NY Times Glowing Endorsement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[jasendorf]

Hey butch, we've been nothing but accepting of you. So quit making unfounded blanket assertions re: us. We're your daddy.

You're all dead union stewards?

 

[Said1]

sad angry? I'm living a charmed life. Just because your panties are all in a bunch because we're not nuking Iran isn't a reason to project your self-loathing onto me.

Still nothing. Where's your refutation of the points article? Where's your dazzling debate style, using facts, reason and logic?

 

[Bonnie]

sad angry? I'm living a charmed life. Just because your panties are all in a bunch because we're not nuking Iran isn't a reason to project your self-loathing onto me.

Well if your life is so charmed then try arguing like a human.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're all dead union stewards?

No. We're a stern but loving influence that doesn't take your shit.

 

[jasendorf]

No. We're a stern but loving influence that doesn't take your shit.

 

[Said1]

Don't laugh. Tuff love is a hand up, not a hand out. :soul:

 

[Bonnie]

Don't laugh. Tuff love is a hand up, not a hand out. :soul:

 

[jasendorf]

Still nothing. Where's your refutation of the points article? Where's your dazzling debate style, using facts, reason and logic?

What's there to reason here? I simply wanted to know why the original poster felt she had to post a commentary on an article instead of the article itself. If the article was so obviously biased, it would reason that all she would need to do is post the article itself and it would be plain to see.

BUT, instead, she decided to post an angry, raving commentary ABOUT the article instead. So doing only leads one to believe that there is something to hide in her assertion. My guess is that that something she was trying to hide is what the article really said... because it isn't very useful to beat up the ***MSM*** if the article doesn't warrant it.

 

[Said1]

Actually, he's right, my undies are chaffing a bit. It's the heat.

 

[Bonnie]

Actually, he's right, my undies are chaffing a bit. It's the heat.

Ahh..... that's why thongs rule:halo:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Actually, he's right, my undies are chaffing a bit. It's the heat.

I'm so turned on right now.

 

[Said1]

What's there to reason here? I simply wanted to know why the original poster felt she had to post a commentary on an article instead of the article itself. If the article was so obviously biased, it would reason that all she would need to do is post the article itself and it would be plain to see.

BUT, instead, she decided to post an angry, raving commentary ABOUT the article instead. So doing only leads one to believe that there is something to hide in her assertion. My guess is that that something she was trying to hide is what the article really said... because it isn't very useful to beat up the ***MSM*** if the article doesn't warrant it.

Ok. You're right. Bonnie is very sneaky and sly. She has dozens of personal agendas and lord knows where her motives really stem from.

You on the other hand asserted your opinion of the article, with out drawing any attention to what specifically about the article is angry and biased or whatever. You post the original article without drawing any type of comparison between the articles, except to say one the one you posted is better. You essentially did the same thing she did.

 

[jasendorf]

Having been properly chastized by a moderator, I will now attempt to not hurt anyone's feelings anymore. My deepest apologies.

 

[jasendorf]

You on the other hand asserted your opinion of the article, with out drawing any attention to what specifically about the article is angry and biased or whatever. You post the original article without drawing any type of comparison between the articles, except to say one the one you posted is better. You essentially did the same thing she did.

No. I posted the ORIGINAL article which Bonnie's commentary article was about. Not the same thing. (Please accept my apology in advance if this was insulting)

 

[Bonnie]

Said1...You essentially did the same thing she did.[/QUOTE]


Hey I was gonna rep you till I read that part

 

[jasendorf]

Hey I was gonna rep you till I read that part

Well, thank goodness! I'm wearing that red rep as a badge of honor!

 

[Bonnie]

No. I posted the ORIGINAL article which Bonnie's commentary article was about. Not the same thing. (Please accept my apology in advance if this was insulting)

Look simply stated I posted the commentary because I happen to agree with the author's assessment, if you don't that's fine, state how and where you disagree, and the discussion can go from there.

 

[Said1]

No. I posted the ORIGINAL article which Bonnie's commentary article was about. Not the same thing. (Please accept my apology in advance if this was insulting)

How is it different? What did you do differently? Had you agreed with the commentary, would you have bothered to look up the original article and question Bonnie's secret intentions?

Try refutting something in the commentary based on something form the ORIGINAL article instead of worrying about the secret agenda of the Conservative Cult you have just joined.

 

[Said1]

Said1...You essentially did the same thing she did.[/QUOTE]


Hey I was gonna rep you till I read that part

But you did it better.

Ok, now repeat after me "Nuff, said!"

 

[Bonnie]

But you did it better.

Oh.. well okay then IOU rep