I have only asked your constitutional and legal interpretation and thats it. We can discuss the matter at hand and the topic, and don’t need to discuss the entire history of ‘who did what and what one stood for’. You are appealing to hypocrisy even if your accusations against me are true. It looks like you want to drag another matter, because obviously this is a very brazen and embarrassing act that so called self proclaimed ‘constitutionalists’ may have a hard time to digest and defend. And yes your consistent attempts to bring past actions of other parties is an act of defense.Nice rant, but where do you see me justifying this? Please point it out, thanks. As for hypocrisy, wrong and extralegal actions, these were totally overlooked when your guy was the beneficiary, at least the consistent among us called it out then and are still demonstrably against it now. Folks who supported or stood silent in the past, don’t have a leg to stand on.
Apnay moon miyan mithu! Anyway I got your response and as expected ‘consistent’ with the pattern:at least the consistent among us called it out then and are still demonstrably against it now
“X did this” … “but Y did this!”