Hey Doc, narcissist! Bwahahahahaha

Again, what part of “not be construed to require” and “below Jan 07″ troop levels is so hard for you to understand? Since troop levels are higher, the Dims are promising not to require troop levels to be lower than before the surge? And you don’t think that requiring the surge troop levels to be done away with, that “to Jan 07 levels” doesn’t mean getting rid of the surge by removing the additional troops?

Liberalism is obviously a form of mental illness, you can’t even understand simple written English, but then that’s no surprise, your type likes to continually argue what the meaning of “is” is and such.

(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

In the Orwellian NewSpeak we Lefties use, “shall not be costrued to require” is actually secret code for “shall not be costrued to require.”

We’re tricky that way.

Oh, and Severian: whip out the old thesaurus and find a synonym for “narcissistic.” I mean, I’m glad you know a four-syllable word and all, but you’ve worn it smooth from overuse.

Ohhh and I am not angry with you, so your spittle remark is really uncalled for. But I do like the little adolescent passive agressive nature of your replies. Good One – Lorica

Ohhh Peaches, they are delicious too!!

If in the transmissions to Congress required by
16 subsection (a) the President determines that any of the
17 conditions specified in such subsection have not been met,
18 or if the President is unable to make the certification spec19
ified in subsection (b) by the required date, the Secretary
20 of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed
21 Forces from Iraq and complete such redeployment within
22 180 days.
23 (d) If the President makes the certification specified
24 in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall commence
25 the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than March 1, 2008, and complete 1 such redeployment
2 within 180 days.
3 (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
4 appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any
5 other Act are immediately available for obligation and ex6
penditure to plan and execute a safe and orderly redeploy7
ment of the Armed Forces from Iraq, as specified in sub8
sections (c) and (d).
9 (f) After the conclusion of the 180-day period for re10
deployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Sec11
retary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members
12 of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than
13 the following:
14 (1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities
15 and American citizens, including members of the
16 U.S. Armed Forces.
17 (2) Serving in roles consistent with customary
18 diplomatic positions.
19 (3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited
20 in duration and scope to killing or capturing mem21
bers of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations
22 with global reach.
23 (4) Training members of the Iraqi Security
24 Forces

Doc, you really should actually read the damned document before going on one of your little self righteous, narcissistic rants. If looking like an idiot is your goal, you succeeded magnificently.

I almost forgot to address the actual issue at hand, as your inherent idiocy provides so many targets of opportunity. Up above, I wrote:

If you were to go back and reread both Crabby’s post and my response

See, among thinking humans, the “re-” word part in “reread” assumes that I knew that you had already read the post in question. “Re-” is a prefix which means “to do again.” This suggests that I figured–rightly, as it turns out–that you weren’t “reading” in the sense that reading teachers think of the term–that is, in the sense of “bringing meaning to text.” Instead, you were doing something that I might term “bringing foolishness to text.” Maybe I can write a scholarly paper on it.

And you have the unmitigated gall to lay into me for reading comprehension issues?

Ah, the irony, she is delicious….

Either “your lack of knowledge is truly astonishing” is addressing how you feel about the issues I mentioned–in which case, nobody cares, because your view of reality was not the issue of the post–or you’re telling me that you know better how the Left feels than a Lefty does–in which case, all I can say is, “It is to laugh.”

One way or the other, you’re displaying the typical blinkered thinking of the chronically conservative.

Sometimes what people post doesn’t revolve around you and your crack-addled internal universe.

Cheerily,

Doc

Also, in your reply to crabby, you say 5 TIMES that the left feels. Well Yippee Skippy!!! How about you try a little “Thinking” it might help us all get thru this. Knowledge requires Thinking Doc, not feeling. I don’t have an error to re-address, unlike yourself.

Astonishingly, I must repeat myself, Your lack of knowledge is truly astonishing. – Lorica

Go ahead and type in capitals all you want–the fact remains that the limitations in 1591 are not, as I pointed out in my original post that got your panties in a bunch, actual limitations. They are, as any dumbass can tell who actually bothers to read the document, non-binding.

(By the way, I got that “non-binding” rifff when I climbed into the WABAC machine and remembered that that was the phrase people were using when the thing was passed.)

I’ve repeatedly drawn your attention to the specific passage that shows that you have your head firmly lodged up your hind end, and I’ve repeatedly invited you to show me the specific passage that says I’m wrong. Instead, you froth at the mouth, spewing Cheeto flecks all over your screen, screaming, “LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!”

This stuff may work with your high school buddies as you’re sitting around the table playing Dungeons and Dragons, but you’re out of your league here, my friend. This is the real world. Bring the freakin’ documentation or get out of my face. Cite the section that trumps my citation or move on to another topic.