Yeah. "You said", and then attempted to CHANGE THE SUBJECT off of the current means you were deceived on.
Making the post about not just the ONE subject, but adding ANOTHER subject onto it.
If you would stick to just the ONE subject, instead of bouncing to other crap when you start losing, these posts wouldn't get this long.


I'm sorry, but does this in any way negate the fact that you are easily fooled?
No. You're just trying to side-track the issue. In the interests of brevity, I refuse to let you...


Because this entire thread is ABOUT WHAT SHE SAID.
But, to somebody whose main interest is in changing the subject, of course discussing the POINT of the thread is not something you would easily think of...


That IS THE POINT you idiot. You repeated their claim that gays took her statements out of context.
No matter how much you try to change the subject, that IS something YOU DID.
And the INTELLIGENT thing to do with that attempted argument is to SHOW HOW things were taken out of context.
But you didn't. And they didn't. And you lacked the intelligence to recognize it as you criticized gays for "taking things out of context".


And how did I "contrive" your approach? Yet another claim you can't defend...


This coming from the guy who criticized me for not reading all of your posts? You JUST PROVED that you are guilty of what you tried to label me with.
Go ahead. Repeat your stupid lie again about me "not reading" and I will prove YOU are guilty of it by linking back to THIS.
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civ...html#post20477


We have been debating for post upon post, in lengths that you criticize ad nausieum, and you "don't see my problem" with that...
Can't see the trees cause you're lost in the forest...


Twice now in one post, fxashun admits his guilt for something he accuses me falsely of.


Which was part of a response to YOUR statement of the following: "A gay son means no daughter-in law and less chance of related grandchildren."
YOU brought it up.


1) We talked about it for a LOT longer than just that.
2) Again, fxashun can't grasp the point of an "analogy".


I did post that it was NOT what was going on here.
You ignored it.
I continued to talk about the items you were trying to refute / defend.


Proves my point.
I go brief, and you're too stupid to comprehend.
1) I DID try to discuss her content. I linked to her full speech. I repeatedly went after the REAL REASON she was bigotted against gays, instead of making up false excuses.
2) I couldn't have discussed the "context" of the lie BEFORE the lie was even posted, you flaming retard.
How can I counter against a "you took it out of context" argument BEFORE that argument is made?


"pulling my string"?
You remind me of that phrase "Don't wrestle with a pig. He only gets you dirty, and he enjoys it."


I love how you support a false story, and you STILL try to lay blame at my feet.
I countered the issue when I came across it.
"Convenience" had nothing to do with it.

If I were to run around trying to correct every possible idiotic little thing you might do wrong, that would add to my post length.
And SURPRISE! You would complain about that too, wouldn't you...


If she were to be functioning on a purpose of convenience for you and your arguing stance, then "she should have".


Yeah. You "stand by it" as piece by piece your claims have been decimated, and you refuse to give counter-arguments...
The "disappointment" is based on ignorance, and the more extreme based on prejudice.


Again, you repeat this stupid lie as you demonstrate above that you are "completely failing to read" my posts.


Every argument you posed has been shot down in flames.
The only way "it held" rings true is that you haven't been swayed by the facts or evidence. Stubbornness is not an arguing point.


You quoted an editorial that made that claim. You held it up as refutation on the issue. Quit trying to take my statements on your latest flailed effort out of context.


You seriously have no concept on what an analogy is.
The AFA did not say "some gays misrepresent the statements of others".
The claimed, SPECIFICALLY, that gays were misrepresenting Kern.
And when you have two conflicting stories, the intelligent thing to do is look at the facts.


There was a youtube video about how a black woman on "The View" didn't know whether the earth was flat.
Is that "enough"? Do I need any more "information" to evaluate the intelligence or validity of such a view-point?
There exists a belief that blacks are inferior. Is pointing to the existence of such "information" all that is "needed"?


Just as idiotic as bigots who think homosexuality is a choice, aborting their child because of "gay genetics", in a reality where genes obviously do not absolutely dictate sexual orientation.
I was comparing the intelligence behind such a move, but obviously you didn't grasp that.


Do I get to harp on your failure as many times as you tried to make the LIE that I didn't read your whole post?
Or maybe I should just keep pointing out that YOU DO NOT read my "whole posts", because you have recently given repeated examples that you don't?


1) No. You're not.
2) The two are not related.
Whether you are "obvious" is unrelated to whether or not I respond.


I've lost track of the things that have gone WAYYYY over your head.