THERE'S HOPE!! - SCOTUS Slaps Obama

You didn't read the cite, did you, Ekim? And I wish you a fine day as well. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Just as you continue to misspell "cite" or misuse it instead of using the correct term, "site", you try to pass off a piece even marked "editorial" as fact. The Supremes didn't deliver a knockout punch to the White House. They made a decision against a case filed by the Justice Department. There IS a difference.

If you'd followed some of Perry's forgetful tirades, you'd know that. Perry wanted to abolish the Department of Education (he was lucid enough to name that Department while forgetting another in one debate) and if he HAD eliminated the entire department of Education, it would presumably not have dealt a "knockout blow" to Perry's White House. (Now there's a term for morons to roll over their lips a few times.) Perry's White House would have continued to function for all practical purposes, even with an abolished Department of Education.

However, that "knockout" is exactly what this POS writer for Fox "News" declared in the headline of his EDITORIAL piece.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...o-white-house/

Do you even know the difference, COG? It is apparent you STILL don't know the difference between "site" and "cite" and older posts reinforce my belief that you may never understand their difference.

WDYBCOGOSECBATTDTW"C"BTS"C"TEO TCOTSRISW

Stevie, you really need to know what you are talking about before you post. You sound stupid.

from Dictionary.com

cite

1    /saɪt/ Show Spelled[sahyt] Show IPA verb (used with object), cit·ed, cit·ing.


1. to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), especially as an authority: He cited the constitution in his defense.

2. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example: He cited many instances of abuse of power.

3. to summon officially or authoritatively to appear in court.

4. to call to mind; recall: citing my gratitude to him.

5. Military . to mention (a soldier, unit, etc.) in orders, as for gallantry.


So I cited to a site. I spelled it right. You got it wrong. Now go away.

Are you saying the Justice Department isn't part of the Administration? That's even stupider than not knowing how to spell "cite".

Just as you continue to misspell "cite" or misuse it instead of using the correct term, "site",

Do you even know the difference, COG? It is apparent you STILL don't know the difference between "site" and "cite" and older posts reinforce my belief that you may never understand their difference.
Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Perhaps COG meant to type ‘citation’. That would make YOU an ignorant, pompous asshole.

And just to avoid confusion, here is the definition of "site"

site   /saɪt/ Show Spelled [sahyt] Show IPA noun, verb, sit·ed, sit·ing.


noun 1. the position or location of a town, building, etc., especially as to its environment: the site of our summer cabin.

2. the area or exact plot of ground on which anything is, has been, or is to be located: the site of ancient Troy.

3. Computers . Web site.



Get it now? Your holding back the entire class. Please try to keep up.

COG: Stupid Stevie can't help himself, he is the victim of underfunded schools.

No CBS........you dumb shit ! There is a new internet tool called "google search" you dunce. Next time google before you say things that make you look stupid.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...against-obama/

What pole ??From faux news Originally Posted by ekim008

No doubt another illiterate product of the Department of Education.

And just to avoid confusion, here is the definition of "site"

site   /saɪt/ Show Spelled [sahyt] Show IPA noun, verb, sit·ed, sit·ing.


noun 1. the position or location of a town, building, etc., especially as to its environment: the site of our summer cabin.

2. the area or exact plot of ground on which anything is, has been, or is to be located: the site of ancient Troy.

3. Computers . Web site.


Get it now? Your holding back the entire class. Please try to keep up. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Notice my replies and my QUOTES below. I emphasized the parts of the definition you want to deny in red and also made the words "Web site" bold to emphasize the meaning. I won't confuse everyone (except you and I.B. Dumb) by calling them "cites" like you are trying to claim you do.

Ha Ha Ha Ha You've stepped in it now, COG! Quit lying! You WERE asking Ekim about reading the site since you did not provide the "cite". You only provided a link to the LOCATION/SITE that hosted what you are telling us you call commonly a "cite".

You provided a link to a LOCATION and that site/location had to be visited to see the copy of the editorial you now want us to believe you regularly call a "cite". Hey did you read the "CITE" about LSU losing to Alabama? LMAO!

You also missed the prediction I made in my post which is quoted here:

Just as you continue to misspell "cite" or misuse it instead of using the correct term, "site", you try to pass off a piece even marked "editorial" as fact. The Supremes didn't deliver a knockout punch to the White House. They made a decision against a case filed by the Justice Department. There IS a difference.

If you'd followed some of Perry's forgetful tirades, you'd know that. Perry wanted to abolish the Department of Education (he was lucid enough to name that Department while forgetting another in one debate) and if he HAD eliminated the entire department of Education, it would presumably not have dealt a "knockout blow" to Perry's White House. (Now there's a term for morons to roll over their lips a few times.) Perry's White House would have continued to function for all practical purposes, even with an abolished Department of Education.

However, that "knockout" is exactly what this POS writer for Fox "News" declared in the headline of his EDITORIAL piece.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...o-white-house/

Do you even know the difference, COG? It is apparent you STILL don't know the difference between "site" and "cite" and older posts reinforce my belief that you may never understand their difference.

WDYBCOGOSECBATTDTW"C"BTS"C"TEO TCOTSRISW Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Did you notice the: WDYBCOGOSECBATTDTW"C"BTS"C"TEO TCOTSRISW

Just as I expected! You charged headlong into your defense when you have made the same mistake before. Again you chose to try to "cite" a marginal meaning as a synonym for a quote or an article or an editorial.

That is why I put the fine print at the bottom predicting you'd try to defend the indefensible instead of admitting your continued confusion over the words.

The small print: WDYBCOGOSECBATTDTW"C"BTS"C"TEO TCOTSRISW

The small print magnified in bold type:

WDYBCOGOSECBATTDTW"C"BTS"C"TEO TCOTSRISW

The small print explained:
What Do You Bet COG Or Someone Else Comes Back And Tries To Defend The Word "Cite" Because The Site "Cites" The Editorial Or The Case Or The SCOTUS Ruling In Some Way?


I waited until the illustrious I.B. showed and was swallowed by his own ego as well. It was just yesterday that he was jumping through hoops to try to change the subject by attacking the way I typed and used "HATERS" as if there were no plural of "hater" and that the word "hater" has not been adopted into our language by thousands of others or used in the manner I used it.

Some writers who have used the word haters are gainfully employed in journalism, news, publishing and other authorship roles and they provide daily examples its use just as I used it when they practice their own use of those disciplines.

It is so much fun to watch you both writhe laboriously in your unsuccessful attempts to draw attention away from your own baseless conclusions and your pithy attempts to discredit other people whose viewpoints differ from yours.

What is so funny is that the fine print was done BEFORE your weak attempts at misdirection.

Maybe you two could practice "ciphering" since understanding politics is not a particularly strong suit for either of you.

I'm sure you both would prefer I use that synonym to describe mathematics since you two seem to prefer "cites" to more commonly-used words like quotes and examples.

Adios, you two little pathetic board bullies! I'll be back to prove your ignorance again, soon.

The appropriate word is "cite" which is short for "citation". In proper writing when you forward a statement of fact then you "cite" the source in either a footnote or in the addendum. The original source will then be found in the bibliography. Face it Stevie, you are going up against the entire scholastic establishment. You loose.

I lost my sight because everyone was arguing how to cite an article on this site.

Good god.

ekim, here is one source, I repeat ONE source; CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...against-obama/

I waited until the illustrious I.B. showed and was swallowed by his own ego as well. It was just yesterday that he was jumping through hoops to try to change the subject by attacking the way I typed and used "HATERS" as if there were no plural of "hater" and that the word "hater" has not been adopted into our language by thousands of others or used in the manner I used it.

Some writers who have used the word haters are gainfully employed in journalism, news, publishing and other authorship roles and they provide daily examples its use just as I used it when they practice their own use of those disciplines.
Originally Posted by Little Stevie

You're a stupid, pompous asshole, and this summation of events is a bald face lie.

Let Stevie feel superior to me, and the others here. God knows he doesn't get that in real life. Have a nice day, Stevie!

God knows he doesn't get that in real life. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Isn't that the truth. He's so pathetic that he has to make up little word games that he plays by himself.

Perhaps COG meant to type ‘citation’. That would make YOU an ignorant, pompous asshole. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Look, the smartest of the three boobs tries a reasonable defense while taking a rip at me but then sees that the more stupid COG does EXACTLY what I predicted he would do to defend the indefensible. Poor IB Dumb is sandwiched in between as COG gets nailed.

The appropriate word is "cite" which is short for "citation". In proper writing when you forward a statement of fact then you "cite" the source in either a footnote or in the addendum. The original source will then be found in the bibliography. Face it Stevie, you are going up against the entire scholastic establishment. You loose. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Ha Ha Ha -You guys get your balls busted and then find another great-spelling idiot to join with you in showing your asses. J.D., you said I "loose". J.D. I knew in advance that COG would not be smart enough to pick up on your well-intentioned excuses.

J.D., you do see that your definition is the same as mine, don't you? LMAO COG just wasn't smart enough to admit a small mistake but rather, he chose to compound it and drag his other little bully buddies into the fray to try to extricate him from the situation. Ha Ha Ha COG, IB and JD, the Three Musketeers of Dumbass.

You stumble all over yourselves trying to keep COG from looking so dumb but he won't have any of it and SHOWS everyone you were simply sticking up for the dumbest of the The Three Musketeers of Dumbass.

Please keep me laughing, boys! It is fun to see you imitating "smart". I would have gone for anything reasonable like "did ekim go to the cited site" or anything close but, no, COG acted exactly like Jubilation T. Cornpone from Little Abner.

Keep it up. It is so entertaining to watch all three of you flopping around like fish out of water. Whirly, you are a "non-factor" and realize your limitations. I like that about you.

These others actually believe they are relevant. Your political opinions are just as indefensible as this red herring you're using to take the heat off Dummy#1/COG.