A Woman Asked How Mike Rowe Could Associate With Glenn Beck. This is How He Responded

[Uncensored2008]

Sweet William and other radicals of the Weather Underground are Democratic leaders?

Who Knew?

Everyone - dumbass.

{“Bernadine and I had hosted the initial fundraiser for Obama and uncharacteristically donated a little money to his campaign,” Ayers said. “We lived a few blocks apart and sat on a couple nonprofit boards together. So what? Who could have predicted it would blow up like this?”

Read more: Terrorist Bill Ayers speaks about palling around with Obama | The Daily Caller
}

Sounds like a fucking "king maker" to me.

A callous disregard for life is planting a bomb in a Disco, Pizza Parlor, school bus, tour bus, or sending human guided bombs into markets....hijacking and flying plane into buildings......

Yes, you are purged of integrity - we get it.

Still, you may find that in some quiet moment - some strange thought ethics makes it past the sociopathic walls you have erected and you question whether planting bombs at any public place is really the great good you claim it to be....

A callous disregard for property...yeah they had that.

Party above all - with you that is always.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You know about their relationship you're just engaging in a game called "what we don't know". And using that to pretend you don't know anything.

Actually, no. We don't know the extent of the relationship. Obama denied the relationship existed and despite the evidence showing he lied the media has completely neglected any follow up questions.

What does "extent of relationship" mean? Once you fail to give the definition then you'll see why that is the perfect excuse. Someone cant provide something to you that you refuse to define.

Told ya!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, no. We don't know the extent of the relationship. Obama denied the relationship existed and despite the evidence showing he lied the media has completely neglected any follow up questions.

What does "extent of relationship" mean? Once you fail to give the definition then you'll see why that is the perfect excuse. Someone cant provide something to you that you refuse to define.

Told ya!

You didn't tell anyone anything. Stop self flagellating.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, no. We don't know the extent of the relationship. Obama denied the relationship existed and despite the evidence showing he lied the media has completely neglected any follow up questions.

What does "extent of relationship" mean? Once you fail to give the definition then you'll see why that is the perfect excuse. Someone cant provide something to you that you refuse to define.

Told ya!

I was unaware that a dictionary was hard to come by nowadays. Maybe someone should put one online or something to help people find definitions of words.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What does "extent of relationship" mean? Once you fail to give the definition then you'll see why that is the perfect excuse. Someone cant provide something to you that you refuse to define.

Told ya!

I was unaware that a dictionary was hard to come by nowadays. Maybe someone should put one online or something to help people find definitions of words.

I'm going to the source. I guess I shouldn't ask you but since we were having the discussion...

So what does "extent of relationship" mean?

 

[koshergrl]

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK Here: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

I think I see the issue;

You view terrorism as a legitimate political position. You see a person who plants bombs and tries to murder people on behalf of a communist revolution as no different than a person advocating school choice.

Bingo.

There are so many ways the Ayers/Obama relationship (which has never been acknowledged by either) is not parallel or even akin to the Rowe/Beck one.

For one thing, neither Rowe nor Beck are elected officials.

For another, neither escaped a murder conviction on a technicality.

For yet another, neither has ever advocated the destruction of America and the murder of American citizens, including policemen.

What I see in this thread are lying, foul, progressive pieces of shit continuing to find ways to justify murder, anarchy, destruction, while at the same time seeking to justify their demands that all opposition to their death cultist views be killed or otherwise silenced..

Same old, same old.

 

[koshergrl]

PS...Rowe's response to a brain dead progressive piece of shit was a thoughtful statement indicative of his independent nature, his respect for others of indepdendent nature, and his love of liberty.

Of course the leftist dweebs are going to crap themselves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny how temple virgin thinks it's okay for people to exercise their freedoms and talk or socialize with anyone they want, just don't let it be a socialist, progressive or a communist.

Funny how he has indicated nothing of the sort and you've had to resort to a straw man argument.

"Straw man"? Did you blink?

I actually posted his own contrast back to him:

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK post 222: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

If you blinked a lot I can show about 23 more...
And everything that's being posted about Bill Ayers did this, Glenn Beck did that, is confirmation that this is no strawman but an active disagreement on what "kind" of people it's OK to associate with and what "kind" aren't. You're participating in this fallacy yourself. To be an active participant in a fallacy and then claim the very existence of it is a "straw man", that's not a blink; it's eyes wide shut.

There is a significant difference between Beck and Ayers.

Not that you care.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To me wanting to stop the wanton slaughter of millions of Asians and thousand of Americans is a virtue. Sell conspiracy theories to make a few bucks, not so virtuous.

But to each his own I guess.

By attempting to kill other humans? A conspiracy theory is nothing more than an opinion and harms no one in and of itself.

You have a strange notion of virtue and questionable morality.

If their goal was to kill why did the issue warning about buildings they planed on bombing? If their intent was to kill innocent civilians like the Islamic Radical do then they would be terrorist and probably behind bars right now, or dead. Whereas the Government policy there were fighting against was in fact killing a few hundred people every single day.

Using virtue and morality and Glenn Beck in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

If their issue was not to kill why the fuck did they use bombs?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Guilt by association is ok when we do it


Signed,

Republicans

Guilt by association only works if someone is guilty of something.

Which is completely off the topic of the original post. But you guys don't seem to see the point of the OP.

Wrong, absolutely and completely wrong.

Number one, the word guilt does not mean "guilty of a culpable offence" in this context. It means the fallacy that, by association with that guy you were just talking to, you take on his aspects.

I put this in a simple parable earlier--
You sit down in a room with Charles Manson.
You talk about fried chicken recipes. You give him a cooking tip, he gives you a cooking tip. That's it.
You get up, you leave.
I watch from a distance. I don't know what you talked about.

----- Shall I conclude you are now a mass murderer? No, I have no basis.

And number two, this fallacy is what the entire OP event is built on. In this case, this woman who wrote Mike Rowe commits the fallacy. The fact that it IS a fallacy is what enables Mike Rowe to dismiss her concern, and he's correct to do so. In the comparative case, certain sides of the media (bloggers, commentators) commit the same fallacy vis à vis Ayers, Wright, and whoever else they might drag in. It's the same fallacy and it's equally illegitimate.

And I noted earlier, the irony is that Glenn Beck, the bystander-influence in the instant case, is himself guilty of the same fallacy, not only with Wright et al but scraping up an obscure figure nobody ever heard of (Saul Alinsky) to imply the same thing, and that's by no means an exhaustive list.

A fallacy is a fallacy. If it protects Rowe from illegitimate conclusions of who he can associate with (and it does), then it equally protects O'bama -- or anyone else for that matter.

As the OP asks:
if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

And as Rowe put it in the article:
How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don’t disagree with?

They're both right. And you can't apply that standard here, and suddenly jerk it away there. That's trying to have it both ways, and that's dishonest.

The OP didn't print this (there's an allusion that I had to look up), but the same thing happened in reverse when Rowe went on Bill Maher's TV show:

>> Truth is, every time I go on Fox, my liberal friends squeal. And every time I show up on MSNBC, my conservative pals whine. Not because they disagree with my position - everyone agrees that closing the skills gap is something that needs to happen. No, these days, people get bent simply if I appear on shows they don't like, or sit too close to people they don't care for.

What's up with that? Is our country so divided that my mere proximity to the "other side" prompts otherwise sensible adults to scoop up their marbles and go home? <<

(emphasis added, full page here, and worth a read)

God Fucking DAMN!!!!

You actually read one of my posts, and learned something. Amazing.

To bad you are still a douchewad, and still think that scoring points off people is more important than telling the truth.

The major difference between the OP and your idiotic attempt to score points is that the OP is about getting a message out going to different audiences. You seem to think that you can reverse that and use it to score points by pointing out that condemning Obama for lying about his personal life makes anyone who calls him on it, yet also condmens guilt by association, a hypocrite.

It actually makes you an idiot.

 

[Newby]

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK Here: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

I think I see the issue;

You view terrorism as a legitimate political position. You see a person who plants bombs and tries to murder people on behalf of a communist revolution as no different than a person advocating school choice.

Bingo!

 

[Pogo]

Funny how he has indicated nothing of the sort and you've had to resort to a straw man argument.

"Straw man"? Did you blink?

I actually posted his own contrast back to him:

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK post 222: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

If you blinked a lot I can show about 23 more...
And everything that's being posted about Bill Ayers did this, Glenn Beck did that, is confirmation that this is no strawman but an active disagreement on what "kind" of people it's OK to associate with and what "kind" aren't. You're participating in this fallacy yourself. To be an active participant in a fallacy and then claim the very existence of it is a "straw man", that's not a blink; it's eyes wide shut.

There is a significant difference between Beck and Ayers.

Not that you care.

True, I don't because it's profoundly irrelevant here. I've maintained this truth throughout: the fallacy is about the analysis method used to form the guilt by association conclusion; it has diddly to do with who the participants are. Again, the associators could be Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler and Rasputin wrapped into a fresh flour tortilla and sprinkled with Jesus Christ sauce with a dash of cilantro; it doesn't matter. It's about the analyzer, not the subjects they're analyzing.

Yours,
Captain Obvious

 

[TemplarKormac]

Funny how temple virgin thinks it's okay for people to exercise their freedoms and talk or socialize with anyone they want, just don't let it be a socialist, progressive or a communist.

Funny how he has indicated nothing of the sort and you've had to resort to a straw man argument.

"Straw man"? Did you blink?

I actually posted his own contrast back to him:

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK post 222: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

If you blinked a lot I can show about 23 more...
And everything that's being posted about Bill Ayers did this, Glenn Beck did that, is confirmation that this is no strawman but an active disagreement on what "kind" of people it's OK to associate with and what "kind" aren't. You're participating in this fallacy yourself. To be an active participant in a fallacy and then claim the very existence of it is a "straw man", that's not a blink; it's eyes wide shut.

Try answering this then, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK Here: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

I think I see the issue;

You view terrorism as a legitimate political position. You see a person who plants bombs and tries to murder people on behalf of a communist revolution as no different than a person advocating school choice.

 

[Pogo]

Guilt by association only works if someone is guilty of something.

Which is completely off the topic of the original post. But you guys don't seem to see the point of the OP.

Wrong, absolutely and completely wrong.

Number one, the word guilt does not mean "guilty of a culpable offence" in this context. It means the fallacy that, by association with that guy you were just talking to, you take on his aspects.

I put this in a simple parable earlier--
You sit down in a room with Charles Manson.
You talk about fried chicken recipes. You give him a cooking tip, he gives you a cooking tip. That's it.
You get up, you leave.
I watch from a distance. I don't know what you talked about.

----- Shall I conclude you are now a mass murderer? No, I have no basis.

And number two, this fallacy is what the entire OP event is built on. In this case, this woman who wrote Mike Rowe commits the fallacy. The fact that it IS a fallacy is what enables Mike Rowe to dismiss her concern, and he's correct to do so. In the comparative case, certain sides of the media (bloggers, commentators) commit the same fallacy vis à vis Ayers, Wright, and whoever else they might drag in. It's the same fallacy and it's equally illegitimate.

And I noted earlier, the irony is that Glenn Beck, the bystander-influence in the instant case, is himself guilty of the same fallacy, not only with Wright et al but scraping up an obscure figure nobody ever heard of (Saul Alinsky) to imply the same thing, and that's by no means an exhaustive list.

A fallacy is a fallacy. If it protects Rowe from illegitimate conclusions of who he can associate with (and it does), then it equally protects O'bama -- or anyone else for that matter.

As the OP asks:
if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

And as Rowe put it in the article:
How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don&#8217;t disagree with?

They're both right. And you can't apply that standard here, and suddenly jerk it away there. That's trying to have it both ways, and that's dishonest.

The OP didn't print this (there's an allusion that I had to look up), but the same thing happened in reverse when Rowe went on Bill Maher's TV show:

>> Truth is, every time I go on Fox, my liberal friends squeal. And every time I show up on MSNBC, my conservative pals whine. Not because they disagree with my position - everyone agrees that closing the skills gap is something that needs to happen. No, these days, people get bent simply if I appear on shows they don't like, or sit too close to people they don't care for.

What's up with that? Is our country so divided that my mere proximity to the "other side" prompts otherwise sensible adults to scoop up their marbles and go home? <<

(emphasis added, full page here, and worth a read)

God Fucking DAMN!!!!

You actually read one of my posts, and learned something. Amazing.

To bad you are still a douchewad, and still think that scoring points off people is more important than telling the truth.

The major difference between the OP and your idiotic attempt to score points is that the OP is about getting a message out going to different audiences. You seem to think that you can reverse that and use it to score points by pointing out that condemning Obama for lying about his personal life makes anyone who calls him on it, yet also condmens guilt by association, a hypocrite.

It actually makes you an idiot.

Um, I hate to burst your bubble but as far as I know you just got here and I've been talking almost exclusively with the OP, so fantasize on fantisizer...

If there's a point above, it's lost in a sea of "douchewads" and "idiots", so ... thanks for stopping by. We'll call you if we need you. Herr Bag.

 

[Pogo]

Funny how he has indicated nothing of the sort and you've had to resort to a straw man argument.

"Straw man"? Did you blink?

I actually posted his own contrast back to him:

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK post 222: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

If you blinked a lot I can show about 23 more...
And everything that's being posted about Bill Ayers did this, Glenn Beck did that, is confirmation that this is no strawman but an active disagreement on what "kind" of people it's OK to associate with and what "kind" aren't. You're participating in this fallacy yourself. To be an active participant in a fallacy and then claim the very existence of it is a "straw man", that's not a blink; it's eyes wide shut.

Try answering this then, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK Here: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

I think I see the issue;

You view terrorism as a legitimate political position. You see a person who plants bombs and tries to murder people on behalf of a communist revolution as no different than a person advocating school choice.

That's part of the background static about the characters. Irrelevant. I spent all day yesterday explaining why it's irrelevant.
Since I wasn't exchanging anything with Uncensored, I didn't even notice this post until now. I thought he was talking to someone else. But it's already been covered anyway. Pretending it wasn't won't make it go away.

By the way TK, you have yet to answer the questions I put to you, and those were directly to you. You can start with explaining why you're not a mass murderer on the basis of having sat down with Charles Manson.

 

[BDBoop]

You are killing time in a thread that you don't care about trying to make people look like fools. And yet, we are the foolish ones.

You might want to try harder. You really havent made anyone look foolish. Or even really attempted to to any sort of degree.

sure i have. Its not a very difficult thread to begin with. its a trollish/hack thread created by an ultra partisan person who see's things one way and that way is the only way that is right. Regardless of how hypocritical it is.

Since you support Beck naturally you would be in here defending him.

Of course I would. I defend good people. Heck, I defend bad people.

Ill even defend you.

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with posting Mike Rowe's response to a question. Doesn't seem trollish at all. Whether you think it's significant is a different matter.

Cool!

Go ahead and defend Russell Brand from yourself.

 

[Pogo]

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK Here: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

I think I see the issue;

You view terrorism as a legitimate political position. You see a person who plants bombs and tries to murder people on behalf of a communist revolution as no different than a person advocating school choice.

Here we go. Sorry Pothead, I didn't see this post until TK brought it forward but no matter, this has already been addressed just above in 272; who the participants are and the background thereof is all irrelevant. I haven't been discussing terrorism, or Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Glenn Beck, at all here, because they're not the issue. I know some of you Chubby Checkers love to do the twist so you can get to your agenda but sorry, doesn't work.

And before you posted it was already addressed in 221. And before that in 119. We're lucky to have your keen powers of observation.

 

[Newby]

"Straw man"? Did you blink?

I actually posted his own contrast back to him:

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK post 222: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

If you blinked a lot I can show about 23 more...
And everything that's being posted about Bill Ayers did this, Glenn Beck did that, is confirmation that this is no strawman but an active disagreement on what "kind" of people it's OK to associate with and what "kind" aren't. You're participating in this fallacy yourself. To be an active participant in a fallacy and then claim the very existence of it is a "straw man", that's not a blink; it's eyes wide shut.

There is a significant difference between Beck and Ayers.

Not that you care.

True, I don't because it's profoundly irrelevant here. I've maintained this truth throughout: the fallacy is about the analysis method used to form the guilt by association conclusion; it has diddly to do with who the participants are. Again, the associators could be Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler and Rasputin wrapped into a fresh flour tortilla and sprinkled with Jesus Christ sauce. It doesn't matter. It's about the analyzer, not the subjects they're analyzing.

Yours,
Captain Obvious

Okay, let's put your theory to a real world test... altho, that's what we've been doing this entire thread, so I have no hope that you'll actually come to understand what is being said.

You have a daughter. You love your daughter, and you want 'the best' for her. In any normal, sane mind, 'the best' would have universal meaning. She's happy, well adjusted, gets good grades, good morals, doesn't do drugs, etc... Would you rather your daughter associate with other girls such as herself (i.e. good grades, good morals, etc..) or would you rather her associate with girls that hang out in gangs that run around being involved in illegal activity, doing drugs, drinking, having meaningless sex with every boy in their school?

So, let's take these two different groups of potential friends for your daughter, and apply them to your theory. Your position is implying that the groups themselves would not make any difference or factor in at all in analyzing and deciding which group your daughter should hang out with? That it is you, as the father, i.e. analyzer of these two groups that ???? What? If you're an advocate of hanging out with sluts and girls that get into trouble, then you'll prefer group B to group A, but if you're an advocate of 'good girls' then you'll prefer group A? If you try to complete that sentence, it doesn't even make any sense. How is it about 'the analyzer'? Unless you're saying that 'good' and 'bad' are completely subjective to the analyzer and not accepted fact or truth? That's the only way your argument even comes close to making any sense whatsoever.

Or is it your supposition that if your daughter chooses to hang around with Group B, that it says nothing about her or who she is, which would mean it wouldn't make any difference to you as a parent which group she chooses to hang with? You would be fine with either group, because the characteristics of the groups are irrelevant to the analysis of the daughter?

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Straw man"? Did you blink?

I actually posted his own contrast back to him:

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK post 222: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

If you blinked a lot I can show about 23 more...
And everything that's being posted about Bill Ayers did this, Glenn Beck did that, is confirmation that this is no strawman but an active disagreement on what "kind" of people it's OK to associate with and what "kind" aren't. You're participating in this fallacy yourself. To be an active participant in a fallacy and then claim the very existence of it is a "straw man", that's not a blink; it's eyes wide shut.

Try answering this then, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

I think I see the issue;

You view terrorism as a legitimate political position. You see a person who plants bombs and tries to murder people on behalf of a communist revolution as no different than a person advocating school choice.

That's part of the background static about the characters. Irrelevant. I spent all day yesterday explaining why it's irrelevant.
Since I wasn't exchanging anything with Uncensored, I didn't even notice this post until now. I thought he was talking to someone else. But it's already been covered anyway. Pretending it wasn't won't make it go away.

By the way TK, you have yet to answer the questions I put to you, and those were directly to you. You can start with explaining why you're not a mass murderer on the basis of having sat down with Charles Manson.

All you had to do was look up. One of your posts directly superseded Uncensored's. Your lack of observational skills is astounding. That or you didn't read any of the posts in my thread and went straight to the end to continue mincing words with me.

What questions? You just sat there and dismissed it as "irrelevant." That's checkmate Pogo. You can dispense with your false dilemma argument, too. How come you see terrorism as a legitimate political choice? I know you tried to derail my thread when it first began, but it failed. You agree that Rowe can associate with Beck, but get upset when people infer guilt on Obama for associating with a terrorist. That makes you a hypocrite.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK Here: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

I think I see the issue;

You view terrorism as a legitimate political position. You see a person who plants bombs and tries to murder people on behalf of a communist revolution as no different than a person advocating school choice.

Here we go. Sorry Pothead, I didn't see this post until TK brought it forward but no matter, this has already been addressed just above in 272; who the participants are and the background thereof is all irrelevant. I haven't been discussing terrorism, or Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Glenn Beck, at all here, because they're not the issue. I know some of you Chubby Checkers love to do the twist so you can get to your agenda but sorry, doesn't work.

And before you posted it was already addressed in 221. And before that in 119. We're lucky to have your keen powers of observation.

And whats with the namecalling? If your argument was on solid ground, you wouldn't have needed to resort to argumentum ad hominem throughout our debate, along with calling Uncensored a "pothead" just now. How puerile.