Jeez man, take a step back and re-read your posts. You are now asking three people who disagree with you to argue your side for you.
Seriously?
Smiling dipshit has been a screaming cowardly moron for years. You think he’s going to change now?
-Joe
My dog makes the same face when we catch her eating out of the catbox.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but this doesn’t make any logical sense, SA.
And please. Obviously you got something you want to say, so just be out with it.
No, I’m asking no such thing. I’m asking if they (you) have the logical ability and intellectual honesty ferret out and voice a very obvious fact despite the liberal bias that is currently blinding them (and you) to it.
In fact, I’ve been thinking about starting a thread on the subject because the question and its answer speaks to a larger truth about how the liberal mindset is not only blinding you three to the answer but Eric Holder and Barack Obama as well (and both of whom should certainly know better).
Have you been following the thread since I picked it back up in response to the disingenuous post Euphonious Polemic made in which I was to copy and paste an apology to Alienhand for setting me straight on this issue?
In response, I said that Alienhand’s cite did not disprove my point and I asked both EP and Fear Itself (who had joined in by that time) if they could figure out why on their own or whether they wanted me to explain it to them.
Neither tried to figure it out on their own.
And they both indicated they did not want me to explain it to them.
So here we are.
All in good time. But I really would like to see if someone here (or in the other thread I’m thinking about starting) could manage to figure it out for themselves.
I’m thinking of starting a thread that explores whether Starkers still beats his wife.
Yes I am cognizant of the turn of events above. I was merely trying to point out that:
=>condenses to “If I’m so faulty, then it must be easy to see why I’m right.”
Anyway, no matter.
Hmmm. Does it have anything to do with basketball?
I personally blame it on the fact that society was totally screwed up before 1967, and has been improving ever since.
In going back over the more recent posts, I can see how it could appear that way.
But remember, I’m asking if my adversaries can recognize a perfectly obvious truth. It isn’t a matter of who’s right; it’s a matter of correctly analyzing the situation and coming up with the correct answer. They imply with their insults that their way of approaching things is vastly superior to mine, thus my position is that they should be able to come up with the answer without my help.
Still, I had previously offered to explain myself. I was met either with more insults to my credibility or with bald-faced requests that I not do so.
And on preview, you might note another substance free nah-yah, nah-yah attempt at defense-by-insult has been posted by Euphonious Polemic just above.
Oh my god. We can’t figure out your point about how the cite doesn’t prove anything. We’re not mind readers, and we aren’t dumb enough to put your 2 and 2 together to make 5, which is apparently what you are doing. Your answer is going to be dumb, and it’s going to be irrelevant. If you think you have something, trot it out or shut the fuck up.
And for the love of all that’s holy, do you think you are Blofeld, sitting there biding your time to spring your newest doomsday device on all the people who laughed at you?
NO ONE HAS ANY FUCKING IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE YOU’VE BEEN PROVEN WRONG ON EVERY POINT YOU’VE MADE IN THIS THREAD SO FAR. Capiche?
You don’t have to be mind readers. You should be able to figure it out on your own. (And you would, if you weren’t trapped by your liberal way of thinking.)
ETA: Still, this is starting to become silly. I will either explain myself here later this evening or start another thread then to discuss it in a more big-picure sense.
Please keep going with this. Every one of your posts about your big secret are doing nothing more than building up the anticipation of your revelation. And when you finally get around to whipping it out, it will be just that much more satisfying when you submit it for our approval.
Satisfying in the sense that it will just make whatever dipshittery you have in mind even more of an anticlimax.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Starting?
No one will take SA seriously, so he needs others to argue his points for him. Since those three have made good arguments, he has selected them, in hopes that the arguments they might make in support of his position will be as good as the arguments they made against his position.
That, or SA is just plain stupid. Take your pick.
No, they selected me. I’ve been staying out of this thread (and most threads) the last few days. Euphonious Polemic, probably figuring I was gone and wouldn’t see it anyway, posted a stupid apology for me to make to Alienhand in return for his having supposedly shown me the error of my ways with regard to trying foreign terrorists and enemy combatants in U.S. courts. Alienhand allegedly accomplished this by citing the case of Ramzi Yousef, who was captured in Pakistan and tried in the U.S. for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In lieu of my previous statements, which Alienhand alleged were disproven by Yousef’s case, I noted that they weren’t the same thing at all and asked my adversaries if they had the intelligence and honesty to figure that out for themselves, or whether they’d like me to explain it to them. Their response was to claim I had no credibility (among other insults) in the first place, and then they amusingly and tellingly asked that I not explain it in the second place.
So I didn’t, and watched them twist in the wind as they backed away from the issue, and I laughed as I saw them reduced to half-heartedly hurling lame insults my way while simultaneously avoiding the question of why Yousef’s case was or wasn’t probative with regard to trying Gitmo prisioners in U.S. courts.
So you see, they not only haven’t made ‘good arguments’ as you allege, they haven’t made any arguments.
And that, I take it, is your argument in favor of the Ramzi Yousef case?
Of course! Its so obvious, you guys just have to connect the dots! Ramzi Yousef is Eleanor Roosevelt!
All I can figure is that it must have something to do with Clinton’s blowjob.
Edit to add, and hippies.