Now it has moved on to calling Amelia in favor of mass murder. It is the kind of people who defend Larry Klayman.
If that is the kind of people you like to associate with, fine and dandy. You belittle any credibility you have left.
And in case you're too dense to see, BAC doesn't NEED any antagonizing to drag out those tired and worn macros filled with lies, distortions and inneundos. It moves from thread to thread, trying to work its theory into any converstion. Why? Because that is its WHOLE LIFE.
I am NOT on trial here; it is NOT my duty to explain remarks I never made. DUH.
Sure whatever you say Howlin/
"If that is the kind of people you like to associate with, fine and dandy. You belittle any credibility you have left."
I have no problem with associating myself with either BeAChooser or ChaseR; these two are truly fine American patriots. Plus, you never considered me to have any credibility in the first place, so I guess that I have nothing to lose when it comes to you anyway.
"And in case you're too dense to see, BAC doesn't NEED any antagonizing to drag out those tired and worn macros filled with lies, distortions and inneundos. It moves from thread to thread, trying to work its theory into any converstion. Why? Because that is its WHOLE LIFE."
You antagonize BeAChooser just by referring to him as at "it."
"I am NOT on trial here; it is NOT my duty to explain remarks I never made. DUH."
No, you are not on trial, but you are posting on a public forum, which gives anyone the right to reply to your posts. And you are correct in saying that you don't have to respond to BeAChooser if you wish not to, but it would make you appear to be an honest debater at least.
But your credibility is. Tell us who or what convinced you that Ron Brown was not murdered. It certainly wasn't the government's expert pathologists because even the one who did the examination now says the wound looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied. It certainly wasn't Ken Starr, was it? So was it some article in those left-wing rags you cited in a recent thread in order to smear Klayman? Is that your source of information in the Brown case? We are all eager to hear what sources a "conservative" like yourself uses to dismiss the allegations in the Brown matter. And for that matter, we'd like to know how you arrived at the conclusion that Chinagate, Filegate and the like were "investigated" and found to be about "nothing". We are just curious why you so carefully avoid discussions of fact in the matters pertaining to the crimes that Clinton and his associates committed and instead rely on an "exact" wording defense to shield yourself from questions about your INTENT ... like Clinton did.