Et tu, Rahm?

[taichiliberal]

How would you know? You don't post facts, you post opinion, then stamp your feet and pout if people don't buy your horseshit.

Precisely what is "horseshit" about the opening post on this thread?

I really wish you'd learn how to properly nest quotes.

I really wish you'd stop stalling with these bogus complaints, as you can plainly read my responses and your original statements are fully intact.

What's bullshit is the insinuation that Democrats don't abridge free speech regularly when it suits them.

What's bullshit is your attempt to misrepresent what I wrote. The opening sentence points to Ralph Nader's criticism, of which I provide proof of said criticism, and even refer to previous example of the very suppressive tactics that critics of the neocon's under Bush that Dems, liberals and progressives swore was solely the property of the Patriot Act. Only in your neocon/teabagger blinder wearing mind can you interpret otherwise, Davey boy.

I don't agree with your ridiculous contention that liberals support free speech.

Then you need to either get a new perscription for eye glasses or take a refresher course in reading comprehension, because THIS THREAD is about Rahm's actions in Chicago. If you're not willing to discuss that, then I'm done with you here and you can gleefully cast the last insult/lie free of the fear of response.

Stamp your feet and pout some more. You don't get to dictate how people respond to your posts, no mater how much you'd like to limit free speech.

You can't BS your way past me, Davey boy. Bottom line: YOU really have no valid criticism of the subject matter of this particular thread....YOU just want to grind an axe over past events that left a bad taste in your mouth. So like some pissy little kid, you'll just follow me around rehashing your past failures. Carry on.

 

[daveman]

I really wish you'd learn how to properly nest quotes.

I really wish you'd stop stalling with these bogus complaints, as you can plainly read my responses and your original statements are fully intact.

What's bullshit is the insinuation that Democrats don't abridge free speech regularly when it suits them.

What's bullshit is your attempt to misrepresent what I wrote. The opening sentence points to Ralph Nader's criticism, of which I provide proof of said criticism, and even refer to previous example of the very suppressive tactics that critics of the neocon's under Bush that Dems, liberals and progressives swore was solely the property of the Patriot Act. Only in your neocon/teabagger blinder wearing mind can you interpret otherwise, Davey boy.

Then you need to either get a new perscription for eye glasses or take a refresher course in reading comprehension, because THIS THREAD is about Rahm's actions in Chicago. If you're not willing to discuss that, then I'm done with you here and you can gleefully cast the last insult/lie free of the fear of response.

Stamp your feet and pout some more. You don't get to dictate how people respond to your posts, no mater how much you'd like to limit free speech.

You can't BS your way past me, Davey boy. Bottom line: YOU really have no valid criticism of the subject matter of this particular thread....YOU just want to grind an axe over past events that left a bad taste in your mouth. So like some pissy little kid, you'll just follow me around rehashing your past failures. Carry on.

Man, you leftists really do have your own version of reality, don't you?