Replies

I started to read and thought to myself, oh, he's finally being clear, but the more I read, the more you dance and shuffle like a minstrel.

If you had stopped with, It was not my intent to head in that direction., you would have shown good character.

But no, you had to claim He actually preferred to lie, even though several others thought you were saying the same thing. It wasn't just me blue boy. Nor did I lie. I really thought you were going there, and suspect you still were from what you eventually said in your latest too obtuse reply.

All one has to do is read about what McCain has been up to for nearly his whole life, to know he is unfit to hold public office. Endorse him? I don't think there are more than twenty people on this forum who would endorse him, because they recognize what a scumbag he is. And yet, it doesn't matter to these same people that someone they want to lead them would.

Either she fully comprehends what McCain is and agrees with him, or she has no idea what he stands for, how despicable it is, and why she should oppose him. Which of these two traits convinces you she is fit to lead us?

At any rate, I wish you had stopped at that first sentence, but your Freudian slip appears to be showing.

If I'm wrong, just stop at the first sentence like you should have. If I'm right, give us another obtuse, and confusing reply.

I started to read and thought to myself, oh, he's finally being clear, but the more I read, the more you dance and shuffle like a minstrel. LakeSnark, a clear pattern has developed here. You claim you don't understand what I have posted. You claim that I dance and shuffle like a minstrel. You lie about what I have said. All indications are that you are an illiterate liar. By this point in our discussion, it's hard to believe otherwise.

If you had stopped with, It was not my intent to head in that direction., you would have shown good character. This coming from a guy who has lied about what I have said at least twice here. You have been called on it. You have been proven wrong. You still refuse to man up and apologize. You're not even coherent enough to realize how you come off. You made at least six attempts to get me to explain the meaning of a very simple question, rather than answer yes or no. During that process you insisted that I was calling Palin a traitor to the Conservative cause. It was a question. It was not a declaritive statement. It did not infer anything other than that Palin had actually supported a broadly recognized traitor to our cause, John McCain.
<> But no, you had to claim He actually preferred to lie, even though several others thought you were saying the same thing. I haven't mentioned this point yet. I've let you flap your gums to your hearts content about other unnamed people who agree with you. I could state that others have expressed agreement with me. What difference would it make? If you said the moon appeared aqua blue, it still wouldn't make it aqua blue. If you said every other person on the planet agreed with you, it still wouldn't make the moon aqua blue.

Here is the question again: Is it okay to support a traitor to our cause? Yes or no. LINK

Where in the Sam Hell did you get the idea that was calling Palin a traitor. We had been talking about Palin support for McCain at length. All of a sudden you veer off course and attribute this to my saying Palin is a traitor to our cause. There are only two options here. Either you're a moronic simpleton, or you're a manipulative liar. Which is it? You seem to be trying to build the case for the moronic simpleton vote, so I'm going to have to go with that at least in part. At the same time, this question was so simple, a person with an I.Q. of 90 could answer it. So I am also faced with the reality that you are a manipulative liar as well. You've certainly covered all the bases here.

It wasn't just me blue boy. Nor did I lie. I really thought you were going there, and suspect you still were from what you eventually said in your latest too obtuse reply. Too obtuse reply? Why do you participate here if you're too illiterate to read and comprehend what is posted here?

As for the 'blue boy' comment, I give you the respect of posting your comments in light gray, and address the points you have raised directly in blue. Does that merit you belittling me for doing it? On every count, you continue to show yourself up for the illiterate liar and gutter-snipe that you are. You're burying yourself here. Why?

Here's the money quotes: Now Rabscuttle385 comes along and states the obvious. I wasn't going to go there, but frankly, I fail to see a valid objection to what he stated. When you get right down to it, if you back someone who is a traitor to our cause, you're either completely uninformed, or you agree with them and have tarnished your own reputation so soundly, that the only impression left is a very ugly one. For once we agree. That was the money quote. I know you're too much of a simpleton to understand why, you've made that abundantly clear, but it actually does address the core of the problem.

Now I know you said some other things, but it's clear to anyone reading your screeds you really want to say what ~~Rabadash~~ said, that you really deep down believe she's a traitor because she endorsed McCain, that you step to the edge of saying it, but then pull back because you know you won't stay on this forum if you actually, you know, say it. Is Rabscuttle385 still here? Yes. So much for your comment that people who say such things will be kicked off the forum. I have a slightly different take on it, but I don't think his reasoning is flawed at all. He is a citizen who has the right to express his thoughts here as much as anyone else. For heaven's sake, he is quoting Palin's own comments.

Look at what I wrote in that last paragraph. It reveals precisely what my thoughts on this issue are. None the less, you in all your glory (as if), have devined what I really think, even though I laid it out as simply as I could. Once again, you have evidenced yourself incapable of reading and comprehending what you have read.

At any rate, I wish you had stopped at that first sentence,... I'm sure you do. Anything longer than one sentence is just too taxing for you. Anything that doesn't confirm your wildest fantacies, is beyond your comprehension. And make no mistake about it, our discussion here has been necessary because you couldn't understand the simplest of concepts. Is it wrong to support bad people?

To this point, you still don't know. To this point, it's just too hard of a question for you to contemplate and come up with a coherant response on point. I am to believe, that yes or no, is just too complex or difficult a response for you to provide.

...but your Freudian slip appears to be showing. Ah yes, if you can't cope, if you can't read and comprehend the thoughts expressed, it has to be someone elses fault. Bud, seek help.

You are expressing a complete inability to recognize right from wrong, and oppose the wrong.
If I'm wrong, just stop at the first sentence like you should have. Why should I have stopped at one sentence? Not only do I have to agree with you or you'll lie about what I have said, but I have to respond in the exact format and length of statement you demand. Does that sound rational to you? Which forum posting rule-book are you quoting from here? Should have? Are you nuts? Let me correct that. I am sorry you are nuts.

If I'm right, give us another obtuse, and confusing reply. I am writing responses in English. I am expressing fairly simple concepts. It amazes me how this puts too much stress on you. It amazes me how you seem to want to advance the theory that you are incapable of comprehending what is presented to you.

Is that so you'll have an out if pressed? "Oh, I'm just too stupid to be responsible for what I have said?" So far that's exactly what you are claiming.

FAIL!