Contact these turncoats...

[Gunny]

I didn't make the allegation. I merely said that those who insist that we must march in lockstep behind the president, offering him unconditional support, are, in effect, saying that a totalitarian regime is precisely what they want for this country. The posts here are evidence of that sentiment.

Where's this "we" shit? The initial posts points to Republicans who crossed party lines as traitors to their party. One of you Einstein-types have read from that ALL people who don't support the President unconditionally are traitors.

Looks more like a problem of comprehension than loyalty, IMO.

In the meantime, I'm doing my best to demoralize our troops by sewing qults for wounded soldiers. What are you doing for them?

Since you want to compare penis sizes, let's see ... I used to be one of them, then I lead them. Gave every minute of twenty to years to them. I have offered to go back on active duty at any point in time the Corps thinks they need me. When they get down to retirees with screwed up knees, I'm sure I'll be a shoe-in ... the aforementioned knees just being one of those little sacrifices made.

Not to get too far into playing your little game, I think it is commendable that you make quilts for troops. However, being able to put myself in their shoes, I'd much rather know that you were supporting my mission.

[jillian]

Where's this "we" shit? The initial posts points to Republicans who crossed party lines as traitors to their party. One of you Einstein-types have read from that ALL people who don't support the President unconditionally are traitors.

Looks more like a problem of comprehension than loyalty, IMO

OK, I'll have a go... the initial post does, in fact, call Republicans who acted in a bi-partisan manner to express their disapproval "traitors".

How could one not extrapolate from that that the view of the poster, at least, is that anyone who doesn't support Bush's agenda is a traitor?

Or does it only apply to Republicans who are supposed to march in lockstep?

Maybe you can clarify?

[Grumplestillskin]

What? Show me. I have no problem with you showing me, I will address your posts, but show me.

I addressed you in post 74. Your next post to me was the "attack, attack" rant. You've hardly said anything of substance since, other than rant against me for taking exception to being insulted.

[OCA]

Holy hell Chump, a bunch of folks got you figured out early tonight and are all over you like a cheap suit, maybe you ought to logoff before you bleed out.

[OCA]

I addressed you in post 74. Your next post to me was the "attack, attack" rant. You've hardly said anything of substance since, other than rant against me for taking exception to being insulted.

Chump maybe you ought to bulk up on that rice paper you call skin, your awfully touchy tonight. Nobody has even begun to bring out the big flames tonight. Quit your fucking crying, cowboy up or get the fuck out!

[Grumplestillskin]

Your response had nothing even remotely to do with anything I said. Must you interject things I neither said nor implied to avoid the continuation of the discussion?

This is the problem when you have very short answers. You said in the previous post to my answer that "this is what George Bush has been tryin to do" _(MY paraphrase). So instead of going indepth into it, you left it like that. So I took the next step and asked if you saw it that simply. Of course it had something to do with what you said. I wouldn't have said it otherwise. If you don't want me to interject things, then make a substansive post - put more meat in.

[Grumplestillskin]

Chump maybe you ought to bulk up on that rice paper you call skin, your awfully touchy tonight. Nobody has even begun to bring out the big flames tonight. Quit your fucking crying, cowboy up or get the fuck out!

Not touchy at all. Giving as good as I get. BTW, I'm in a happy mood...You, on the hand, seem a bit more grumpier than usual. You wanna borrow my name for a while?

[Yurt]

I addressed you in post 74. Your next post to me was the "attack, attack" rant. You've hardly said anything of substance since, other than rant against me for taking exception to being insulted.

So what re the Koran? Big deal. Christians are also told by their bible to prothylise and does every Christian do that? Does every Christian kill homos like Leviticus tells them to? Do you think every Muslim follows it to the letter and gives a toss? You don't think the vast majority of them are just like you and I trying to make their way in the world - getting food, shelter etc? Yours is nothing but an Alarmist's view of the world...Carry on tripping over your imagination and stay inside - the sky IS falling...

Again, you can't simply update the thread. You accuse me of attacking and nothing more, yet, you do nothing to refute my posts. You smugly say "nothing of substance" Ooooooh, big words.

What I posted about the Quran canNOT be found the Bible. You NEVER refuted my link to the muslims who believe it is Allahs destiny that they take over the world. Instead you avoid the subject with stuff about christianity.

Answer the post. Don't play games, just answer the post. It is really that simple.

[Dilloduck]

This is the problem when you have very short answers. You said in the previous post to my answer that "this is what George Bush has been tryin to do" _(MY paraphrase). So instead of going indepth into it, you left it like that. So I took the next step and asked if you saw it that simply. Of course it had something to do with what you said. I wouldn't have said it otherwise. If you don't want me to interject things, then make a substansive post - put more meat in.

wrong---you didn't just ask me if "I saw it that simply". There's no problem with short answers. There IS a problem when you try to assume what my next step will be. I'm not going to bother spending a bunch of time on a long post to someone bent on misunderstanding it.

[Grumplestillskin]

You accuse me of attacking and nothing more, yet, you do nothing to refute my posts. You smugly say "nothing of substance" Ooooooh, big words.

Why would I refute posts, that since post 74 have been nothing but a rant against me? What is there to refute?

What I posted about the Quran canNOT be found the Bible. You NEVER refuted my link to the muslims who believe it is Allahs destiny that they take over the world. Instead you avoid the subject with stuff about christianit.

I did refute it. I do refute it. I've visiting a couple of Mulsim countries. The average Joe was fine. Couldn't give a shit about the rest of the world. Just making their way like the rest of us. I haven't avoided a thing...

[Grumplestillskin]

wrong---you didn't just ask me if "I saw it that simply". There's no problem with short answers. There IS a problem when you try to assume what my next step will be. I'm not going to bother spending a bunch of time on a long post to someone bent on misunderstanding it.

That's exactly what I asked you. Instead of saying "No, it is not that simple, for this reason etc, etc, etc" you decided to patronise. Your posts are relatively easy to understand, but you also leave a lot out so it's hard to get the gist of where you are going. As for not spending time on a long post, fine. Our convo is over. I got better things to do that try and debate somebody who is either being deliberately obtuse, or just ain't up to it. Ciao..

[Dilloduck]

That's exactly what I asked you. Instead of saying "No, it is not that simple, for this reason etc, etc, etc" you decided to patronise. Your posts are relatively easy to understand, but you also leave a lot out so it's hard to get the gist of where you are going. As for not spending time on a long post, fine. Our convo is over. I got better things to do that try and debate somebody who is either being deliberately obtuse, or just ain't up to it. Ciao..

wrong again---here is EXACTLY what you said to me.

You think it's that simple huh?

Better run over and ask Jilly for some pointers---oh wait---she ain't doing all that great right now either.

[Grumplestillskin]

wrong again---here is EXACTLY what you said to me.



Better run over and ask Jilly for some pointers---oh wait---she ain't doing all that great right now either.

I don't need any pointers Dillo. They mean the same thing, and if you think they don't that's on you. If you wanna play semantics, I DEFINITELY don't have the wherewithal or time. I note how you ignored this aspect of my post:
"No, it is not that simple, for this reason etc, etc, etc"
If somebody needs a hand around here, it ain't me...

[Dilloduck]

I don't need any pointers Dillo. They mean the same thing, and if you think they don't that's on you. If you wanna play semantics, I DEFINITELY don't have the wherewithal or time. I note how you ignored this aspect of my post:
"No, it is not that simple, for this reason etc, etc, etc"
If somebody needs a hand around here, it ain't me...

Don't play stupid- you added "huh" on the end of an allegedly honest question for a purpose---to challenge. Try honest questioning and answering. I find it gets me much further into the discussion and avoids cycling into silly name calling and offense taking.

[Grumplestillskin]

Don't play stupid- you added "huh" on the end of an allegedly honest question for a purpose---to challenge. Try honest questioning and answering. I find it gets me much further into the discussion and avoids cycling into silly name calling and offense taking.

That "huh" was just a shoulder shrugging "huh" not a accusatory one. Sorry you took it that way. Wasn't meant that way. I'm pretty relaxed today Dillo...just jawing until you and Yurt started....that's the problem with messageboards, you can't tell the inflection in somebody's typing...