Search results

Really? Stunning display of opportunism. Cheney, too, while I'm at it. He really knew when to disappear from view.

Prior to 911, you would be correct, but not anymore. The Dept. of Homeland Security and the President of the United States have developed extremely comprehensive protocols for just about every conceivable situtation, including natural disasters. Under the Dept. of Homeland Security Emergency...

I think it's fair to say that all three levels of government federal, state and local authorities failed to plan and execute very during this disaster, despite the fact that only 13 months ago, they were all involved in an evacuation drill in New Orleans, intended to test their preparedness...

Depraved heart! That's a killer, thanks! LOL!

You're probably right. Only time will tell.

Evidently, whatever you're referring to, is one step beyond freedom of expression. Maybe it's better that you don't post it.

I can? Well, then what is the quote?

You mean, asking the same question over and over in the hope of obtaining a direct answer? Hmmm...I suppose that I'd need to read the exact Shakespeare quote to which you are alluding. I doubt you'll be posting it, though.

Funny. Very apropos.

No, I'll pass on your most disingenuous offer. So, how do I continue to prove Shakespeare prescient?

Tell me how I continue to prove Shakespeare prescient. Everyone here is just dying to know.

What was your thought, exactly?

What's the FBI, got to do with what Shakespeare said?

Shakespeare said lots of prescient things. If you don't want to explain yourself, that's ok. In fact, it's sort of refreshing.

You continue to use the term "contributory negligence" incorrectly. If ignorance is bliss, then you are in heaven already. As for your comments re Shakespeare, I don't know what you're talking about, so feel free to enlighten me and the rest of the world.

You cited: http://www.thelawencyclopedia.com/term/contributory_negligence as the source for your definition of contributory negligence. Keep trying to escape from your own words. It just makes you seem more and more disingenuous to everyone -- assuming that could be possible.

Yes. You referred to a law dictionary to support your argument, and then when I tried to correct you the first time, you found a second legal source to try to rebut my correction. Now, say "Thank you."

You raised the issue of contributory negligence, and you did so incorrectly -- twice. So, instead of trying to act like you know what you're talking about and I'm the schmuck for trying to educate you -- instead, try and learn something from the free education and say "thank you."

You want to sue everyone who voted for Bush? That's a novel lawsuit. Nevertheless, you are miscomprehending a legal tort theory that is completely inapplicable. Just because it's called "contributory" negligence, doesn't mean that you can advance the theory against anyone who has contributed to...

Contributory negligence is a defense to negligence, not available to a plaintiff. As President Bush is the putative defendant, whereas the People are the putative plaintiff, contributory negligence is inapplicable. The correct legal theory is simply to prove that the President was negligent...