The intro was neither false, nor 'advertising'. You, apparently, give an unreasonable amount of weight to an intro and seem to be holding it to some imaginary standard. But, human nature tends to reflect others. So, if someone isn't nice to you, perhaps they are holding up a mirror to you. There is no wake in a lake without something to cause it. But, of course, that concept hasn't appeared to have occurred to you. Your first comment from my intro was warm, but let's take a look at your very next comment to a post I made, where you wrote:
The fact is that the Democrats are on the side of the criminals. Insofar as criminality in the White House, the opposite is true, and these stats are not up to date, to wit; They defunded the police, and they elected far left extremist DAs. That's a meme, no evidence for it. The high...
www.usmessageboard.com
That’s not a chart of criminal activities. It is a chart of alleged criminal activities. If an Administration has a ton of actual criminal activity but no charges criminal activities, the “chart” will report a zero.
That doesn’t mean much since a corrupted liberal Democrat infested DOJ isn’t likely to go after Democrap Administrarions.
Now, your reaction was to a chart I posted which revealed the factual court record of criminal activity being disproportionately represented by Republican Administrations. I essentially stated 'when it comes to crime in the WH, Republicans win that pissing contest.' I chose that tone because I was rebutting a comment made by
TroglocratsRdumb, whose moniker I find offensive, rightfully so, and so he set the tone by virtue of his avatar, which invites fighting words by democrats. You had every opportunity to be sanguine, because, at that juncture, nothing was directed to you, personally, you just jumped into the conversation with disparaging words against my liberal brethen, and so, BackAgain, you know the old saying, 'you reap what you sew'. I find it odd you appear to be critical of my response to you, when you are pretty much in the same sandbox, yourself. My intro was completely not cognizant of what it is really like, around here, which I found out very quickly, and for some curious reason, you drew some silly inference about 'false advertising'.
So, with due respect, BackAgain, I merely reflect the tone and tenor you established between us. You threw the first arrow with your sophomoric cheap shots which ignore the fact Democrats do not shy from squashing our own who violate ethical standards. Not in every case, mind you, but we've done it often enough (Blagojevich, Edwards, Franken, to name a few) so even the point you made, ignoring the unnecessary disparaging fashion in which you characterized it, isn't accurate. Moreover, I've been perusing the comments made around this forum, and, I swear, this isn't a forum which enforces the rules it sets for itself. This is a rather mean place. I'm okay with that, and, in fact, it's rather liberating (compared to the strict standards of politicsforum.com, for example) but don't complain if someone isn't nice to you, and, especially, on this forum.
.
