News to me.Sorry, You don't get to make the rules. The majority of posters decided they wanted it that way, not just me, and childish insult smack was NOT on the list.
No, because stat/data posting isn't what I was talking about.
I asked you to elaborate and you refused to. So clarify your position then.
Which topic would that be?This is your porblem. You aren't posting facts, you are posting your OPINION on a topic that you are giving credence as fact.
Jesus, split hairs, much? Talk about weak.EXACTLY! If I said you are a Bush parrot based on what was posted in THIS FORUM, and those topics are not discussed in THIS FORUM, they are irrelevant to the argument that you are a bush parrot, because on every other major talking point here, YOU ARE a Bush parrot.
No, I am not a Bush parrot. My posts bear that out. Also, I don't simply repeat what Bush says or the administration says. Mostly here I am defending the administration against baseless attacks. That's not being a parrot.
So if you're going to split hair, try to get it right. Of course, you're not splitting hairs. Your argument was flase and now you're backpedaling.
BTW - you didn't qualify your point re: me being a Bush parrot only to my posts here:
You're nothing but a Bush admin parrot
Like I said, you're backpedaling.
Fine, but I wasn't talking about TOT, where I rarely posted or read, nor are those points we discuss regularly if at all here, except for immigration perhaps.
So what? You alleged I was a Bush parrot. That neither correctly classifies my posting here nor is it an accurate assessment.
If they come up once a year as an aside to a major topic and are not follwoed thorugh on, they are insignificant and were overlooked or not recognized for that same reason.
Bitch, whether they are major here or not is irrelevant. Education is a major issue. Immigration is a major issue. Social Security is a major issue. Trade is a major issue. Agriculture is a major issue. And in all of those I have criticized the administration.
STFU, already, liar.
^^ doesn't belong in a discussion, hence the reason I mostly ignore you. I may think the same of you, but I rarely if ever say it in a topical discussion. I stick to the argument.
It was appropriate given your response.
Clinton is 6 years in the past. GET OVER IT. Bush is now standing on his own two feet for what happens and how he reacts to it.
It's no use. You refuse to answer civil questions and directly address the points I made.
And you're compaling about me?
No, it's fact. I base that on the fact that you bash Bush for simply continuing the policies from the prior administration, yet, you do not similarly bash the Clinton administration.Hmm - is that conjecture and hyperbole you are relying on?
That's an important acknowledgment. It demonstrates that your criticism of the policy is bogus and is premised on the person implementing it and not the policy itself.
It doesn't matter if you were asked.Wrong. I've never been asked specifically what I felt about Clinton on this board, but I've made it clear on other boards in the past, and frankly as far as I'm concerned He's OVER. You guys just can't let that fact go.
The fact is that you claim Bush created new policies when in fact they existed when he became President (immigration policies) and then bash Bush for policies that existed before he became President. It demonstrates that you don't know wtf you are talking about and demonstrates that you're interested nly in bashing Bush. It exposes the bad faith argument you're making.
There you go again.Again, I am not the only one who thinks this way about you, and you do wave the Bush flag high and in lock step on most of the key issues.
Well, you've certainly given up here, Bushice, because you failed in several instances to actually directly address the points I made.I said "Most" I figured one last shot in this thread at trying to get into your head what this board is supposed to be about, but as usual, I got nowhere.