I am beginning to think that Perrywinkes define “religious like fervor” - as anyone who isn’t particularly enthused by being called “heartless” by a RINO.
Just saying.
Perrywinkes, used to regularly say the exact same think about Palin supporters. That we “went on Perry threads to disrupt”. Etc.
Word for word. The talking points remain on the same fax, only the candidate name is changed.
So did all the Palin supporters change religions?
Or are they simply realizing there is someone else on the scene, who believes as they do?
Now. Here we are on a Cain thread. A Cain thread.
Just saying.
Who is disrupting?
It’s not a Cain thread. It’s a thread for discussing Cain’s lack of foreign policy expertise or experience.
Stop disrupting this thread if your only contribution is to use the term Perrywinkle and refuse to acknowledge that Cain has a weakness in a particular area.
The thread's topic is a commentary that criticizes Cain as lacking foreign policy expertise (or even familiarity in some cases). Is there a rule here against agreeing with such commentary? Or pointing out the attendant incivility arising from stating same?
Indeed, given the commentary, this would seem to be an anti-Cain thread. In that case, is only Cain defense permitted?
Or is it "disruptive" to say anything that might antagonize the hypersensitive Cain supporters, including an observation that they ARE readily antagonized?