. . . Furthermore the opposition seems quite happy with proroguing Parliament as it believes there IS a national emergency . . .
hmmm . . . dis tek the cake
head shrinkers could write a whole paper bout the projection neuroses of nervous ex?- PPPites like Kari
You really do take yourself seriously, do you?
You don't seem to understand sarcasm when it shows up, eh?
I agreed with all the arguments that say the proroguing of Parliament is not justified by saying an emergency exists, and yet I have not seen the APNU or AFC bring this point to he fore in a legal action to nullify it.
Yet you chose to exhibit a lack of understanding of the exchange between T and myself by putting in one sentence "the projection neuroses of nervous ex"; "PPPites like Kari"; and "head shrinkers could write a whole paper". ?????? 
indeed, not-so-smart dude, you did "agree" with the arguments that proroguing outside of an emergency is not justified . . .
my problem is that u then decided to reach for 'cleverness' by claiming that APNU/AFC agrees that there "IS [your emphasis] a national emergency" based on the absence of a court challenge
here is David Granger on prorogation outside an emergency:
“The President did not seem to work out the implications of an angry population. There is no state of emergency to justify such behaviour…,” http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....performance-granger/
"sarcasm" collapses to ignoble intent with your lame, dispositive appeals to the [compromised] Guyana courts . . . even a cursory reader of Burnham's 1980 Constitution could figure why no serious case can be brought
banna, MY understanding of u is clear . . . however, there are many here who would be willing to deconstruct the below for free if u just ask:
"head shrinkers could write a whole paper bout the projection neuroses of nervous ex?- PPPites like Kari"
arite?