Hey... don't spill the soup in your pants from excitement.
I'm not adding anything because you fantasize about getting "pawned".
Hahha. CC
PWNED you so bad that you are now rewriting history as to what you meant. Typical dishonest Zimmer.
No dishonesty... some here realize what this thread is about... you seem to be out of the loop, which is normal.
Really? Why is it that there are pages of people not agreeing with you then? Seems to me that you got
PWNED and are now trying to save your thread by rewriting history as to what you actually meant.
For me it has everything to do with "before".
Why didn't you write that before then? After all, only after you got
PWNED does "before" come up.
The claim of dishonesty coming from perhaps the greatest prevaricator on the site... you have a penchant for twisting what people say into unrecognizable forms as a tool so you can score some type of victory in your own honesty challenged mind.
Good luck proving that. After you do, bring back some jelly from the magical space pandas in the Sun.
You never learned how to debate. That's why you think I twist words. The concept of examining the logic behind one's arguments for flaws was something you never learned.
That ain't my problem.
As noted... you have been out of the loop, and if I would like to clarify the OP... I can... and did.
Wrong. You got
PWNED so now you're trying to somehow get Reagan out of the question. Your bait thread is one of the worst threads DP has ever seen. This *** really should get sewer flushed. You can't even make a decent trap. I'm embarrassed.
You mean to tell me the ouster of Russians from Afghanistan was brought about by terrorists? Interesting.
Again,
terrorism is a method. Whether your goals are noble or not has no bearing upon whether your methods are terrorism or not. The phrase "one man's freedom fighter is anothers terrorist" comes to mind.
It's a tool, an action and can be a systematic method used by people like Bill Ayers and his merry group of terrorists and Democrat Consultants.
HAHAHA. Ayers is a terrorist but the Contras weren't?
You're a riot.
No fabrication... there is a thread on DP illustrating your grand delusions. The best delusion was watching you self destruct on taxes in your first post. It was thanks to your level of arrogance.
You may want to revisit the past few pages. You got
PWNED and everyone knows it.
You try so hard OC... but trying hard and failing is still failing.
I dunno, right now it looks like you're implicitly saying that the rape and murder of little girls was less bad then palling around with Ayers. You can't be serious. Let's see you come out and STATE that what the Contras did was terrorism and way worse then Ayers.
Otherwise, we have no choice but to assume you think the rape and murder of little girls was less worse. You don't want us thinking that do you? Do you?
And there have been clarifications to the OP you obviously chose to ignore.
Oh I see them. You got
PWNED and that's what you're changing your topic. It's also irrelevant.
So... would you vote for a candidate who had a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist? Someone who sought out the relationship with said terrorist? Someone like... Bill Ayers (as was noted on pg 3 of this thread and which you either chose to ignore or failed to read)?
I didn't and probably wouldn't.
But I know you did. So how about you explain why you voted for Bush and Reagan?