“It is if you’re consistently disingenuous”
But your quoting me didn’t prove that in all instances I was being disingenuous, just that I’ve been consistent. Which, if anything, would indicate, though not prove, I was telling the truth (or what I thought was the truth). It would be an awful lot of work to tell the same lies over four years, except if it was what I actually believe.
“Not that I know of. Why is it that you presume you are?”
Duh, because you had four year old posts at hand, and seemed to pretty quickly identify me as telling the same tale over a period of time. Which wouldn’t mean I was on a list, only that you happened to remember me and/or looked me up in the meantime and rest assured I hadn’t been floating back and forth. Either way, it is a paranoid outlook: to keep track of who argues against you and throw quotes back in their face demonstrating that they are against you as if it proves anything more than what they ought readily to know.
@"by Tublecane" site:freerepublic.com
@"by Tublecane" "natural born citizen" site:freerepublic.com
@"by Tublecane" "presidential eligibility" site:freerepublic.com
Change a few keywords and...
@"by Tublecane" "global warming" site:freerepublic.com
@"by Tublecane" "gun control" site:freerepublic.com
@"by Tublecane" "abortion" site:freerepublic.com
Seems that you're the paranoid one.