That's your interpretation.
Sounds like "tunnel-vision" a common, know-it-all affliction.
The "who, what, when, where and why" of American History.
- Thread starter commonsense
- Start date
- Status
That's your interpretation.
Sounds like "tunnel-vision" a common, know-it-all affliction.
No, that the English languages interpretation...
That would be the best way to describe you, yes.
Any chance that you might attempt to refute my post (#94), any time soon?
Your post (#94) is just like all the rest of your posts. You can refute absolutely anything for the sake of argumentation, but that is not what reasonable people do.
Reasonable people listen to everybody and then they make up their minds, based on the opinions that survive after reasonable deduction.
That's all I ever do, but for some reason, you think that you have the ability to force your opinion on others.
What is that reason?
Is it an obsession, is it an agenda, is it pride, is it a delusions, is it misunderstanding, or is it, and this you will invariably agree with, your intellectual, "hand me my ass" superiority?
Reasonable people listen to everybody and then they make up their minds, based on the opinions that survive after reasonable deduction.
That's all I ever do, but for some reason, you think that you have the ability to force your opinion on others.
What is that reason?
Is it an obsession, is it an agenda, is it pride, is it a delusions, is it misunderstanding, or is it, and this you will invariably agree with, your intellectual, "hand me my ass" superiority?
Well thought out and factual. Ya, I know.
I have no other way to reply to that nonsense then...
I listened to you, I disagreed, I proved your post wrong. You said nothing to refute what I said. I guess you are gullible then eh?
No, that would be you, I'm asking you to prove yours, is all. But that was an excellent excuse, as to why you can't refute my post.
I can only explain reason to you, I can't make you use it.
Of course I agree with the latter, that's a fact. If it wasn't, you would have taken apart my post by now.
Same old nonsense.
When you begin to get predictable, you don't even have to respond.
Just hire a ghostwriter, and you can be the Sarah Palin of this thread.
I think I clearly know how your mind works, and this is how it doesn't:
"Reasonable people listen to everybody and then they make up their minds, based on the opinions that survive after reasonable deduction."
For your information, if I don't have time to respond to all your nonsense, you can assume that it's one of those opinions that has failed to survive.
You simply have too much time on your hands, I do not have time to nitpick so I ignore nitwit assertions for the sake of economy.
When you begin to get predictable, you don't even have to respond.
Just hire a ghostwriter, and you can be the Sarah Palin of this thread.
I think I clearly know how your mind works, and this is how it doesn't:
"Reasonable people listen to everybody and then they make up their minds, based on the opinions that survive after reasonable deduction."
For your information, if I don't have time to respond to all your nonsense, you can assume that it's one of those opinions that has failed to survive.
You simply have too much time on your hands, I do not have time to nitpick so I ignore nitwit assertions for the sake of economy.
This is just from the first page...
This site has a class of members that are not easily swayed by con men and baffle gab. You may be, but not us. Nice try though.
Apparently not...
Done, now you hide from it.
Correct, and since I suffeciently showed you that your chosen historian is in fact lying, what say you?
Not true, you've made several common mistakes. The most glaring, thinking you can join some place like CC and preach without being challenged. Then when challenged run and hide and not expect some form of scorn and/or contempt.
This site has a class of members that are not easily swayed by con men and baffle gab. You may be, but not us. Nice try though.
By definition, a historian does not lie.
So I say that you do not know what you are talking about.
So I say that you do not know what you are talking about.
Yes, that is exactly how I would discribe your posts.
Then I won't be hearing from you again?
Says the only person in this thread to post other peoples opinions.
I don't think you understand how your own mind works.
Your point? Because if you really mean that, I win.
Is that because you can't refute the facts I put forth, that sufficiently dismantled your theory?
Funny, I though people like yourself, gravitated towards people of like mind.
So, can I expect you to at least attempt to refute post #94, or are you going to keep playing a game, with some well beyond your pay grade?
That's OK, I ws being generous when I referred to the person that wrote the nonsense you use as information, an historian.
Say the member that can't refute post #94.
As soon as you prove my friend here wrong...
Oh, and at least show that you have some life in you and attempt to refute post #94.
Besides that, I already told you on page one, I'm more the mauling type.
Although I would bet my bottom dollar, you can't.
Look dude, if you want to debate, debate me. That's what you challenged me to do on page one.
I did what you asked.
I proved your story false.
Now, what?
Last edited:
Can you keep it one point at a time. I don't know what you want me to dispute.
Are you disputing the claim that Richard Nixon is responsible for the assassinations of his enemies?
YouTube - I Met the Walrus
Are you disputing the claim that Richard Nixon is responsible for the assassinations of his enemies?
YouTube - I Met the Walrus
I have a serious question for you. This professor who claims that Senator Paul Wellstone was murdered, do you agree with him, or do you think he is wrong?
YouTube - The Senator Wellstone Assassination
YouTube - The Senator Wellstone Assassination
This is an excellent example of your lack of linear thought.
What happened to...
Nixon the hater?
Nixon and Mark David Chapman?
Nixon and John Lennon?
Nixon and Jack Ruby?
What is your game plan, keep throwing stuff out until you find something I can't tear apart?
How about you try some linear thought and just stroll back to post #94 and show me that my post was wrong.
Let's start there.
Last edited:
What happened to answering a simple question?
I repeat: Do you agree with the professor who claims that Senator Paul Wellstone was assassinated?
I repeat: Do you agree with the professor who claims that Senator Paul Wellstone was assassinated?
What happened to you having linear thought?
Do you find this prediction as funny as I do?
Of course not, he's a nut and a liar.
If you say that this man is a nut and a liar, I think you have a serious problem discerning fact from fiction.YouTube - The Senator Wellstone Assassination
You can keep posting the same video over and over, but it's still the same fictional movie.
So what do you think of my prediction?
Don't you think it was funny how it came true?
What I find funny is that you call everybody who disagrees with you a nut and a liar.
And then, you claim that you have proved them wrong.
And then. you think you have won a debate.
And then, you claim that you have proved them wrong.
And then. you think you have won a debate.
- Status