More poison on Che Clinton...big deal it's an email forward

I don't hate my country - and that statement just proves you have your own narrow method of comprehension.

What, from the basis of your rants, do you give? You might be surprised by what I do. At this point, truthfully, our conjecture into what either one of us is is nothing more than conjecture based on political views. Hell, you could be a woman. (Unlikely, but possible before a computer screen).

The ideal "you and others" have established, as you put it, apparently is one of your weak-ass attempts to say that conservatives, and maybe specifically conservatives in a Sunday pew of a conservative-minded church which gives money to the American Family Association, is part of the problem of this country that needs to find another homestead.

Admit it.

 

You claim to love America but clearly can't stand Americans.

I think that's whay Alley was getting at.

 

No, I hate what liberals are doing to America.

The argument gays use against anyone who objects to their platform is no different than what liberals use to describe conservatives.

And you just did it.

 

I just did what?

 

I love how conservatives always say there's a <fill in the blank> agenda being pushed by liberals and how they (the conservatives) are the only thing standing between the America they fantasize about (no gays, no liberals, no one who votes Democrat, no one who has premarital sex, etc.) and utter chaos are the faithful and patriotic Christian-based Republicans who expose all our "sins" and hold us accountable for them.

Never mind that the conservatives have their own agenda to ... not surprisingly ... do away with the very thing many liberals stand for.

You're an agenda-supporting conservative, and using the same claims you've made against others, anyone who disagrees with your stance is "destroying America."


You asked for specifics so I'll give you some...

* You posted a detailed forwarded email message chronicling the "suspicious" deaths of dozens of people supposedly connected to Bill Clinton, and then further implying that he or someone in his administration was impossible. That this list has been debunked as lies and fantasy, you cling to it through your own admission of hatred.

* You claim, in the Outing thread, that you don't hate anyone, yet you say you hate what liberals are doing to our country. What, specifically, are liberals doing to this country, BTW? And are you sure conservatives have no complicity in it at all?

* You have, on more than one occasion, compared Clinton to Putin, a comparison so flawed and ignorant it actually makes people who issue those claims appear more clueless than they already are. You have no legitimate argument, so you resort to that.

* From earlier in this thread...If Rudy wins, will you move to Canada? You know, many famous Dems have promised to do similar things but somehow mustered the will to live in a country run by Republicans. Bless their chickenshit hearts.
Hmm....if they stayed and tried to IMPROVE their country, they're chickenshits. If they fled to Canada, they're not real Americans. You don't leave a whole lot of wiggle room, now, do you. When a Democrat wins in 2008, are you going to be leading the brigade of retreating conservatives who swore to do the EXACT SAME THING in 1992 when Clinton won? And how many outraged conservatives ("I'm moving to Canada if that pot-smoking, wife-cheating Arkansas hick gets elected!") actually followed through to get the hell out when Slick Willy won?

* You also claim, in another thread, that Howard Dean was the "heavy favorite by one point." Uhm, a one-point lead doesn't make anyone a heavy favorite. Did you go to the Reaganomics School?

* You claim posting here is a good Republican business practice. WTF?

I could go on and on, but there's really no point.

 

That's right Alley. You could, but what's the point? You're the expert on everything.

 

Once again, when faced with an argument you can't fight, this is the best to which you can resort. No class. No clue. No worries.

 

Gee, the royalties on "I know you are but what am I?" must cost too much.
Another salvo, Left'enant, she's headed to the bottom.

 

I think Sean Hannity, just as an example, has a retort for everything you threw out there to munch on. Since you disagree with him, I think the debate becomes pointless, except to occasionally peek in and call you the nitwits you are.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Yawn has finally weighed in with his true colors:

That's right.

Sean Hannity is the ultimate arbiter in his world. If you disagree with him, what's the point in speaking? You're a nitwit.

 

And so you label Hannity as a boob.

Which shows your colors.

God, how does the man get the ratings he has? Bunch of idiots out there for sure, right Zekie?

 

I think Sean Hannity is a dolt with a microphone who would weep like a child in an actual debate in which he was held to account by a modertator, but who has shown himself gifted at stirring up mouthbreathers on the radio. And, yes, that's exactly how he gets ratings. There are people who will believe anything.
Which brings us around neatly to the original point -- what was the purpose in posting an ancient Internet slanderfest that has been debunked on every single point since about 1998? Were you attempting to pass along information in which you sincerely believe? Or was it just flinging stuff around the cage to see what sticks to the wall?