Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
YOU ARE JOKING RIGHT? OF COURSE I WON'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE HERE FOR YOU TO MOCK ONCE AGAIN. HAVEN'T WE ALL BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITH YOU? BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH NO YOURE WRONG, NO YOURE WRONG, NO YOURE WRONG, NO YOURE WRONG, NO THAT SOURCE IS BIASED, NO THAT SOURCE IS BIASED HERE LOOK AT THIS ARTICLE FROM 1942 THAT SOURCE IS BIASED. YOU JUST CARRY ON AND CONTINUE PREACHING TO "YOUR AUDIENCE", YOU SUPERSTAR!
WHOEVER IS INTERESTED IN STUDYING THESE MATTERS NEED LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THEIR FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD GOOGLE. FOR NOW ANYWAY, I'M DONE SPENDING TIME RESEARCHING MATERIAL FOR ANGSTY PLATEHEADS, PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENICS, POLITICOPHILES, PRIMADONNAS AND DENSITOMETERS.
WILL YOU SAY "PSY-OP" ONE MORE TIME THOUGH PLEASE?
|
I HOPE YOU ACCEDENTALLY LEFT YOUR CAPS LOCK ON, because if you did that purpously, then you were yelling and that's inapropriate. Besides, we're all politcophiles here.
As a paranoid schizophrenic, I have to say that I'm concerned that your only argument in this thread is that one democrat (out of tens of millions) is siding with this. I'm sure that you understand that's meaningless. Mr. Beckel isn't really privy to any information that we don't have access to. He simply came to a different conclusion than host or roach or dc or ratbastid (or myself). Until we actually have his line of thought, it's just a conclusion from another outside party.
The better argument here is the one made in the OP. The smart retort is "Where's the proof?". Bob Beckel seems like a nice guy, but we don't klnow what his level of involvement is in this situation. Until we do, he's opinion carries no more weight than mine or yours.