In article <6531mnF2dmpnlU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check©" wrote:
> "Thanatos" wrote in message
> news:atropos-52FECC.20420827032008@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <6524qvF2do6csU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
> >
> >> Thanatos wrote:
> >> > In article <650orpF2d8gejU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> > "Reality_Check©" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Thanatos" wrote in message
> >> >>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
> >> >>>> Thanatos wrote:
> >> >>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Thanatos wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> "Bo Raxo" wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Not established they were felonies,
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
> >> >>>>>>>> without committing a felony.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Do tell how the president of the United States can pardon
> >> >>>>>>> someone for a violation of state law.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Who said it was state law, asswipe?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> A state law violation was the topic under discussion
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Really? Do tell.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I did tell.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> when you claimed
> >> >>>>> the president could issue a pardon for it.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Why do you lie?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Do tell how the president of the United States can
> >> >>> pardon someone for a violation of state law.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who said it was a violation of State law, eh jackass ?
> >> >
> >> > A state law violation was the topic under discussion
> >>
> >> You're lying again, asswipe. The OP never claimed it
> >> was a "state law" violation.
> >
> > you realized you were flat wrong that you retreated to your
> > typical name-calling and "you're lying" bullshit.
> > It's what you always do whenever you're proven wrong about
> > anything. In fact, it's the surest sign that you know
> > you've been beaten.
>
> You're lying again.
Way to prove my point, chief. |