You think I've painted the opposition as shrill. No, I've painted them as momma's boys afraid of their own shadows.
They've called on Jim repeatedly because, gasp, I support and like a Republican they don't like. I've called them cowards, basically.
If you don't know the difference between painting the opposition as shrill or painting them as weenies, then I can't help you. But maybe a dictionary could help you. Try it.
A distinction without a difference.
You have two choices in supporting Rudy: either you really believe in the policies he prefers, or you think that he's the best that can get elected. In the first case you repudiate the bulk of the policies upon which conservatism stands; while in the latter you fear Hillary so much that you'll accept something less even though that social liberalism breeds the dependency upon which the Democrats construct their indentured constituencies. Frankly, I think it the latter, which is coincident with your artless projection.
They've called on Jim repeatedly because, gasp, I support and like a Republican they don't like. I've called them cowards, basically.
Sic semper miserere. You were the one who questioned why the owner of the forum tolerated those who would have preferred Rudy prove that he can win in New York before he proffered himself as presidential material.
If you don't know the difference between painting the opposition as shrill or painting them as weenies, then I can't help you. But maybe a dictionary could help you. Try it.
Yours is a truly pathetic attempted display of intellect.