Your idiotic remark is precisely incorrect, in whole and in part. Not one syllable of your odd blabbery is true and those who can follow a discussion path know it.
However, your Inspector Clouseau role of rattling through older posts for evidence was hilarious. A little embarrassing for me was to see one of my more ridiculously verbose ones.
You’re always good for a laugh, though.
Above is from your 2511,it's a brilliant comment that everyone should understand. I didn't have any problems with the rest of the post either.
As for the 80% I don't know how that will be quantified but it seems a bit lofty to me.
There are a lot of pundits out there. Not everyone likes all of them. For me I take several of them compile their opinions and go from there.
My guess would be we need the President to return and soon. But than again as I said before it is a historic move and I don't have to make it. So it is up to DJT and the military not me.
Rita, just own your posts, or agree that you were taken in by JOS.
Don’t keep using his dates or percentages as if they are hard-wired, because they aren’t.
Your over-the-top reaction to my post is entirely uncalled for, not surprising, but, uncalled for.
RitaOK wrote: |
Your idiotic remark is precisely incorrect, in whole and in part. Not one syllable of your odd blabbery is true and those who can follow a discussion path know it. However, your Inspector Clouseau role of rattling through older posts for evidence was hilarious. A little embarrassing for me was to see one of my more ridiculously verbose ones. You’re always good for a laugh, though. |
I don't see why you'd be posting to LS Aggie on the Q thread the same abusve remarks trolls post to me in the forum (e.g., "idiotic remark" "not one syllable of your odd blabbery is true..."). At the link, you quote Juan O Savin's 80%, just as LS Aggie said.
Do you feel you've 'outgrown' the Q thread? Time to move to the forum, perhaps?