Wuli, I’m sorry you don’t have the tools to grasp this, but I want to know everything that determines the value of the information I review. You can waltz around the subject all you like, but it matters to me who put together the information.
There are people who worked in the Bush White House I consider to be enemies of our nation.
If you think this society is above that sort of thing, you aren’t playing with a full deck.
Now you can refer to me not being honest, or adult like, or toss in any other insult your tiny little mind can come up with, I’m not buying in.
I’ve told you this over and over. It’s not going to change.
I believe I already told you it’s fine with me if you want to buy off on it. So go ahead.
When I know who offered up the information, I’ll consider it.
Until then you can toss all the hissy fits you want.
If a man won’t stand behind what he has aired in public, why should I?
And if I won’t stand behind it until I know who offered it up, I’m not going to bother paying attention to it.
Go away child you bother me,
You are just waltzing around your straight forward inability to independently, on your own, objectively review facts sourced for you - case histories and Kavenaughs comments thereto, commented on and given to you.
You have no argument for the actual material and are incapable of reviewing it on your own. Your single argument is: “I don’t like anonymous”. That, in my book, given the actual material the author presented, is an excuse. I feel very sorry for you.
NOW GO AWAY.