Liberal Forum

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 7:29 am » wrote:
Largely because you mis-represented my claim in the question, so you're just being dishonest.

And yes, as usual the board's imbeciles and liars side with a psychotic.

Next time get a list of the names so we can have a laugh.

I could not figure out how to make the names show, or I would have.

I posted your own words, Clemtard. That you could call that misrepresentation just shows your lack of self-examination.

If the question pulled a dirty trick by not properly representing your position, One of the thread's many visitors would point that out. I would make a poll to prove it, but you would be just as immature about THAT poll, ya retarded little fap.

In the grownup world, clemtard, you DID in fact pillory me for "Arguing [my] own opinion from data sourced to independent, nonpartisan authorities."
You DID IN FACT pillory me for the very behavior described in that option - read the OP, you retard. I QUOTED you doing it.

As to the second option, you DO IN FACT defend "Citing the opinions of talking heads, luminaries, and assorted "official" spokespeople, who reference those data in their arguments." You can lie, bu ONLY TO YOURSELF, son.

You can QUIBBLE about what I CALLED the people you defer to - "talking heads, luminaries and 'official' spokespeople." You can insist I call them salad dressing instead of mayonnaise or I am not "being honest." But you're the only *** on the board that will try to niggle the OP to death, clown.

You've got nothing. I fairly characterized your position, and the BOARD, not "psychotics," has made its opinion quite clear, you little hump.