Republican Gayness

[TwoValveKid]

Originally Posted by bd

You just can't accept the fact that a person is responsible for the stances of the organization if he holds the chairmanship of that group, can you?

I'm sorry I exposed the chairman of your party for what he is. But as I said I don't care if he's gay, I just can't stand hypocrites. If he's gay and he is the front man for the Republican party then he's just another Republican hypocrite. That's easy enough...

But you can't accept the responsibility part.

That's a very Republican trait, so why should anyone be surprised given your self described "unbiased" outlook.

If you had a little credibility I might be concerned about what you thought of my posts. But apparently you have given yourself the credibility you think you deserve now, which is another Republican trait.

Why don't you come out of the closet now jdavionic and admit you are just a mindless Republican shill just like NewXD40fun?

You can't take the criticism of your party and you ignore facts - you fit the bill.

'fess up, it's good for the soul.

Start all over from the beginning, don't pretend to be somerthing you're not and you'll have a much better foundation for your comments.

Look out behind you, TVK is tailgating.

bd

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by bd

You just can't accept the fact that a person is responsible for the stances of the organization if he holds the chairmanship of that group, can you?

Is this your answer? Again, you labeled Ken Melhman a hypocrite. What and when did he make anti-homosexual statements? You can't answer it. Why is that bd? Could it be that you were spoon fed this article, posted it with no thought, and now you're stuck trying to defend it? The answer is obvious. Keep squirming and you'll continue to look foolish.

Originally Posted by bd

Why don't you come out of the closet now jdavionic and admit you are just a mindless Republican shill just like NewXD40fun?

Ahh, personal attacks now. Yet another side step tactic. Answer the question bd. You can't.

Originally Posted by bd

You can't take the criticism of your party and you ignore facts - you fit the bill.

Very bad choice in a reply. Look again -

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Valid criticisms of republicans - handling of Foley, handing of Clinton's impeachment (yeah, he lied under oath about a BJ, was it worth our money to pursue this one?), handling of the Iraq war (why did they allow Bush to change the mission to building a democracy), poor planning for the 2008 presidential campaign (they're essentially handing it to the democrats), poor communication with the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the list goes on and on...

This is not a personal attack, bd. You are simply a liar. I've proven here and have proven it in the past. Anyone who has read my political posts in the past can see that I'm rock steady on my positions and that I defend each one.

But that wasn't the real intent of your remark, was it? The real intent was to fling as much poo as possible and hope something sticks, versus answering the question.

Originally Posted by bd

'fess up, it's good for the soul.

Yes, it is. Give it a shot. You know that your original post was a mistake and undefensible.

Originally Posted by bd

Look out behind you, TVK is tailgating.

Yes, more personal attacks. Shall I post your last feeble attempt at defending an irresponsible post? If so, are you going to fling more poo and personally attack them too? How about Frenchy? You forgot to attack him.

The challenge still stands bd - answer the question below -

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Exactly what and when has Ken said any hateful comments toward homosexuals? Bd, if you can't answer these questions, then it's just another worthless post...

What's your next side step attempt? More personal attacks on me? Try to simply answer the question instead. You can't. What does that mean? Yes, another worthless post.

Try putting some thought into your posts in the future and perhaps you won't look so foolish.

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by eleanor

Golly-gee -- isn't it just possible the debacle in Iraq has kept the focus on Iraq? Didn't your peerless leader, Pres. Bush bring the focus BACK to Iraq just before the election? What have the Dems done to "bastardize The Constitution" in the last 6+ years? All the loss of rights can be put squarely at the Republicans doorstep -- they were the ones with ALL the power.

By the way, what was said about ANYONE who dared question the "
Glorious Policies Of Our Glorious Leader" over the last few years? First the unending drone of -- 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 -- even if it was used to justify the sale of dishsoap (hyperbole - for effect), then the absolute connection of ANYONE who dared disagree with "terrorists", "traitors", "Godless secularists", etc., etc., etc.

Now you begrudge the poor old Democrats even ONE WEEK to gloat -- when you've had six years -- and made full use of them.

Heck, before Bush, Ann Coulter was just an anorexic skank -- it took some mighty strong "rose colored glasses" to turn that refugee from a meth lab into a "Conservative Sex Symbol".

oooooo...jealousy becomes you.


Sorry if our President reminded you that our volunteer troops fighting and dying in battle for our freedom interrupted your schedule...sheesh.





Tom

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

oooooo...jealousy becomes you.


Sorry if our President reminded you that our volunteer troops fighting and dying in battle for our freedom interrupted your schedule...sheesh.





Tom

Our freedom, Tom?...Did the Insurgents invade Arizona while I wasn't looking?

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

oooooo...jealousy becomes you.


Sorry if our President reminded you that our volunteer troops fighting and dying in battle for our freedom interrupted your schedule...sheesh.





Tom

Oh dear -- have I upset you? How have "our volunteer troops ..... interrupted " my "schedule"?

In other words -- how has this turned into a personal attack against me?

And, why?

Because I called it as I see it (isn't supposed "honesty" a trademark of Republicans -- the way you demean all Democratic women)?

After all, so many "honest Republicans" cut and paste, take things out of context, and slander Democrats in the name of politics -- but DARING to tell thr truth about one of your icons, a "journalist", a "pundit" who amounted to less than a hill of beans before being thrust forth by the "vast right-wing conspiracy" (see, we can overstate also) calls for a personal attack ? Along with a snide, topic avoiding reply that somehow, also attacks me without responding to my statements, without dealing with the facts right before your eyes.

To claim I'm "against the troops", or "against our fine boys" because I wrote that Iraq has put everyone's eye on Iraq is rather strange (to say the least).

Please try to stay within the bounds of common decency.

By the way, at my age -- I'm rather amused, bemused, and sad for Ms. Coulter -- who seems to be nothing more than an extension of her handlers, nothing more than a poor researcher who twists data to match her prior conclusions. Some day, she will grow up -- of course, it will only be AFTER she has solidified her financial position, so she can live her own life -- that is, if she can live without all the attention.

[bd]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Is this your answer? Again, you labeled Ken Melhman a hypocrite. What and when did he make anti-homosexual statements? You can't answer it. Why is that bd? Could it be that you were spoon fed this article, posted it with no thought, and now you're stuck trying to defend it? The answer is obvious. Keep squirming and you'll continue to look foolish.

Ahh, personal attacks now. Yet another side step tactic. Answer the question bd. You can't.

Very bad choice in a reply. Look again -
This is not a personal attack, bd. You are simply a liar. I've proven here and have proven it in the past. Anyone who has read my political posts in the past can see that I'm rock steady on my positions and that I defend each one.

But that wasn't the real intent of your remark, was it? The real intent was to fling as much poo as possible and hope something sticks, versus answering the question.

Yes, it is. Give it a shot. You know that your original post was a mistake and undefensible.

Yes, more personal attacks. Shall I post your last feeble attempt at defending an irresponsible post? If so, are you going to fling more poo and personally attack them too? How about Frenchy? You forgot to attack him.

The challenge still stands bd - answer the question below -


What's your next side step attempt? More personal attacks on me? Try to simply answer the question instead. You can't. What does that mean? Yes, another worthless post.

Try putting some thought into your posts in the future and perhaps you won't look so foolish.

What a laugh.

If only you could come up with...Golly Gee bd, I don't think you're right BECAUSE......

Or

According to the research I've done I think you are mistaken BECAUSE.....

But you just continue to ask silly questions with no reason or rhyme. It's not me who looks foolish.

All you do is claim I'm wrong but you do nothing to prove it. Get back to me when you got something to work with instead of because I think so.

You really need to add a little substance to your arguments to be taken seriously.

I said I heard that Mehlman was gay and he's a hypocrite if he's the Chairman of the RNC. Please present facts to disprove that if you can.

I'll be waiting for your answer.



bd

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by bd

If only you could come up with...Golly Gee bd, I don't think you're right BECAUSE......

Or

According to the research I've done I think you are mistaken BECAUSE.....

Trying to turn the tables won't work with me, bd. You made the post. You made the allegation. I didn't. Now you can't support it and your embarrassed. You should be.

Originally Posted by bd

But you just continue to ask silly questions with no reason or rhyme. It's not me who looks foolish.

Silly question. That's only because it's in response to your silly, unsupported post. You made the allegation. Here's the question again, since you're attempting to distract -

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Exactly what and when has Ken said any hateful comments toward homosexuals? Bd, if you can't answer these questions, then it's just another worthless post...

When you throw frivilous allegations out there for affect and you get called on it, you look like a fool. That's the way it goes. I warned you before that I wouldn't tolerate bs posts like this one and your others in the past. You don't like it - well then, try putting some thought into your next post so you can avoid making such ridiculous posts like this one.

If I made an allegation, I will back it up. But this post was all yours my friend. You're on an island. Back it up or shut up. Answer the question or stop with stupid posts.

Let's see your next reply. You've tried personal attacks, and failed. You then tried to turn the tables and ask me to prove a negative case - i.e., like prove to me that John has not said a, b, and c. No, you made the allegation. You claim he's a hypocrite. He must have made anti-homosexual statements to fit that definition, as you've set him up. So let's see them.

[mgeoffriau]

For those of you following at home, the score is currently:

bd: 0
jdavionic: 1,542,685

[Frenchy]

Give up the ghost, bd...ya got your ass royally kicked!

[bd]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Give up the ghost, bd...ya got your ass royally kicked!

I guess ass kickin in Missouri must come a lot easier than it does here in the hills.

If someone wants to dispute what I say I think they need a little something more than their own highly valued opinion. That's the problem around here - too many people confuse their opinions with facts.

When jdavionic beats me with his facts - then I'm licked.

He's not even close - he's swinging at air.

bd