SAM fired in New York?

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
OK, THIS is still on the first page of P&N? Daaaaamn. You guys must be prittttee bored.

I know this will probably come as a shock, but the "discussion" isn't really much about the OP anymore.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[ ... ]
So despite what you and others might try to suggest - there is nothing right-wing about this. It's laughable that we have people like Bowfinger trying to angle in for an attack on Bush before the story is confirmed or facts filled in. But hey, nothing like a good conspiracy for the left to feed themselves with.:roll:

Waaah! Anything I said you can refute, or is this the usual knee-jerk, attack anyone who suggests anything even slightly critical of your holiness in the White House? When you're unable to defend Bush, attack, attack, attack.

Just noting your typical 'get Bush' angle and surrounding conspiracy - not an "attack". A little sensitive bowfinger?

ROFL. Hardly. Just noting your typical attack-the-messenger evasion and your tired accusation of 'conspiracy' whenever one suggests questionable motives by BushCo or its flock. A little sensitive sog? :laugh:

There was no attacking the messenger(you're just too defensive) - just noting the typical blame Bush/right-wing angle you leftists take on pretty much anything. I find it hilarious, especially in light of how the left likes to bring up how Clinton was treated.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
There was no attacking the messenger(you're just too defensive) - just noting the typical blame Bush/right-wing angle you leftists take on pretty much anything. I find it hilarious, especially in light of how the left likes to bring up how Clinton was treated.

You are repeating yourself. I "heard" you the first time. I disagree.

(You never did address my points, by the way, and you have yet to contribute your own explanation of why this runor was repeated in multiple right-wing blogs. Lacking any thoughtful alternatives, I'll stick with my theory, thank you very much.)

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
There was no attacking the messenger(you're just too defensive) - just noting the typical blame Bush/right-wing angle you leftists take on pretty much anything. I find it hilarious, especially in light of how the left likes to bring up how Clinton was treated.

You are repeating yourself. I "heard" you the first time. I disagree.

(You never did address my points, by the way, and you have yet to contribute your own explanation of why this runor was repeated in multiple right-wing blogs. Lacking any thoughtful alternatives, I'll stick with my theory, thank you very much.)

If you heard me the first time then maybe you should have tried to understand the second time. You claim I was attacking - that isn't true. What is true - is me noting your "get Bush" angle. I don't care where it was posted - there was no politics assigned to it - yet you couldn't resist making an attempt at blasting Bush and then wrapping it all into a nice little conspiracy package. Par for the course I guess.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
There was no attacking the messenger(you're just too defensive) - just noting the typical blame Bush/right-wing angle you leftists take on pretty much anything. I find it hilarious, especially in light of how the left likes to bring up how Clinton was treated.

You are repeating yourself. I "heard" you the first time. I disagree.

(You never did address my points, by the way, and you have yet to contribute your own explanation of why this runor was repeated in multiple right-wing blogs. Lacking any thoughtful alternatives, I'll stick with my theory, thank you very much.)

If you heard me the first time then maybe you should have tried to understand the second time. You claim I was attacking - that isn't true. ...

In your opinion. What part of "disagree" can't you comprehend? You are still repeating yourself. I still disagree. Endlessly repeating yourself while offering nothing except your highly-biased opinion isn't going to change anything.

Toodles,

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
There was no attacking the messenger(you're just too defensive) - just noting the typical blame Bush/right-wing angle you leftists take on pretty much anything. I find it hilarious, especially in light of how the left likes to bring up how Clinton was treated.

You are repeating yourself. I "heard" you the first time. I disagree.

(You never did address my points, by the way, and you have yet to contribute your own explanation of why this runor was repeated in multiple right-wing blogs. Lacking any thoughtful alternatives, I'll stick with my theory, thank you very much.)

If you heard me the first time then maybe you should have tried to understand the second time. You claim I was attacking - that isn't true. What is true - is me noting your "get Bush" angle. I don't care where it was posted - there was no politics assigned to it - yet you couldn't resist making an attempt at blasting Bush and then wrapping it all into a nice little conspiracy package. Par for the course I guess.

In your opinion. What part of "disagree" can't you comprehend? You are still repeating yourself. I still disagree. Endlessly repeating yourself while offering nothing except your highly-biased opinion isn't going to change anything.

Toodles,

No doubt you disagree, but it still doesn't mean I attacked you. You seem to be a bit sensitive and defensive about being called on your angle. Too bad - toughen up a little and admit you over-reacted. I won't wait for it though - I'm sure you'll just ignore what I've said again.