Posted on 06/12/2006 3:28:21 PM PDT by HAL9000
Excuse me .. will you get off the 22nd - and read the 12th - IT DOES MAKE CLINTON IN-ELIGIBLE!!!! H E L L O !!
I'm done - this conversation is over because you are too stupid to believe what's printed right before your eyes.
I can't be bothered to read your drivel.
The 12th says - Clinton is in-eligible BECAUSE he's IN-ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT AGAIN!!!!!
And .. because your whole conversation is so condescending and rude and arrogant - WITHOUT FACTS - I'm done! This conversation is over.
The 22nd talks about who may be elected. Read it over and over again. The word "elected" will keep hitting you in the face. The 22nd limits ELECTIONS.
Nothing in the 12th makes Clinton ineligible. You keep saying he's ineligible to be President, but you don't say why. If you claim it's because he's already served two terms, then you are pointing to the 22nd Amendment. But the 22nd doesn't say he's ineligible. It says he may not be ELECTED. There is a difference. If the 22nd restricted eligibility, every President would have to be removed halfway through their second term. They are eligible to serve as President when they get that far, however they may no longer be ELECTED as President.
The only restriction Clinton faces is being ELECTED President. I'm sorry that you need to call your opponents stupid, when you don't understand things.
This, surely, is the heart of the entire matter -- you simply can't be bothered to listen to what anybody else has to say that might disagree with your current beliefs.
Which is unfortunate, because it probably means that (as a result) you just might be incapable of learning anything, from anybody.
The 12th says - Clinton is in-eligible BECAUSE he's IN-ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT AGAIN!!!!!
I and several others have explained rather patiently to you several times now why this is simply not true. Simply repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.
It's like, "The sky is green. The sky is green. The sky is green."
And .. because your whole conversation is so condescending and rude and arrogant - WITHOUT FACTS - I'm done! This conversation is over.
Well, my apologies to whatever extent I've come across as rude and condescending. That's not my intention, and I don't care for rude and condescending people myself. So, my apologies on that count.
On my side of things, I feel like I haven't been TOTALLY impatient, though. The dynamics here have actually been explained several times during this thread.
As you might imagine, It's a bit exasperating when you explain something, more than once, and the person whom you went to the effort to explain things to simply says (in effect), "Well, I don't care. I'm just not going to listen to your explanation, because I'm not interested in being informed."
So... in any event, I wish you well.
I'm afraid not, CyberAnt. If it does, then show us WHY.
You can't, because it DOESN'T.
I'm done - this conversation is over because you are too stupid to believe what's printed right before your eyes.
One of the things that truly, truly amazes me is when somebody who simply doesn't understand something (and in this case, someone who apparently just can't even be bothered to think about it or understand it), accusing somebody who DOES understand it of being "stupid."
and This
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.