jps wrote:


And, as usual, you attempt to state opinion as fact.

You mean like the way you do when you cut and paste all those
"editorials" which support your biased viewpoint?

I cut and paste for your edificcation. You're showing little, if any
signs of progress.

Your biased opinions are not enlightening. That you pass them off as
fact is intellectually irresponsible.


In reality (which
is difficult enough for you) you know nothing about Harry and
speculating on his being a paid political operative and his personal
motives for what he says here so speculative.

The same way that you know nothing about the inner workings of the Bush
Adminmistration or the war on terrorism, other than what you read in the
speculative tripe that you pass off as "objective" journalism.

What does this have to do with Wilbur speculating on Harry's personal
motives?

Principle. Something you should "edify" yourself on.

Harry is a person who's stating his opinions. The Bush
administration isn't.

No, but you claiming certain things about the Bush Administration's
motives is stating your opinion. And like in your example of Wilbur and
Harry, you know nothing about it.



Do you portend to know more about the motives of the Bush Admimistration
than Joe blow from Hackensack?

No, and I don't attempt to present myself as if I do.



Have you read the New American Century doctrine? Do you know who Ken
Lay is? Blue Skies, No Child Left Behind, Terrorists and those who
harbor them?

Yes, so what's your point? Can you prove any of these alleged
"connections"? Until you can, you're only speculating.


What is there to know other than this?

If you had any character and intellectual honesty, you'd already know
the answwer to this.

And then, just like Rush, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a
conclusion, which is even more outrageous.

And then, just like the numerous leftist news sources that you regularly
quote, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is
even more outrageous.

There's research and reasoning behind journalism. There's nothing but
innuendo, hate and assumed conclusion behind Rush.

Again, your opinion. Most of what I've heard Rush state, are true
happenings. He may spin them a little more to appeal to certain
emotions, but the underlying factoid is true. And calling the liberals
for the manipulative, scheming, divisive, and conniving weasels that
they are, is not "hate" it's bringing appalling activities into the
public light.


Taken apart, it's
nothing. Wilbur made a bunch of assumptions about Harry and then came
to a conclusion based on those assumption.

Much like you do when you read (and then post here) the political tripe
that you think is "objective journalism".


Your logic is flawed, your loyalties are clear. You have nothing in
that head resembling independent thought.

My logic is, as always, sound. That you cannot see that you are guilty
of the same things that you accuse others of is almost laughable.


Dave, did you ever approach your wife to ask her if she thinks the
government shoud have a say is whether she should procreate or not.

Did you ask your wife whether she thinks the government should take more
of her money to feed and care for illegal aliens?


My opinion is that you don't have a clue and that you're only here to
yank people's chains. That is until someone refers to you as a worm and
you break out of your box to your true remailing self.

Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

I don't remail vile crap. If I write it I post it under my own handle.

But it's still crap.


The sad irony is that you can't even see it.

See what? See, I'm using your logic now.

The sad part of this is that you'd spend so much time mounting such weak
arguments.

But at least my arguements are based on more than speculative opinions.

Dave