This isn't 1st grade Gomer...big boys and girls don't always go for the rhyme. I guess they didn't teach that in Mop 101.maineman » 18 Jun 2023, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑ you can't even quote a limerick correctly.
grin and **** should rhyme
He said, "I'll ADMIT I'm a bit of a ****.
what a bumbling chucklehead YOU are!![]()
The one that has "he said with a grin" is the one about the man from Pawtucket
admit it... you mixed up the middle lines from two different poems. you **** up and you can't admit it, even when it is about something as stupid as a limerick.roadkill » 18 Jun 2023, 12:48 pm » wrote: ↑ This isn't 1st grade Gomer...big boys and girls don't always go for the rhyme. I guess they didn't teach that in Mop 101.![]()
maineman » 18 Jun 2023, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑ admit it... you mixed up the middle lines from two different poems. you **** up and you can't admit it, even when it is about something as stupid as a limerick.
LIMERICK: a popular form of short, humorous verse that is often nonsensical and frequently ribald. It consists of five lines, rhyming aabba, and the dominant metre is anapestic, with two metrical feet in the third and fourth lines and three feet in the others.
I guess you really didn't get into poetic forms in that ESL class you took for your GED, eh @deadskunk???
"Amit it"???roadkill » 18 Jun 2023, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑ Amit [sic] it...you voted for organized crime. That's who YOU are.
keeping up with you would require me to slow down, you ignorant fool!
maineman » 18 Jun 2023, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑ keeping up with you would require me to slow down, you ignorant fool!
I did NOT vote for the amoral clown who tried to overthrow our government. I get that just fine.roadkill » 18 Jun 2023, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑ You voted for the slow train...and you still don't get it.
Oh, it's a firm precedent. All of this ballyhoo is illegal posturing.
By the Biden DOJ.Cannonpointer » 18 Jun 2023, 1:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Oh, it's a firm precedent. All of this ballyhoo is illegal posturing.
maineman » 18 Jun 2023, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑ I did NOT vote for the amoral clown who tried to overthrow our government. I get that just fine.
that's your opinion. I really find it sans value.
Funny how you need to tell that to JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON of which THE CITATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT SOLELY DETERMINES WHAT IS PRESIDENTIAL AND WHAT IS PERSONAL!!! Its been QUOTED AND CITED SO MUCH YOU SHOULD KNOW IT BY HEART, but still you insist that the NARA has control OF WHICH THEY HAVE ZERO OVER PERSONAL RECORDS, ****!!jerrab » 18 Jun 2023, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑ asshole
-----------------------------------
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-re ... 3/nr23-016
The PRA also requires that all documentary materials “be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” 44 U.S.C. 2203(b). The President does not have discretion to categorize a Presidential record as a personal record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Beekeeper » 18 Jun 2023, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑ Funny how you need to tell that to JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON of which THE CITATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT SOLELY DETERMINES WHAT IS PRESIDENTIAL AND WHAT IS PERSONAL!!! Its been QUOTED AND CITED SO MUCH YOU SHOULD KNOW IT BY HEART, but still you insist that the NARA has control OF WHICH THEY HAVE ZERO OVER PERSONAL RECORDS, ****!!
And TRUMP called them PERSONAL RECORDS when those things were packed and moved PRIOR to him leaving office, *******!!! ARE YOU SO EFFING STUPID that you don't realize that HE WAS STILL PRESIDENT when the MOVING VAN MOVED HIS THINGS OUR OF THE WHITE HOUSE??
Beekeeper » 18 Jun 2023, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑ Funny how you need to tell that to JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON of which THE CITATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT SOLELY DETERMINES WHAT IS PRESIDENTIAL AND WHAT IS PERSONAL!!! Its been QUOTED AND CITED SO MUCH YOU SHOULD KNOW IT BY HEART, but still you insist that the NARA has control OF WHICH THEY HAVE ZERO OVER PERSONAL RECORDS, ****!!
And TRUMP called them PERSONAL RECORDS when those things were packed and moved PRIOR to him leaving office, *******!!! ARE YOU SO EFFING STUPID that you don't realize that HE WAS STILL PRESIDENT when the MOVING VAN MOVED HIS THINGS OUR OF THE WHITE HOUSE??
maineman » 18 Jun 2023, 2:17 pm » wrote: ↑ that's your opinion. I really find it sans value.
My kid brother is a republican, but he's an intelligent republican and he and I can and have had extended cordial discussions about the state of American politics.
MAGAts like you? Why bother? Word whipping you is so easy, but after a while, I start to feel guilty like I would if I were taunting a kid with cerebral palsy.
Yeah, ****, that is the "Explanation" of WHY THE LAWSUIT WAS PRESENTED and NOTHING MORE. It's called in some cases, "Factual Presentments".jerrab » 18 Jun 2023, 2:52 pm » wrote: ↑ MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMY BERMAN JACKSON, District Judge.Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against defendant National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Plaintiff asks the Court to declare audiotapes created by former President William Jefferson Clinton and historian Taylor Branch during the Clinton administration to be “Presidential records” under the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f), and to order defendant “to assume custody and control” of them and deposit them in the Clinton Presidential Library. Plaintiff contends that defendant has acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by failing to exercise control over the audiotapes and by not making them available in response to a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. Defendant has moved to dismiss [Dkt. # 6] under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
BIG **** DEAL, *******!!jerrab » 18 Jun 2023, 2:50 pm » wrote: ↑ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Subject Matter JurisdictionUnder Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Shekoyan v. Sibley Int'l Corp., 217 F.Supp.2d 59, 63 (D.D.C.2002). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that “a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction
Beekeeper » 18 Jun 2023, 3:40 pm » wrote: ↑ Yeah, ****, that is the "Explanation" of WHY THE LAWSUIT WAS PRESENTED and NOTHING MORE. It's called in some cases, "Factual Presentments".
And it ONLY serves as a basis for her RULING and nothing more. And in your attempt to assign NARA the ability to CLASSIFY DOCUMENTS as nothing more than YOU SHOWING HOW **** STUPID AND ILLITERATE YOU REALLY ARE!!
NARA has ZERO CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY UNDER THE PRA. NONE, ZILCH, ZERO. They are ONLY the ARCHIVIST of PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS and other GOVERNMENT RECORDS for distribution to the PUBLIC, *******!!