You are quoting yourself...
Even though the second quote clearly pretends to establish a false pretense that it is speaking from "somebody else's" view-point.
And your response to the first quote claims: "I've started reading the thread from the latest post and I'd like to address
your question before going any further."
You LIED in pretending you were addressing "my question", when the truth is that you were responding TO YOUR OWN COMMENT YOU MADE UP!
And regarding your claims to a "technique", if I went back to your OTHER posts, would I find the same "technique" there???
Could you show me ANYWHERE where you employed the same "technique"???
This
duplicity is part of the problem.
If you have VALID and TRUTHFUL criticism of Obama, then I am interested.
But if all it's going to be is lie after obfuscation after falsehood after lie, then that's not real.
LYING about the candidate is not "scrutinizing" him...
The earlier post starting this thread did two things.
It examined Corsi's claims, and his character.
If he's not a credible witness, that is entirely important to the discussion. In a court of law, the opposing counsel has every right to examine the truthfulness of the "witness".
What's truly funny is that we can take a trip back into history and review something on the other side of the fence.
Remember Scott McClellan? He came out with a book criticizing the Bush administration.
If we went through that thread, would I find you guys REFUSING to attack his character?
Would I find you guys SOLELY discussing the merits of his claims???
The stench of hypocrisy and bald-faced lies (coming from your side) is pathetic.