GOP unveils its convention stars

[WinCrimson 61]

Tigeral's idiocy on display once again. Just where does it say tigeral that ever single person you declare that you will take advice from must speak at the convention? You are being just plain silly here and as usual, you're line of questioning belies a hidden agenda that you don't have the balls to come out and ask straight forwardly. If you think there is a reason al just come out and say it and quit wasting everyones time with this bothersome line of questioning. No one here knows exactly why. There are no mccain advisors hanging out here. We can guess the obvious reasons that have already been mentioned. If you have another guess come on out and put it on the table. Or continue on your silly little fishing expedition.

Are you really too dense to see that he's being sarcastic?

It's obvious to most that a DNC super delegate and Obama supporter wouldn't be given a speaking role at the GOP convention.

Look up sarchasm in the dictionary. The definition doesn't fit here. The true reason al was asking the question repeatedly (once again not sarchasm) is because he had a hidden agenda just like I mentioned that he finally exposed as soon as you posted what I quoted here.

It was obvious to me why he wasn't invited as I stated. No one knows for sure but the obvious reasons had already been mentioned.

If you're going to try to slam someone it helps to be a least a little bit correct. Better luck next time junior.

In an attempt to insult my intelligence, you misspelled SARCASM twice. Classic.

It amazes me that you have the brass to call me "junior" when words that are painfully simple are giving you fits.

Give junior a cookie. He caught me one the spelling of sarcasm and managed to avoid the fact that his post I quoted was incoherent and completely wrong. I may not have spelled it correctly win but at least I know when to use it and not. Which is worse?

Basically, what you're admitting is that you don't see it. You don't see that he was using sarcasm to make a point, or, advance his "hidden agenda" as the Republican playbook would advise you to call it.

You're a one dimensional person, tiger88, and that dimension is consumed in suck. The only tragedy is that a major vein wasn't severed during circumcision causing you to bleed out. Then, and only then could the world have been saved from your inane ramblings, non-existent spelling skills, and childish outbursts at anyone who doesn't agree with your warped sense of reality.

Cheers.

[Grumps 3,706]

Tigeral's idiocy on display once again. Just where does it say tigeral that ever single person you declare that you will take advice from must speak at the convention? You are being just plain silly here and as usual, you're line of questioning belies a hidden agenda that you don't have the balls to come out and ask straight forwardly. If you think there is a reason al just come out and say it and quit wasting everyones time with this bothersome line of questioning. No one here knows exactly why. There are no mccain advisors hanging out here. We can guess the obvious reasons that have already been mentioned. If you have another guess come on out and put it on the table. Or continue on your silly little fishing expedition.

Are you really too dense to see that he's being sarcastic?

It's obvious to most that a DNC super delegate and Obama supporter wouldn't be given a speaking role at the GOP convention.

You are giving Al WAAAY too much credit. He was not being sarcastic or sarchastic, he really thinks that since McCain used Lewis's name that he should consult him for every decision that he will ever make from now until the end of time. Otherwise, in Al's mind McCain will be a hypocrite.

[Tiger Al 0]

Tigeral's idiocy on display once again. Just where does it say tigeral that ever single person you declare that you will take advice from must speak at the convention? You are being just plain silly here and as usual, you're line of questioning belies a hidden agenda that you don't have the balls to come out and ask straight forwardly. If you think there is a reason al just come out and say it and quit wasting everyones time with this bothersome line of questioning. No one here knows exactly why. There are no mccain advisors hanging out here. We can guess the obvious reasons that have already been mentioned. If you have another guess come on out and put it on the table. Or continue on your silly little fishing expedition.

Are you really too dense to see that he's being sarcastic?

It's obvious to most that a DNC super delegate and Obama supporter wouldn't be given a speaking role at the GOP convention.

You are giving Al WAAAY too much credit. He was not being sarcastic or sarchastic, he really thinks that since McCain used Lewis's name that he should consult him for every decision that he will ever make from now until the end of time. Otherwise, in Al's mind McCain will be a hypocrite.

When, exactly, are we supposed to take McCain at his word? When are we supposed to believe what comes forth from his mouth? What criteria are we supposed to use to decipher when what he says is legitimate and what is bull$hit? I didn't hear him give his reflexive "no, seriously" so I thought I was supposed to take him at his word. Please tell me the different clues to look for so I can tell when he's lying because you seem to have figured it out.

The man was asked a question about who the three wisest people he knew who he'd rely on heavily. His answer was Gen. Petraeus, Meg Whitman and John Lewis. Petraeus is barred from speaking. Meg Whitman is scheduled to speak. John Lewis isn't, yet, he's someone McCain said he'd rely on heavily in his administration. But, according to Lewis, McCain has NEVER consulted with him in the 22 years they've been in Washington and gives no indication that they're even close.

McCain was pandering to former Clinton supporters. Lewis is a man that McCain only recognizes when he thinks it might get him a vote or two.

[Grumps 3,706]

TigerAl,

Your post above is the most intelligent argument I have seen you make. I am being completely sincere. I, too, believe that McCain threw Lewis' name out there just for votes. When you attack McCain for something serious like that and relate it to being unable to trust other things he says as a result you seem like an intelligent person concerned with the future of our country. That is what this forum should be about. SERIOUS ISSUES.

I come to this site to see what some of the current issues are with the two candidates and it is my belief that the posters here are more intelligent and considerate than those on other sites. If you and your fellow Obama supporters will focus on issues like these instead of how the candidates hold their flags and how much they know about their real estate holdings you may actually sway some voters.

Additionally, please accept my apology for calling you an idiot in a previous post about the flag, I should have enough class not to make a personal comment.

[AUTiger1 0]

Tigeral's idiocy on display once again. Just where does it say tigeral that ever single person you declare that you will take advice from must speak at the convention? You are being just plain silly here and as usual, you're line of questioning belies a hidden agenda that you don't have the balls to come out and ask straight forwardly. If you think there is a reason al just come out and say it and quit wasting everyones time with this bothersome line of questioning. No one here knows exactly why. There are no mccain advisors hanging out here. We can guess the obvious reasons that have already been mentioned. If you have another guess come on out and put it on the table. Or continue on your silly little fishing expedition.

Are you really too dense to see that he's being sarcastic?

It's obvious to most that a DNC super delegate and Obama supporter wouldn't be given a speaking role at the GOP convention.

Look up sarchasm in the dictionary. The definition doesn't fit here. The true reason al was asking the question repeatedly (once again not sarchasm) is because he had a hidden agenda just like I mentioned that he finally exposed as soon as you posted what I quoted here.

It was obvious to me why he wasn't invited as I stated. No one knows for sure but the obvious reasons had already been mentioned.

If you're going to try to slam someone it helps to be a least a little bit correct. Better luck next time junior.

In an attempt to insult my intelligence, you misspelled SARCASM twice. Classic.

It amazes me that you have the brass to call me "junior" when words that are painfully simple are giving you fits.

Give junior a cookie. He caught me one the spelling of sarcasm and managed to avoid the fact that his post I quoted was incoherent and completely wrong. I may not have spelled it correctly win but at least I know when to use it and not. Which is worse?

Basically, what you're admitting is that you don't see it. You don't see that he was using sarcasm to make a point, or, advance his "hidden agenda" as the Republican playbook would advise you to call it.

You're a one dimensional person, tiger88, and that dimension is consumed in suck. The only tragedy is that a major vein wasn't severed during circumcision causing you to bleed out. Then, and only then could the world have been saved from your inane ramblings, non-existent spelling skills, and childish outbursts at anyone who doesn't agree with your warped sense of reality.

Cheers.

WOW!

[Tiger Al 0]

TigerAl,

Your post above is the most intelligent argument I have seen you make. I am being completely sincere. I, too, believe that McCain threw Lewis' name out there just for votes. When you attack McCain for something serious like that and relate it to being unable to trust other things he says as a result you seem like an intelligent person concerned with the future of our country. That is what this forum should be about. SERIOUS ISSUES.

I come to this site to see what some of the current issues are with the two candidates and it is my belief that the posters here are more intelligent and considerate than those on other sites. If you and your fellow Obama supporters will focus on issues like these instead of how the candidates hold their flags and how much they know about their real estate holdings you may actually sway some voters.

Additionally, please accept my apology for calling you an idiot in a previous post about the flag, I should have enough class not to make a personal comment.

DrTom, there's no harm/no foul on the idiot thing. I actually had to look back to see what it was. No problem. I try, and sometimes have to try very hard, not to call people names and I still fail from time to time. It happens from virtually every poster here at some time or another.

My thoughts on the flag thread, briefly. If you look you'll see that my first post was just pointing out to autigeremt that Bush was holding it up backwards. There's no denying it. It's no big deal, especially since he fixed it. My second post was a mild jab at Bush. At that point, most reasonable people would simply have seen this as a non-issue and the thread should've either gone back to its original topic or died. That didn't happen.

As happens all too often here, posters will tend to defend their people or positions against any and all slights, real or perceived. Some posters do this more than others and it's not confined to one ideology or another. Partisanship becomes the parent of the silly and the killer serious discussion. A red herring was introduced by Bamagrad and carried on by others. I showed more instances of Bush's improper treatment of the flag as determined by the flag code. At that point there really can be no denying it. We have the pictures and we have the flag code. Yet, some felt compelled to reflexively defend Bush and I was willing to let them.

I had two points. First, when compared to the flag code, Bush's actions were incorrect. Plain and simple. If you read the code, you really can't deny that. I never said his actions were grounds for impeachment, just incorrect.

My second point was that Bush's actions were inconsistent with his rhetoric. He's claimed he has the utmost respect for the flag and that we should, too. What does respect mean? For some, it may simply mean that you don't let it touch the ground and you burn it if it does. For others, it means saluting the flag as it's raised or lowered. However, most people don't know that we have a guide for what our outward displays of respect should be and that's the flag code. The president should know this. Especially one who makes respect for the flag an issue for Constitutional amendment.

I agree with you on what this forum SHOULD be about and that's to discuss serious issues seriously. We have a few people here who honestly want that, too. I would welcome your efforts toward that end and I'm sure they would, too. I think you'll find that we on the left are more than happy to discuss things civilly and thoughtfully with like-minded posters. We're also more than capable of heavy-handed discussion. I'd like to see more people choose the former as opposed to the latter and can almost guarantee that those who do will receive the same in return.

Welcome to the Politically Speaking forum, DrTom.

[OldNewby 27]

The only tragedy is that a major vein wasn't severed during circumcision causing you to bleed out. - WinCrimson

Hope WinCrimson remembers to take its meds. Brice is only a few minutes away.

[tiger88 934]

Tigeral's idiocy on display once again. Just where does it say tigeral that ever single person you declare that you will take advice from must speak at the convention? You are being just plain silly here and as usual, you're line of questioning belies a hidden agenda that you don't have the balls to come out and ask straight forwardly. If you think there is a reason al just come out and say it and quit wasting everyones time with this bothersome line of questioning. No one here knows exactly why. There are no mccain advisors hanging out here. We can guess the obvious reasons that have already been mentioned. If you have another guess come on out and put it on the table. Or continue on your silly little fishing expedition.

Are you really too dense to see that he's being sarcastic?

It's obvious to most that a DNC super delegate and Obama supporter wouldn't be given a speaking role at the GOP convention.

Look up sarchasm in the dictionary. The definition doesn't fit here. The true reason al was asking the question repeatedly (once again not sarchasm) is because he had a hidden agenda just like I mentioned that he finally exposed as soon as you posted what I quoted here.

It was obvious to me why he wasn't invited as I stated. No one knows for sure but the obvious reasons had already been mentioned.

If you're going to try to slam someone it helps to be a least a little bit correct. Better luck next time junior.

In an attempt to insult my intelligence, you misspelled SARCASM twice. Classic.

It amazes me that you have the brass to call me "junior" when words that are painfully simple are giving you fits.

Give junior a cookie. He caught me one the spelling of sarcasm and managed to avoid the fact that his post I quoted was incoherent and completely wrong. I may not have spelled it correctly win but at least I know when to use it and not. Which is worse?

Basically, what you're admitting is that you don't see it. You don't see that he was using sarcasm to make a point, or, advance his "hidden agenda" as the Republican playbook would advise you to call it.

You're a one dimensional person, tiger88, and that dimension is consumed in suck. The only tragedy is that a major vein wasn't severed during circumcision causing you to bleed out. Then, and only then could the world have been saved from your inane ramblings, non-existent spelling skills, and childish outbursts at anyone who doesn't agree with your warped sense of reality.

Cheers.

Here's webster's definition of sarcasm:

1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm

Tigeral's remarks were neither sharp (they were calmly asked bland questions), satirical, nor ironic. He was just asking the same question over and over again. His intentions may have been sarcasm that would come with his answers but there was no sarcasm displayed. It would be more accurate to say that he was asking a question that he saw as rhetorical that in truth he and maybe you were the only ones who knew the answer.

Afa your insults, I'll just ignore those for the most part. It's the price you pay for debating with a child. Most people ignore your ridiculous over the top insults on me, mccain and others win because they recognize your youth and ignorance. Playing the spelling police won't win you any big victories here either other than in you own tiny little mind.

[tiger88 934]

The only tragedy is that a major vein wasn't severed during circumcision causing you to bleed out. - WinCrimson

Hope WinCrimson remembers to take its meds. Brice is only a few minutes away.

Lol. You gotta remember he is not yet a sophmore and a liberal. A deadly combination of hormones and a warped sense of reality.

You gotta love the guy. He's entertaining if nothing else.

[WinCrimson 61]

Not yet a sophomore? What are you talking about?

[OldNewby 27]

The only tragedy is that a major vein wasn't severed during circumcision causing you to bleed out. - WinCrimson

Hope WinCrimson remembers to take its meds. Brice is only a few minutes away.

Lol. You gotta remember he is not yet a sophmore and a liberal. A deadly combination of hormones and a warped sense of reality.

You gotta love the guy. He's entertaining if nothing else.

Didn't realize they had sophomores in junior high these days.

[tiger88 934]

Not yet a sophomore? What are you talking about?

I thought you were in school at alabama and were a freshman or something close to it. Please tell me you are at least out of high school.