Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator85jd, Jun 25, 2013.
What part do you disagree with factually?
I disagree with what our Chicago community organizer did. It's easy enough to dig up dirty laundry from any person, organization or country. What purpose does traveling around the world apologizing for past U.S. actions serve? What part of that do you disagree with?
you really can't answer can you? you really can't do anything other than "Obama was wrong."
Is this you?
I think you are having a hard time communicating with 85 because you are not using the special language he understands - you know, "Prince so and so", "community organizer", etc. Perhaps using this terminology along with gratuitous insults and petty nicknames for Romney, Bush, etc. would further understanding and a possible meeting of the minds.
And your answer is your messiah is never wrong. He was wrong to travel to foreign countries and apologize for America. What part of that can't you grasp? He has been in over his head since day one as President. The chickens have come home to roost.
It started with the Apology Tour.
108 and river sure are something special.
It takes a professional to attempt to polish this turd up. However, you guys are just semi-pro because you aren't doing your job very well.
why don't you address my question then? what in that speech do you factually disagree with?
I dont have a dog in this fight but its obvious Obama made speeches around the world "apologizing" for the US. Did he backtrack a bit by calling out Europeans? Sure. He still looked like a weak leader by apologizing for America.
My statement is more about all the threads on Too Hot in general.
Someone is having a difficult time differentiating between content of a speech versus why the speech was given in the first place. Two completely different concepts.
You are joking right?
then please explain
For you? Ah, no thanks. I just simply dont have the patience to deal with your type. Sorry.
And yes, I know your canned retort, 'Because you can't'.
there you go.
If anyone explains anything to you, you find a way to disregard, deflect or simply deny it. It's really not worth it to argue with a person who 1. voted for Obama and 2. can't clearly see how terrible he is 3. still defends him to the death, wrong or right (wrong).
So I completely understand LW not wanting to join in an argument that no one can win.
you guys don't explain anything. you just say it and insist it's true.
"This is an apology!!!"
"I'm not saying!!!"
Over and over again.
Why does someone need to explain something to you when the speech has been posted many times?
Again this goes back to being about you. You refuse to see any evidence against your boyfriend and refuse to read simple English when it is shown to you. It's amazing anyone actually tries to have an intelligent convo with you and some others here. It's pretty much impossible to have a legit convo with a wall.
You may not agree with rivers much, but he is a reasonable poster who avoids emotional arguments in favor of facts and data. I don't know why that would bother you.
True, but his delivery sucks.
Remember the last time you called me obtuse. Even you admitted you were completely confused over what the conversation was about.
You are correct, on both.
I've found sometimes in life it's easier to just let the other person think they've won rather than go through the exercise of beating one's head against a wall.
It's pretty obvious that some people place a lot of self worth on how 'right' they are on a message board. I aint one of em.