If you basically agree with me, then why did you start, what amounts to, a mini flame war? That is the mark of a craven troublemaker!
What part of the above in bold I'm-going-to-correct-that-false-claim don't you understand. That means that I don't agree with you. That means that I think that you are saying something that is wrong and that I'm going to correct it. That doesn't mean that we "basically agree" and it doesn't mean that I'm arguing for the sake of arguing.
Do you actually have a problem with that? Do you actually think that is being augmentative? LOL! How absurd.
Maybe you just don't get things.
That's the mark of a dunce.
Right. I see you're as confused as you've ever been. We have a history that goes back years and years. Through all that time, you haven't changed, you haven't grown. Here we are, common ground exists between us, yet you want to ignore it. That serves no good purpose.
>>>>I said way back on my first post of this thread that Rudy has an abortion, 2A and illegal immigration problem.
So let me get this right. We're not in basic agreement that Rudy is wrong on abortion, 2nd amendment and illegal immigration? Even though our rhetoric is in agreement. Okay.
You said:
"That doesn't mean that we "basically agree" and it doesn't mean that I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. Do you actually have a problem with that? Do you actually think that is being augmentative?
Yeah, I think that is being purposely argumentative and your contradictory remarks show signs of a serious language or comprehension problem on your part. Now you've backed your self into a corner. What's next?
There are many subjects/topics contained on my list of major social issues that could be debated. You want to boil them down to three issues and ignore all the rest. Kind of leaves you standing around with no way out. And looking real foolish to boot. It'll be interesting to see how you extricate yourself from this dilemma. I'll enjoy watching. Carry on.