And which party has done more of that in the past 40 years?
Why do you insist that I too must make up imaginary shit that we have no way of verifying? Is it because it’s lonely being a deluded nutjob?
I’ll bite. How exactly would McCain be a break from the past?
Some stay dry and others feel the pain.*
*leans away from the mic so he can breathe
McCain before his makeup.
Trick question, the answer is both!
Sorry to request that you think. That if you had such a strong opinion of what someone else came up with that you might have an opinion yourself. I see now it was just kneejerk defense on your part. Understood.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that “thinking” means “making shit up”. In that light, your OP isn’t as stupid as it looks on its face.
In my world, “having an opinion” doesn’t mean “concocting bullshit”. You’re welcome to yours.
That just doesn’t make sense to me. Reread the quote. He’s telling them to be careful, because he doesn’t find it acceptable. So it’s not as if Karma will be making the payback. It might be that he’ll retaliate in kind. And if McCain’s wife utters such stupidity while sucking up the limelight, he should.
The particular inference you allude to is not one I drew. I agree it is a stretch. But he must have meant “something”.
Serpentine, Shel. Serpentine!
McCain
SNL May 17
HDTV
shudders
She might not have to say a word. All that would be needed is a timely leak of her tax returns, showing that she got huge deductions while making millions from a secret corporation that turns unwanted puppies into pancake makeup.
Pair that with Michelle Obama’s posing nude for the Daily Worker centerfold, and you’ve got the makings of scandals that will overshadow energy independence, health care, the Iraq War, national debt etc.
Which is as it should be. Have at it, 527s!
Wow, that’s some pretty rigorous analysis you’ve got there. Exactly the sort of in-depth understanding that warrants a call for Obama to “get the fuck over yourself.”
I think the idea is to keep attributed quotes as nothing but strict reproductions of what others have posted. As long as the quote box says “Poster A said X and Y” we don’t want there to be any possible confusion (even to a casual reader or latecomer to a thread) over whether or not he/she actually said Z as well, or if another poster just thinks X and Y imply Z and added Z to the quote to make a point.
As Cheesesteak points out, removing the attribution (or changing it to a description of what you did) is an easy way to alter a quote for effect without running afoul of this rule.
Too funny! 
Guess he was right after all.
Oh give me a fucking break. The man postured and delivered an empty threat, telling them to be “careful”, because he doesn’t find it acceptable. In my book that equals pompous ass. Seems that he might be beginning to think he’s as much a demigod as a lot of his followers do.
Yeah, I didn’t think what I did ran that risk, but it’s easy enough to avoid in the future. It won’t happen again. Thanks for the fuller explanation though.
“Without our persecution complex our lives would be as shaky as a cat on a hot tin roof…”. Actually, gays can “marry” in any church that will let them, it’s the legal benefits they lack, so I’m pretty much with you- call it “shacking up queerstyle” as long as it comes with spousal rights and I’m happy.
Just because he stood up for his wife? Bullshit.
I was going to leave the matter alone, but you seem to be saying that all you did was bold some things I said. You in fact added things that I didn’t say. Your apology would be more meaningful if you apologized for what you actually did.
I’m all for someone standing up for his wife, but the way he did it, with a vague, empty threat, makes him look like an idiot. Obviously, YMV.