“Duros62″: “If there is a one percent chance that Kansas poses a threat to the United States, then there can be no other choice.”

By Republican rules it probably means we’ll have to invade Ohio also, since they had nothing to do with it.

CSS: I’m asking you to restate what the GOP was saying in your own words, …

…because there seems to be some confusion on what you think it means.

And there you have it. C.S.Strowbridge, illiterate asshole to the extreme, has the audacity to tell me I have poor reading comprehension.

Sean D. Martin: “Yeah, sigh. But that’s okay. I’ve dealt with people who have Tourettes before.”

And I’ve dealt with lying fucks before.

I’ve dealt with those who having legitimate learning difficulties before.

I’ve dealt with little assholes like you before.

I’ve dealt with people who speak on topics they don’t know about, and who then refuse to defend their statements before.

I rather have idiots like you say I have Tourettes than being a lying, ignorant, retard like you.

As an example…

I said to you, ‘So you are allowed to speculate without evidence, but I can’t call for an investigation of a parent who calls their kid Adolf Hilter?’

And you thought I was saying you can’t speculate without evidence.

Seriously. That’s what you thought I said.

THAT’S A SIGN OF SERIOUS READING COMPREHENSION PROBLEM.

Yet instead of standing up and defending yourself in the “Paul McKim v. Nasser Kazeminy” lawsuit, you instead are lashing out at me saying I have Tourettes.

You are so dumb, that you don’t know you are dumb.

It would be funny, except you are embarrassing my side.

Yeah, sigh. But that’s okay. I’ve dealt with people who have Tourettes before.

Sean D. Martin: “As noted numerous times before, no, it isn’t.”

And there you have it. Sean D. Martin, illiterate asshole to the extreme, has the audacity to tell me what I want. And no, I’m not calling you illiterate as a hyperbole. I believe your reading comprehension is so weak that you should be considered illiterate.

Also, I notice you ignore a few bits of my post. Why is that? Some might call you non-responsive for doing that.

Hell, you can ignore it all, as long as you answer just one question…

“Why did Paul McKim sue Nasser Kazeminy?”

I would love to hear your explanation of this.

Your excuses have been shown to be just that, excuses, so why not answer it? If you have a good answer, you can use it to shut me up.

And you know I’m going to bring it up every single time you talk to me.

As noted numerous times before, no, it isn’t.

Wow. You refused to answer my questions. AND you attacked me for being non responsive. Amazing.

By the way, you asked a yes / no question. I said no. How is that non-responsive?

“- gratuitously insulting”

Tell you what, you don’t act like a fucking retard, and I won’t call you a fucking retard.

“- referring to irrelevant past postings.”

It’s not irrelevant, it goes to credibility. Your inability to comprehend the English language goes directly to your ability to interpret what I said.

“BTW, coughBullshit.cough Explained my view numerous times…”

I’m asking you to restate what the GOP was saying in your own words, because there seems to be some confusion on what you think it means.

I’ll give you an example.

fafaroo: “CSS and I have explained exactly why it is not possible to attack Obama for what he spent on the dog WITHOUT ALSO attacking the dog within the context of the ad.

The ad is not saying that Obama doesn’t know the value of Portuguese Water Dogs.

It’s saying that Obama knows the value of Portuguese Water Dogs and he’s willing pay it because Portuguese Water Dogs are an elitist status symbol, not the kind of regular dogs that regular Americans would buy.

If you don’t explain what meaning the dog itself has in the attack on Obama, Sean, you have not made your argument at all.”

See? See what fafaroo said there? The depth of his explanation? That’s what I’m looking for. I have not seen you come close to that.

If there is a one percent chance that Kansas poses a threat to the United States, then there can be no other choice.

BTW, coughBullshit.cough Explained my view numerous times to have you only insist I explain my view. It isn’t that I haven’t done so, it’s that I don’t agree with you and your insecurity has a problem with that.

Trifecta!

CSS: “This would only matter if O’Reilly was an isolated commentator, and not a mainstream conservative whose opinions are shared by many, many others in the conservative media.”

Sean: “So the factualness of whether he ever listened to O’Reilly or not is irrelevant because there exist in the world others who have O’Reilly like views. Not that it’s been shown he listened to any of them, but I suppose that would be irrelevant, too.

Have I got that right?”

No. But that’s no surprise coming from an illiterate moron like you.

1.) How did, ‘That’s what ‘per 100,000′ is for’ make sense given the context of the discussion. You claimed I was stalling by asking for clarification, so you must have an interpretation that would clear that up.

2.) Why did Paul McKim sue Nasser Kazeminy? I’m not asking you to defend a position you never took. I’m merely asking you to explain something you’ve commented on in the past. I want to know if you know the factual basis of this lawsuit.

3.) The GOP recently put out an attack ad against Obama that mentioned Obama’s new dog. Explain what the GOP were trying to say in your own words. Again, I’m not asking you to defend what they said, but merely explain it in your own words.

CSS: This would only matter if O’Reilly was an isolated commentator, and not a mainstream conservative whose opinions are shared by many, many others in the conservative media.

So the factualness of whether he ever listened to O’Reilly or not is irrelevant because there exist in the world others who have O’Reilly like views. Not that it’s been shown he listened to any of them, but I suppose that would be irrelevant, too.

Have I got that right?

Ah, the sperm from which whacked out conspiracies are inseminated. Sigh.

Sadly the DHS looked prophetic, now. And you still look like an idiot.

This would only matter if O’Reilly was an isolated commentator, and not a mainstream conservative whose opinions are shared by many, many others in the conservative media.

… That report was commissioned by the Bush administration, you fucking idiot.

Good god, you are a fucking retard.

Are you truly this stupid? Or is this an act?

That’s cause you can’t. You have no counter argument, so you try and dismiss the point.