Posted on 01/25/2010 7:01:47 PM PST by DB9
You two were pinging me together so maybe I confused you with your teammate. Are you the Bush-bot? Didn’t you jump in on a neocon point?
If you want substantial replies you need to make substantial posts.
True. Hardly a compelling argument. Especially in cases where
no evidence of support for Paul or Romney exists.
It's been done to me and I just have to laugh at the absurdity.
Paul is a nut with his "Reagan sucked" and "9-11 was an inside job" crap.
I laugh even harder when accused of Romney support. I've yet to
come up with an acceptable way to explain that I am an anti-Mormon
bigot who makes fun of Romney's magical underpants. But I'll keep trying.
Then a few of them are outright creepy in how they've made Palin the center of their universe.
Also true. I pointed this out months ago and got slammed for it.
By you yourself, if I remember correctly! ;-)
I'm sure Mrs Palin appreciates the great majority of those supporting her, and winces at the thought of some.
No doubt. I'm sure she does not want blind worshipers.
Also of note is the oh-so-sly "Who do YOU support" tactic.
I'll usually ask for a list of who is running, that I might choose one.
Ain't seen it yet.
I asked you a question yesterday, straight forward, and non threatening, that you would never answer, never deal with.
You're unable to defend yourself in any way, so you blame this on your own confusion...........
*Ponders*
You tore yourself a new one yesterday with your evasions, non answers, and general silliness. Until you go back to the source of your problems (aka YOU!), until you can have a reasonable discussion (go back to my question about your post 61), you're just a nut job.
This is what I posted in #61. What about this is not obvious? You were asking me over and over about 'lies about wars' which I never posted.
I await your answer.
You mean this post? :”Ron Paul's importance is he exposes the neo-con’s lies about wars and massive welfare being free. That is where I agree with him. Neo-con’s bankrupted the country and called the debt ‘economic growth’.” at #61 and repeated at #124
I'm going back to square one. I'm going to try to allow you to explain your quote to me. My original question was what are the neo-con lies about wars? It was simple, direct, non-threatening, and came with no strings attached.
You never answered.
Are you asking me about my post in #61 copied here again or another reply? :” Ron Paul’s importance is he exposes the neo-con’s lies about wars and massive welfare being free. That is where I agree with him. Neo-con’s bankrupted the country and called the debt ‘economic growth’. ” at #61 and repeated at #124 and #127
You're not going to answer are you?
I want to make sure I am answering your question. Sometimes you post that you want me to explain something I said in #61 (’...he exposes the neo-con’s lies about wars and massive welfare being free.’ from #61), other times you ask me about something different than what I posted : “Lies about wars”. I have no comments about the second phrase “lies about wars”, Did you have a question on what I did post above?
I've tried really hard to be patient. I've given you multiple chances to explain yourself. Since you're not trying, I have to come to the conclusion you can't, or Rb miller was right when he said you were a nut job.
If you want to continue to evade, or not answer, that's fine, but you won't get any slack from me for deciding what will be fairly obvious about you as a poster.
I have asked you specifically to clarify your question before I post a response. Is it about #61 :’...he exposes the neo-con’s lies about wars and massive welfare being free.’?? or something else I posted?
I expect nothing but lies and more lies from The Great Pretender tonight.
It was the first half of your sentence, you can do the whole sentence if you wish, but then take some time and break down specifically what are the neocon lies about wars he (Ron Paul) exposes.
Only explain the first half of a sentence? That makes sense to you? There is a reason they teach complete sentences in school.
Example :”You are evading my question.”
So Explain :”You are ...” or “..my question.”
But don’t explain: ‘you are evading my question.’
I'll cross out the first part for you since you can't read.
It was the first half of your sentence, you can do the whole sentence if you wish, but then take some time and break down specifically what are the neocon lies about wars he (Ron Paul) exposes.
I don't expect you to answer, and if you can't, my obervations about you are confirmed once again.
RE :” but then take some time and break down specifically what are the neocon lies about wars he (Ron Paul) exposes’
The sentence clearly says “exposes neocon lies about .... being free”.
The lies are about some things ‘being free’. Not lies about ‘things’.
Was there anything else?
You evade, you avoid. Very Clintonian and very dishonest.
Buh bye nut job. You deserve all the derision you get.
So are you finally satisfied with the answer? The neocons lied about those things listed being free. Anything else?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.