinds of decisions ever day. |
|
|
| (953091) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 25 22:58:49 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jun 25 22:15:22 2012. You completely avoided my point. |
|
|
| (953115) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 00:37:58 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 20:53:49 2012. Do you? |
|
|
| (953122) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 01:08:05 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jun 25 20:31:45 2012. Only third world shitholes have such high growth rates because they have nowhere to go but up. |
|
|
| (953135) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jun 26 07:56:19 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 00:37:58 2012. +1 |
|
|
| (953153) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 10:09:15 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 21:35:45 2012. Roger Taney is still worse. |
|
|
| (953163) | |
Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Jun 26 12:10:47 2012, in response to Re: More Proof That Antonin Scalia is an Ideologue rather than a Justice, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 10:09:15 2012. IAWTP.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (953662) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 29 14:11:16 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 10:42:38 2012. If ... you are assuming that late-term abortions are always done for life-threatening emergencies. |
|
|
| (953663) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 29 14:20:35 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 29 14:11:16 2012. They are. |
|
|
| (953673) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 29 15:07:59 2012, in response to GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:14:59 2012. I'll bet he's fine with the 9 member court now. |
|
|
| (953747) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 29 19:29:21 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 29 14:20:35 2012. Then a ban on them with exceptions for such emergency should be acceptable as it would have no effect. |
|
|
| (953801) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 29 23:37:40 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 29 19:29:21 2012. Roe did just that. The law's already on the books.Congress is not a bunch of doctors. They aren't qualified to make medical determinations. As it stands, women have been subjected to more difficult procedures than should be necessary to terminate a failed late term pregnancy. That's because of Congress. |
|
|
| (953948) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 30 13:57:39 2012, in response to GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:14:59 2012. If you keep losing, try to pack the Supreme Court, like FDR tried to do! What happens if you lose a decision by a 10-9 decision, add even more? |
|
|
| (954037) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Sat Jun 30 16:56:01 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Mitch45 on Mon Jun 25 10:32:12 2012. I get my score back next week from 'the test' btw. But I'm sure I'm going to retake in the fall. |
|
|
| (954038) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Sat Jun 30 16:56:48 2012, in response to GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:14:59 2012. I think it's a brilliant idea that he wants to model the court after the arab countries. Pakistan, Egypt, Kuwait all have almost 20 justices or more. |
|
|
| (954339) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sun Jul 1 07:52:33 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Sat Jun 30 16:56:48 2012. What would you know about a "brilliant idea". You fuckin' retard |
|
|
| (954347) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jul 1 08:11:10 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Sat Jun 30 16:56:01 2012. I took the LSAT twice myself - in 1986. Ouch, I'm getting old.Did you take Stanley Kaplan? Is that even still around? |
|
|
| (954351) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sun Jul 1 08:18:41 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Sat Jun 30 16:56:01 2012. 'cauuse yo're a failure? |
|
|
| (954378) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jul 1 10:44:30 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sun Jul 1 08:18:41 2012. LOL! Exactly. |
|
|
| (954539) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Sun Jul 1 22:40:24 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Jul 1 08:11:10 2012. They still give Kaplan classes, but i haven't taken any of those, expensive. I can barely afford the books. If i had this one book I just got a month ago, by a different group, I probably would be five points higher at least.I read something about Kaplan his whole thing recently, I cannot recall what it was. |
|
|
| (954540) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Sun Jul 1 22:41:26 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jul 1 10:44:30 2012. You can read his posts, or do you just want to be in his werido click so you gotta brownnose a thing like it? you should have more self worth. |
|
|
| (954563) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 2 01:13:20 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Sun Jul 1 22:41:26 2012. I just find your need to retake the standardized test funny. |
|
|
| (954632) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jul 2 08:50:45 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sun Jul 1 07:52:33 2012. So you disagree with bingbong and a GWU law professor?Wowzers sir, you are brilliant! Enlighten us! |
|
|
| (954633) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jul 2 08:52:13 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 2 01:13:20 2012. I find your lack of knowledge in this area hilarious. Show me the person who doesn't retake. Losers like Subwaysurf? The people who go to Harvard all retake, half of them probably 3 times.It's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about except to defend your leader. |
|
|
| (954639) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 2 09:32:08 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jul 2 08:52:13 2012. I didn't retake. |
|
|
| (954643) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 2 09:35:46 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jul 2 08:52:13 2012. I find your assumptions in this area hilarious. |
|
|
| (954682) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Mon Jul 2 11:51:17 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Sun Jul 1 22:40:24 2012. Stanley Kaplan and John Pieper (of Pieper Bar Review - you'll learn about him in a couple of years) have made fortunes off the grad school prep business. |
|
|
| (954688) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 2 12:00:32 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Mitch45 on Mon Jul 2 11:51:17 2012. Unless he takes BarBri or Kaplan PMBR or something. |
|
|
| (954737) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 2 14:50:26 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jul 2 08:52:13 2012. Speechless already? |
|
|
| (954762) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Mon Jul 2 16:26:36 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 2 12:00:32 2012. Is BarBri owned by one person? I know that Conviser guy was the founder but I don't think he owns the whole thing. |
|
|
| (954787) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 2 17:08:06 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Mitch45 on Mon Jul 2 16:26:36 2012. I heard he's a cofounder. |
|
|
| (954798) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jul 2 18:28:58 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 2 09:35:46 2012. well la-de-da Mr Harry Reid. I suppose anyone who ain't a 1%er and doesn't need the extra scholarship money by getting a point or two more doesn't exist and become an assumption. Hilarious stuff.Congratulations on getting your 180 I assume. But since you do so well, why are you trying to impress subwaysurf so much by making yourself sound idiotic? Because my assumption #4 on this post alone is that you seem to think it's a straight pass/fail test. PS. Shall I have permission to cut and paste your assumptions to the forums where the Harvard wannabe's hang out? |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||