Thanks. At least there is a new tactic today, quoting Bible for put downs.
I guess that’s better than being called stupid, ignorant, BHO troll, democrat troll, mentally unbalanced, or insane and the other dozen things the last few weeks directed at those not supporting Romney the liberal.
Oh, well.
I might actually be offended if your opinion meant anything to me.
Thanks. At least there is a new tactic today, quoting Bible for put downs.
I guess that’s better than being called stupid, ignorant, BHO troll, democrat troll, mentally unbalanced, or insane and the other dozen things the last few weeks directed at those not supporting Romney the liberal.
Oh, well.
I might actually be offended if your opinion meant anything to me.
*************************************************************
I’m glad that you’ve reached the point where my opinion doesn’t mean anything to you. But you do remember that it was you who responded (post 256) to my post (#248) with a question.
My point in post 248 was simply that if we have a CONSERVATIVE Republican Congress in 2013 (which I fully expect and am working toward) I didn’t expect their legislation to face Romney vetoes but that if Obama were reelected we could expect many vetoes from an unshackled Obama not having to worry about reelection.
Your question (post 256) was how did I know Romney wouldn’t be vetoing legislation from the Republican congress. I responded to your question (which, I admit, I personally thought to be rather silly) in post 286. And subsequent posts were made ending with you implying that I’m part of some group directing insults at anyone not supporting “Romney the liberal”. If you check the totality of my posting history (and if you’re honest with yourself) you’ll see that I have been anything but a Romney supporter.
I apologize if I apparently inadvertently rubbed you the wrong way today.