OK For Democrats to Have Sex with Minors

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: the person I'm directing this response to is the only person who put up a picture and captioned it..This person is confused....as I am the only other person in the conversation! Here's the thing...I don't want to talk about the articles(they're nothing new) I just wanted a simple answer...why did the poster use this picture? and for what purpose... Apparently you did enroll in the "clinton online debating class". Summ cum Laude, I'll bet! Dinner looked nice! I doubt I'll get that lucky

timm,
I'm no longer confused.
Thanks for stating that you "don't wish to talk about the articles".
That speaks volumes.
Why did they use that picture? Hmm...ask the editor of the NY Times.
This line of "thinking" is ridiculous.
I truly thought you had better.
"clinton online debating class"...geesh!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

timm,
I'm no longer confused.
Thanks for stating that you "don't wish to talk about the articles".
That speaks volumes.
Why did they use that picture? Hmm...ask the editor of the NY Times.
This line of "thinking" is ridiculous.
I truly thought you had better.
"clinton online debating class"...geesh!

I said that I had read the articles and didn't want to rehash old news! DTS: the poster of the picture on this forum is YOU...WTF do I care(as if I didn't know) why they used the picture. I care about why you posted it. Btw...If I don't have something to say...then I can't be speaking volumes. I thought the Clinton thing was great,as both of you tend to focus on the little things! However...let me say emphatically that I don't think you're are self-obsessed, as is the former! I really hope you are clear now. Ballgame coming on....gone now!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I said that I had read the articles and didn't want to rehash old news! DTS: the poster of the picture on this forum is YOU...WTF do I care(as if I didn't know) why they used the picture. I care about why you posted it. Btw...If I don't have something to say...then I can't be speaking volumes. I thought the Clinton thing was great,as both of you tend to focus on the little things! However...let me say emphatically that I don't think you're are self-obsessed, as is the former! I really hope you are clear now. Ballgame coming on....gone now!

Timm,
I'm very clear regarding the topic that you'd like to discuss. You typed it in caps.
Obviously, you do not wish to discuss the Hastert/Reynolds/Foley topic, which is what I thought this thread was really about.
The links I posted deal with this topic. I posted them because they are informative.
Since you couldn't cite one thing that you disagreed with in either of them and only keep asking why I posted them, my suspicion is that you don't wish to discuss the topic.
The answer to your question: this topic is in the news.

[timmgirvan]

DTS: unfortunately the answer to my question is that you are disingenuous,and your agenda should be apparent to all. Other than that, you're a great guy and I wish you the best.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: unfortunately the answer to my question is that you are disingenuous,and your agenda should be apparent to all. Other than that, you're a great guy and I wish you the best.

timm,
Now I'm "disingenuous"?
What happened to "myopic"?
My agenda? Hmmm...explain whatever you think I've "implied".

If you have nothing to say about the topic, just admit it.
To do otherwise exposes your fraud.
You're a great guy and I also wish you the best.
Talk truth, not lies. Speak sense, not nonsense.

Now back to your dictionary to find additional descriptors to toss at me...

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

timm,
Now I'm "disingenuous"?
What happened to "myopic"?
My agenda? Hmmm...explain whatever you think I've "implied".

If you have nothing to say about the topic, just admit it.
To do otherwise exposes your fraud.
You're a great guy and I also wish you the best.
Talk truth, not lies. Speak sense, not nonsense.

Now back to your dictionary to find additional descriptors to toss at me...

DTS: disingenuous fits better! Your agenda ..you're the leading proponent for all things liberal. You implied by the photo of Hastert that the photo said it all(meaning that he's in trouble) I did say that I didn't want to talk on the articles,because they held no new info. How does that expose any fraud on my part? Everything I've said to you has been up front....and you,as an educated man, should have clearly understood my 'drama in the courtroom of public opinion' statements. I have spoken no lies, and have answered your queries to the best of my ability,and remained quiet on commenting on old news,as it would only add more vitriol to the fire. I have spoken no nonsense either, but tried to evoke an honest response to my questions. So the stalemate continues...

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: disingenuous fits better! Your agenda ..you're the leading propronent for all things liberal. You implied by the photo of Hastert that the photo said it all(meaning that he's in trouble) I did say that I didn't want to talk on the articles,because they held no new info. How does that expose any fraud on my part? Everything I've said to you has been up front....and you,as an educated man, should have clearly understood my 'drama in the courtroom of public opinion' statements. I have spoken no lies, and have answered your queries to the best of my ability,and remained quiet on commenting on old news,as it would only add more vitriol to the fire. I have spoken no nonsense either, but tried to evoke an honest response to my questions. So the stalemate continues...

timm,
This isn't a "stalemate".
So, I'm a "liberal"?
On some things, yes...but on fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets...hardly. Please do not box me. That play is getting very old.
Ok...my move.
What is your position concerning "current news"..ie: the ongoing investigation involving Hastert and his "alleged cover-up" and denial of being notified of Foley's e-mails to pages?