I didn't miss anything nor do I have a problem. I know where your post appeared and after what, along with what you were attempting, poorly, to comment on. That said, madigan was commenting on the President so my comments on your post(s) stand and you have, yet again, failed to address the issue and instead choose to run around in circles. Probably acceptable in your country.
::michael Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > Michael Oke, II wrote: >> You can figure out what "falls above" means or you can't, makes no >> difference to me. Again, I'm using English, your inability to >> understand it isn't my problem. Remove yourself from the discussion if >> you aren't able to communicate effectively. >> >> Let me quote your previous post: "Please, someone with >> some experience tell the dumb ass what will happen to him if he >> questions decisions up the chain of command." >> >> Now, his post referred to the President of the United States any you, by >> your own admission, agree that there is nobody above him in the chain of >> command so exactly who would he be questioning in order to do what he >> should? >> > > LOL > Now I see your problem. You missed the fact that my comment was > immediately after MadAgain's phrase "A commander who refuses to seal the > borders could be considered treasonous". It was referred to *that* > phrase and the dumb ass I was referring to is MadAgain. So now that > we've cleared that up maybe *you* might tell him what will happen to him > questioning his co's motives and allegiance. > >> Ricardo Aráoz wrote: >>> Michael Oke, II wrote: >>>> Who, exactly, do you believe falls above the President of the United >>>> States, also known as the Commander in Chief, in the chain of command >>>> that he is referring to? >>> Sorry, my English again. What does "fall above" mean? Did you mean to >>> write "is above"? But if you wrote so then I do understand your phrase >>> but not it's meaning inscribed in the present debate as I never said >>> anyone was above your president in the chain of command of your army, >>> quite the contrary, I was stating that he cannot question this chain of >>> command or that otherwise has been a mayor hypocrite in previous posts. >>> Can we please try to write in English and with some meaning? >>> >>>> Ricardo Aráoz wrote: >>>>> Michael Oke, II wrote: >>>>>> He and his representatives have apologized to many about the current >>>>>> stance taken by Arizona. I'm going to have to make the guess that he, >>>>>> nor his representatives, have read the federal law that the used to >>>>>> create their implementation. >>>>>> >>>>>> ::michael >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael Madigan wrote: >>>>>>> A commander who refuses to seal the borders could be considered >>>>>>> treasonous >>>>>>> >>>>> You can tell this ass has never seen real action. Please, someone with >>>>> some experience tell the dumb ass what will happen to him if he >>>>> questions decisions up the chain of command. >>>>> You can't have it both ways, either you can question whatever you want >>>>> in whatever situation (which would make some previous rep posts either >>>>> stupid or ), or you can't question your leadership in a time of war and >>>>> crisis. CHOOSE !!! >>>>> > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
